If I am breaking the law, hurting people, swindling people, etc then I have no right to expect the secret be kept, despite contracts, and I certainly have no right to avoid the consequences just because the person who leaked it out pinky swore and then spit on it when he said he wouldn't tell.
I can see the argument here, we need space stations. But gathering data about other worlds is only a secondary mission of the space program. The primary mission is to get human beings out there.
Consideration of getting to the moon has shown why we need to be going there. We actually let the infrastructure needed to travel even as far as the moon collapse. After landing on the moon we should have been working toward a moon base from the get go. We should have had one twenty years ago not be debating sending someone into orbit around it. That is a step back.
Space exploration is expensive but frankly it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we are spending elsewhere. We are working on technology advances to expand the average human lifespan to 1000+ years and those advances are nothing but a series of practical, reasonable, progressive steps with an expected release date of roughly 20 years. We aren't going to need to get off this rock to escape an asteroid in 50k years people, we are going to need to get off this rock to escape ourselves in perhaps 100-200 years. With each of these missions being spaced 10 years or so apart how many of them do you think we can waste?
Your concerns about the source are legit and sound like they have been addressed. But it sounds to me like your gripe is that they will be profiting in part using code that you contributed under the GPL. I'm sorry but this is not in any way contrary to the spirit of the GPL. When you release software under the GPL and do not charge for that software you are explicitly stating that you'd like to profit from donations and would like that profit to take the form of code not cash.
They repaid all the original contributors when they released the source with modifications, no other compensation is needed or due, ethically or legally. This is no different than Redhat or any other distro vendor selling their package. They don't kick back royalties to the people who wrote all that software included in their distro nor does anyone claim they should. They kick back code where appropriate and spread the existing code in the other cases. That is all the repayment they do and should make.
These guys ported your app to another platform, probably fixed bugs in the process, and released the source in good faith. Source is the form of payment you asked for in the license and if you wanted some form of cash royalty then you should have picked a different license.
I disagree. They are charging a fee to recoup distribution costs. This is one of the major clauses of the GPL and is even the reason the GPL states that it allows charging in the first place. I would be blindsided by the developers response as well... if they aren't okay with this then they obviously didn't even give the license a cursory glance.
In fact, the GPL explicitly allows you to charge and the express reason is to recoup the cost of distribution which sounds like its exactly what you are doing. It isn't as if you are slipping through some hidden loophole in the license here to do something that isn't intended. There is nothing in the word or the spirit of the license that runs contrary to what you are doing, its not your fault if this guy contributed under the license without ever reading it...
The founders were revolutionaries who just had to fight their government. I think their intention is fairly obvious.
Empowering drug cartels is a moot point, I don't think the founders ever intended that the government should be telling citizens what they can ingest, smoke, or do to their own bodies in the first place. After all, you have the right to be stupid and kill yourself via unintended drug interactions. With no drug regulation drugs are dirt cheap and available at every corner drug store. There would be no drug cartels.
There is another side of the right to bear arms short of revolution. Ultimately, you can brandy fine words all day long but at the end of the day the only rights you really have are those you have the strength to enforce. Just try to assert your rights with smart words with a police officer who thinks you are trouble. When he tells you that he can search you, and your rights are what he tells you they are you will suddenly be all too aware that our system does not allow you to defend yourself, has armed him with a gun, steel reinforced stick, chains, and a cage and disarmed you. You are completely at the mercy of the officer and the state to treat you right because they are possible.
The Obama administration has defended illegal wiretapping by claiming that when the government breaks the law they can't be held accountable. Within the system itself that is true but it isn't true with an armed citizenry. In the days of our founders there were arms in every house even that of the widow down the road. Our founders were rich fat aristocrats they didn't believe in their 'ideals' themselves. But you can be damn sure they knew they had to come up with pretty words to appease those armed citizens.
A million man march means a whole lot more when a million citizens show up bearing automatic weapons and demand action be taken. Trust me, they speak much more loudly and the protest would be much more effective.
