I'm not as familiar with the San Bernadino shootings, but the Pulse Nightclub shooter was being watched. The problem is not that nobody reports these people, it's that we can't tell who's actually going to open fire until they do so. Minority Report was intended as a dystopia, and we don't have precogs anyway.
The problem is that we can't shadow suspicious people 24/7 with enough force to stop them if they start shooting. We can sometimes keep tabs on if they get suspicious things, like potential bomb ingredients, but guns are so common in the US that we can't really keep suspicious people away from them.
The problem is that we're not allowed to say anything about the root causes
And you go right on about the root causes. The problem I have with your arguments is not that they're islamophobic (although they appear to be) or racist, but that, as far as I've been able to tell, they're wrong. You're attributing a lot of stuff to Islam that isn't really there, that's cultural stuff I dislike that religious leaders have wound up with Islam. A Muslim friend told me he never realized what Islam actually was until he came to the US, because the imams in Pakistan messed so much else into it.
You see that with some Christian groups also: they take what they want, and they attribute it to Christianity so it sounds more convincing.
So, sure, let's talk about the problems, but the real problems. Islam is not the big problem here.
I'm more interested in the end result. If we rehabilitate a prisoner, we reduce the number of criminals and increase the number of productive citizens. If we don't, we don't.
I also don't see how any form of prison time wouldn't be considered as somewhat retributive.
8. Not having white hair. My jobseeking problems were solved by going to a hairdresser. Seriously. (It may help that the oily skin that gave me the second-worst case of acne in my high school seems to have kept the wrinkles down.)
There's a really big difference between reaching space and reaching orbit, about 8 km/s worth if I remember correctly. The X-15 flight is almost completely irrelevant here.
How would that work in practice with ten-year-old cars and batteries that have been pulled out and pushed in thousands of times? How many batteries per car do we have to have to make it work?
In other words, you get everything late and second-rate. You get crappy jobs you can bike to until you've saved a lot of money with a crappy paycheck, and you never do get to start that business because it requires more money than you can save while raising a family (which you've delayed until you can pay cash), and you don't consider a loan.
Money is for investing. If you can get a better return on money than the interest you're paying, borrow it and pay it back later.
If you want to be affluent, learn how money really works.
Current US copyright law explicitly allows all copying necessary for execution of a lawfully acquired piece of software. Any restrictions on use come from contracts, and US courts have been (in my opinion) far too accepting of shrink-wrap contracts, which look to me like a way to put additional restrictions on a purchaser after the vendor has gotten the money.
It's really simple. If the software you want to use has license terms you don't like, write your own. You're no worse off if a GPLed project exists that does what you want than if no such project existed. Stop bitching about people who do creative stuff that doesn't appeal to you.
You also seem to do a lot of projecting of motives on other people. If most of the people on a project want it to be permissively licensed or proprietary rather than GPLed, they'll do that instead.
A bit of history on Stallman: he was working with a new printer, and he wanted to fix some of the problems with the software in it. He found that he couldn't, due to licensing. He believes that you should be able to modify and redistribute software you use, and that's what the GPL is about. This isn't about controlling other coders, and he's made that clear over the years.
What GPLed code is this? Is it possible to get the source code? Unless you're talking about GPLv3, which is rarely used commercially, the restrictions are that you have to be able to get the source code and use it for your own purposes, which may include redistributing under the GPL.
US courts have been treating shrinkwrap licenses as contracts. I really disapprove, but apparently in the US you can publicly declare a contract and, if the other party does something that would require the contract, it's binding.
What are these problems, specifically the ones not addressed by court cases? In most cases, there haven't been court decisions because the parties settle out of court, and this is a sign of a license without major legal issues.
You're addressing one software business model there, where you sell software for money. Most software is not written for its sale value, best I can tell, but for internal use. It wouldn't matter to my company if all our code were GPLed, because we're not going to distribute it. It wouldn't matter much for embedded programming, since the software is useless without the gizmo.