Yes that is offtopic and yes if we are going by the intent of the right to bear arms then arms should be allowed citizens. The only reasonable exceptions are things that we have generally agreed governments should not have either such as biological, chemical, nuclear arms, and space-based weaponry.
Of course, despite treaties against them, our government has and develops pretty much all of these but that is just another reason to arm citizens... That doesn't mean every individual citizen needs these things. It means citizens should have small arms including handguns, rifles, and semi and fully automatic versions of the same. The big stuff should be in the hands of citizens militias... not the national guard which has become an agent of the state and not the citizenry, but actual civilian run and operated militias. Your average tom, dick, and harry couldn't get arms like that anyway, they cost SERIOUS money.
On an amusing note, the gp must have looked long and hard to find a Rush quote that was actually correct!
Isn't the issue here that A. apparently a government contractor had access to information that should be restricted to secret service staff and even then only disclosed on a need to know basis B. that we haven't already seen images of this person in shackles on CNN C. refer to A.
This is a common myth I see. Either there is some massive coordinated conspiracy of impossible proportions or its incompetence. But we live in the real world, you don't need to get someone in on it, you merely have to make it be in their interest to behave the way you want them to and people will. People will do whatever they think they need to and will get away with, there are no real ethics out there.
For instance, this leak could have been done by most anyone who thinks it will advance their career in some fashion and believed they could get away with it. Everyone else, congress, government agencies, commitees, etc will cooperate and proceed with the willfully ignorant and/or self serving responses. Congress will make a political stink and politicians will jump on it, the secret service will push for more funding. Law enforcement and the DHA will use this to push for more enforcement powers, etc. All that happens automatically without more than a single guy being "in on it".
You want another example? The conspiracy to keep marijuana illegal. At one point it was most definitely an organized effort (the term marijuana was actually invented to push through prohibition before anyone figured out that they were actually talking about the hemp that was grown all over the place back then and used for just about everything). Today I don't think there is even a need for an organized conspiracy, everyone who needs to cooperates in the conspiracy without any shadow meetings simply moving based on their own self interest political agenda.
Well there is some distinction here... government contractors are not government employees. Just because the city contracts me to redesign their sewers doesn't mean they dictate what will be run on my office machines unless they are going to supply machines exclusively for that use.
That's a perfect choice, its not like there are any devistating natural disasters there that involve high speed far reaching winds and could destroy the lab and spread the airborne pathogens contained within at the same time!
Wait... there is something I'm missing here but these damn ruby red slippers keep popping in my head and interrupting my thought process...
Ah well, at least there aren't any actual people in KS.
drawing diagrams has nothing to do with typing text on the computer. Just because you are typing the notes doesn't mean you can't draw any needed diagrams with paper.
Of course, as I mentioned elsewhere I do the visualizing in my head, not on paper with diagrams but everyone has their own style.
Nice selective quote there. Lets put it back together though. What I said was...
"Writing by hand isn't a good method to use for writing anything beyond two or three words."
That statement stands as written, WHEN written.
No distinction is needed because I didn't make the statement in 1812. I never claimed it to have always been true or that it always will be true. I simply went with the defaults, that we were talking about whether writing by hand is useful NOW in the United States (the subject of the tfa) not in ancient Egypt. If those weren't reasonable assumptions in your personal magic fairyland I apologize for offending you and the other elves.
OOOOOHHHH you mean using a pen to do these things that are far easier to do with a computer as like an artform right? I get it. So you want to write a letter with a pen so that you can frame it and hang it on the wall? I suppose there is a use for that. Maybe they should teach cursive in art classes...
Because obviously, you'd never write a letter by hand with modern technology. I mean typing is much much faster and you'd only have to type it again into the email anyway. Even if we reverted to archaic systems like snail mail to send a letter (not sure why you would, but just for arguments sake) you are probably going to want someone to be able to read the thing on the other again. Naturally a typed and printed letter is going to be a night and day difference in the readability department.
No doubt there is something to that. I once got a book on biblical hebrew along with an ancient text written in the same and holding a chart of the characters in my hand I couldn't even identify most of the letters in the actual written text, let alone begin to translate them.