You seem to think that, if Jo(e) doesn't want to touch copylefted code, that's a major problem. I don't see that. Jo(e) can't touch proprietary code, after all, and if Jo(e) is willing to touch permissively licensed but not copylefted code, Jo(e)'s almost certainly going to make proprietary software out of it, which may or may not serve anyone's needs and may or may not be affordable. This may be better than Jo(e) not using it at all (I'd say that Microsoft using BSD networking code was a Good Thing), but probably not better than Jo(e) sharing the improvements in widely usable code.
Copylefted software has all the financing models that permissively licensed software does, plus dual-licensing. It makes no sense to sell a commercial license for software under the MIT license, for example, but MySQL made a good deal of money off dual licensing before they sold the copyrights to Oracle.
It has more of a "share and share alike" flavor, which I think encourages some people to improve the code while it discourages people who want to write proprietary software. Linux is arguably the success it is because it's GPLv2.
You seem to think that software licenses for software you can't adapt are toxic, which is certainly true of proprietary licenses, which seems odd because you seem to like the Free licenses that allow you to make your changes proprietary and hence unusable for others.
IIRC, the first five columns were for line numbers (targets of GOTO statements), the next column was the continuation column (anything meant a continuation but increasing digits were strongly encouraged), 7-72 were program text, and 73-80 were for sequence numbers in case somebody dropped a deck.
Flowcharts, as I was taught them, are almost completely useless. They suck at design, documentation, and every other use I've seen. There are times when some sort of box diagram is useful for design and/or documentation (it's normally useful to keep the design notes around), but actual flow charts? I haven't seen a good use for them in well over forty years.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not as familiar with the San Bernadino shootings, but the Pulse Nightclub shooter was being watched. The problem is not that nobody reports these people, it's that we can't tell who's actually going to open fire until they do so. Minority Report was intended as a dystopia, and we don't have precogs anyway.
The problem is that we can't shadow suspicious people 24/7 with enough force to stop them if they start shooting. We can sometimes keep tabs on if they get suspicious things, like potential bomb ingredients, but guns are so common in the US that we can't really keep suspicious people away from them.
And you go right on about the root causes. The problem I have with your arguments is not that they're islamophobic (although they appear to be) or racist, but that, as far as I've been able to tell, they're wrong. You're attributing a lot of stuff to Islam that isn't really there, that's cultural stuff I dislike that religious leaders have wound up with Islam. A Muslim friend told me he never realized what Islam actually was until he came to the US, because the imams in Pakistan messed so much else into it.
You see that with some Christian groups also: they take what they want, and they attribute it to Christianity so it sounds more convincing.
So, sure, let's talk about the problems, but the real problems. Islam is not the big problem here.
Strangely enough, none of the Muslims I've met showed any desire to kill me.
I'm more interested in the end result. If we rehabilitate a prisoner, we reduce the number of criminals and increase the number of productive citizens. If we don't, we don't.
I also don't see how any form of prison time wouldn't be considered as somewhat retributive.
Of COURSE race will not be explicitly included in the algorithm inputs. It will include all sorts of things correlated with race instead.
Undesired by whom? It looks like a great way to hide biases someone desires.
My problem is that I don't have one of those tiny umbrellas Wile E. Coyote uses to protect himself from large falling objects.
I'm 63, working as a software developer in a company I really like. All it took to rejuvenate my career was hair dye.
First, tell me how we enforce these changes in the laws. It's hard to prove that you weren't hired because of membership in a protected class.
8. Not having white hair. My jobseeking problems were solved by going to a hairdresser. Seriously. (It may help that the oily skin that gave me the second-worst case of acne in my high school seems to have kept the wrinkles down.)
Now now, we'll get those noisy people off your lawn.
500mph is trivial compared to orbital speed.
There's a really big difference between reaching space and reaching orbit, about 8 km/s worth if I remember correctly. The X-15 flight is almost completely irrelevant here.