Yet there are scholars who do translate that material all day long. Its a form of pattern recognition and like ancient Hebrew there simply isn't any need to know it anymore. Most of us have been spoon fed crystal clear fonts in all our text for a very long time. I bet some of the older generation might be better at reading captchas too they are certainly getting difficult for this human to read.
Yes and we washed dishes by hand for thousands of years and we washed clothes using nothing but a bar of soap and a board in the stream for centuries. And of course the horse and carriage was utilized as transportation for quite some time.
That doesn't mean any of those things are practical today in the world of modern technology. They are all so labor intensive and slow compared to modern technology that they are not practical anymore. Just like the old slow technique of writing things by hand.
There seem to be boatloads of women running around with fashion model builds. As far as I know, that has always been the female definition of beauty, not the male.
Most of the guys I know want to see well defined hips and butt and the curve that goes with it along with plump firm breasts, preferably the naturally plump and firm breasts that can only exist on a girl between 17 and 23. However, the ideal we are looking for has that shapely figure but has it without the slightest hint of fat or cellulite.
The girls coming out of the younger generation seem to have the no fat or cellulite concept but they have no curves at all. Some are flat chested, some are not. More are than aren't although they usually fix that later with breast implants. Basically they have the build of a ten year old boy. They do seem to have nice skin though.
Lets look at Sarah Jessica Parker. A good example because we can see both in the same woman:
She has a hot body here (also referred to as a paper bag fuck because you'd stick a paper bag over the ugly face)
Why would she do this to herself? Well in her case its probably because she is older now and most women can't have a ripe hot body like that at her age, to keep hips that size and shape on someone over 35 means nasty cellulite in my experience. But 16 and 17 year old girls are imitating the same shapeless look and it is a waste.
Yes, text on the Internet is typed so its legible in caps or lowercase. If you are doing more than filling your name into a form you shouldn't be writing by hand in caps or otherwise.
Actually I'm a Midwesterner. That makes my accent standard american and my speech rate typical. I'm not a slow talking southerner or a fast talking New Yorker/Chicagoian (which is so rapid they don't even make all the sounds in the words) and definitely not as fast as a Georgian (sorry to dash your slow speaking southerner stereotype).
Stenotype machines came about and were put into use when qwerty meant mechanical typewriters which are dramatically slower than a good modern loud ass cheap springy action keyboard. They are also typically used to record the speech of multiple speakers not dictation.
I can type about as fast as I can formulate words and sentences in my mind, let alone actually speak them. I think you will find that anyone who spent several years as an old school chataholic learned to type as fast enough that they don't have to interrupt their thoughts to wait for their fingers to catch up.
The numerals are standardized as well. I have made one variation on this in my personal use. I write a one like 1 with the top line angled downward and a base so that it is clearly distinguished from I. I suppose you could put the lines on top and bottom of I too. Either way.
Slashdot Mirror
If I am breaking the law, hurting people, swindling people, etc then I have no right to expect the secret be kept, despite contracts, and I certainly have no right to avoid the consequences just because the person who leaked it out pinky swore and then spit on it when he said he wouldn't tell.
I can see the argument here, we need space stations. But gathering data about other worlds is only a secondary mission of the space program. The primary mission is to get human beings out there.
Consideration of getting to the moon has shown why we need to be going there. We actually let the infrastructure needed to travel even as far as the moon collapse. After landing on the moon we should have been working toward a moon base from the get go. We should have had one twenty years ago not be debating sending someone into orbit around it. That is a step back.
Space exploration is expensive but frankly it is a drop in the bucket compared to what we are spending elsewhere. We are working on technology advances to expand the average human lifespan to 1000+ years and those advances are nothing but a series of practical, reasonable, progressive steps with an expected release date of roughly 20 years. We aren't going to need to get off this rock to escape an asteroid in 50k years people, we are going to need to get off this rock to escape ourselves in perhaps 100-200 years. With each of these missions being spaced 10 years or so apart how many of them do you think we can waste?