How would that work in practice with ten-year-old cars and batteries that have been pulled out and pushed in thousands of times? How many batteries per car do we have to have to make it work?
In other words, you get everything late and second-rate. You get crappy jobs you can bike to until you've saved a lot of money with a crappy paycheck, and you never do get to start that business because it requires more money than you can save while raising a family (which you've delayed until you can pay cash), and you don't consider a loan.
Money is for investing. If you can get a better return on money than the interest you're paying, borrow it and pay it back later.
If you want to be affluent, learn how money really works.
People who contend they can make life more fair are often good people. Just because we can't make it completely fair doesn't mean we should give up.
Current US copyright law explicitly allows all copying necessary for execution of a lawfully acquired piece of software. Any restrictions on use come from contracts, and US courts have been (in my opinion) far too accepting of shrink-wrap contracts, which look to me like a way to put additional restrictions on a purchaser after the vendor has gotten the money.
It's really simple. If the software you want to use has license terms you don't like, write your own. You're no worse off if a GPLed project exists that does what you want than if no such project existed. Stop bitching about people who do creative stuff that doesn't appeal to you.
You also seem to do a lot of projecting of motives on other people. If most of the people on a project want it to be permissively licensed or proprietary rather than GPLed, they'll do that instead.
A bit of history on Stallman: he was working with a new printer, and he wanted to fix some of the problems with the software in it. He found that he couldn't, due to licensing. He believes that you should be able to modify and redistribute software you use, and that's what the GPL is about. This isn't about controlling other coders, and he's made that clear over the years.
Accounts are useful for reputation purposes.
What GPLed code is this? Is it possible to get the source code? Unless you're talking about GPLv3, which is rarely used commercially, the restrictions are that you have to be able to get the source code and use it for your own purposes, which may include redistributing under the GPL.
US courts have been treating shrinkwrap licenses as contracts. I really disapprove, but apparently in the US you can publicly declare a contract and, if the other party does something that would require the contract, it's binding.
What are these problems, specifically the ones not addressed by court cases? In most cases, there haven't been court decisions because the parties settle out of court, and this is a sign of a license without major legal issues.
You're addressing one software business model there, where you sell software for money. Most software is not written for its sale value, best I can tell, but for internal use. It wouldn't matter to my company if all our code were GPLed, because we're not going to distribute it. It wouldn't matter much for embedded programming, since the software is useless without the gizmo.
You seem to think that, if Jo(e) doesn't want to touch copylefted code, that's a major problem. I don't see that. Jo(e) can't touch proprietary code, after all, and if Jo(e) is willing to touch permissively licensed but not copylefted code, Jo(e)'s almost certainly going to make proprietary software out of it, which may or may not serve anyone's needs and may or may not be affordable. This may be better than Jo(e) not using it at all (I'd say that Microsoft using BSD networking code was a Good Thing), but probably not better than Jo(e) sharing the improvements in widely usable code.
Copylefted software has all the financing models that permissively licensed software does, plus dual-licensing. It makes no sense to sell a commercial license for software under the MIT license, for example, but MySQL made a good deal of money off dual licensing before they sold the copyrights to Oracle.
It has more of a "share and share alike" flavor, which I think encourages some people to improve the code while it discourages people who want to write proprietary software. Linux is arguably the success it is because it's GPLv2.
You seem to think that software licenses for software you can't adapt are toxic, which is certainly true of proprietary licenses, which seems odd because you seem to like the Free licenses that allow you to make your changes proprietary and hence unusable for others.
IIRC, the first five columns were for line numbers (targets of GOTO statements), the next column was the continuation column (anything meant a continuation but increasing digits were strongly encouraged), 7-72 were program text, and 73-80 were for sequence numbers in case somebody dropped a deck.
Flowcharts, as I was taught them, are almost completely useless. They suck at design, documentation, and every other use I've seen. There are times when some sort of box diagram is useful for design and/or documentation (it's normally useful to keep the design notes around), but actual flow charts? I haven't seen a good use for them in well over forty years.