Your concerns about the source are legit and sound like they have been addressed. But it sounds to me like your gripe is that they will be profiting in part using code that you contributed under the GPL. I'm sorry but this is not in any way contrary to the spirit of the GPL. When you release software under the GPL and do not charge for that software you are explicitly stating that you'd like to profit from donations and would like that profit to take the form of code not cash.
They repaid all the original contributors when they released the source with modifications, no other compensation is needed or due, ethically or legally. This is no different than Redhat or any other distro vendor selling their package. They don't kick back royalties to the people who wrote all that software included in their distro nor does anyone claim they should. They kick back code where appropriate and spread the existing code in the other cases. That is all the repayment they do and should make.
These guys ported your app to another platform, probably fixed bugs in the process, and released the source in good faith. Source is the form of payment you asked for in the license and if you wanted some form of cash royalty then you should have picked a different license.
I disagree. They are charging a fee to recoup distribution costs. This is one of the major clauses of the GPL and is even the reason the GPL states that it allows charging in the first place. I would be blindsided by the developers response as well... if they aren't okay with this then they obviously didn't even give the license a cursory glance.
In fact, the GPL explicitly allows you to charge and the express reason is to recoup the cost of distribution which sounds like its exactly what you are doing. It isn't as if you are slipping through some hidden loophole in the license here to do something that isn't intended. There is nothing in the word or the spirit of the license that runs contrary to what you are doing, its not your fault if this guy contributed under the license without ever reading it...
The founders were revolutionaries who just had to fight their government. I think their intention is fairly obvious.
Empowering drug cartels is a moot point, I don't think the founders ever intended that the government should be telling citizens what they can ingest, smoke, or do to their own bodies in the first place. After all, you have the right to be stupid and kill yourself via unintended drug interactions. With no drug regulation drugs are dirt cheap and available at every corner drug store. There would be no drug cartels.
There is another side of the right to bear arms short of revolution. Ultimately, you can brandy fine words all day long but at the end of the day the only rights you really have are those you have the strength to enforce. Just try to assert your rights with smart words with a police officer who thinks you are trouble. When he tells you that he can search you, and your rights are what he tells you they are you will suddenly be all too aware that our system does not allow you to defend yourself, has armed him with a gun, steel reinforced stick, chains, and a cage and disarmed you. You are completely at the mercy of the officer and the state to treat you right because they are possible.
The Obama administration has defended illegal wiretapping by claiming that when the government breaks the law they can't be held accountable. Within the system itself that is true but it isn't true with an armed citizenry. In the days of our founders there were arms in every house even that of the widow down the road. Our founders were rich fat aristocrats they didn't believe in their 'ideals' themselves. But you can be damn sure they knew they had to come up with pretty words to appease those armed citizens.
A million man march means a whole lot more when a million citizens show up bearing automatic weapons and demand action be taken. Trust me, they speak much more loudly and the protest would be much more effective.
Yes that is offtopic and yes if we are going by the intent of the right to bear arms then arms should be allowed citizens. The only reasonable exceptions are things that we have generally agreed governments should not have either such as biological, chemical, nuclear arms, and space-based weaponry.
Of course, despite treaties against them, our government has and develops pretty much all of these but that is just another reason to arm citizens... That doesn't mean every individual citizen needs these things. It means citizens should have small arms including handguns, rifles, and semi and fully automatic versions of the same. The big stuff should be in the hands of citizens militias... not the national guard which has become an agent of the state and not the citizenry, but actual civilian run and operated militias. Your average tom, dick, and harry couldn't get arms like that anyway, they cost SERIOUS money.
On an amusing note, the gp must have looked long and hard to find a Rush quote that was actually correct!
Isn't the issue here that A. apparently a government contractor had access to information that should be restricted to secret service staff and even then only disclosed on a need to know basis B. that we haven't already seen images of this person in shackles on CNN C. refer to A.
This is a common myth I see. Either there is some massive coordinated conspiracy of impossible proportions or its incompetence. But we live in the real world, you don't need to get someone in on it, you merely have to make it be in their interest to behave the way you want them to and people will. People will do whatever they think they need to and will get away with, there are no real ethics out there.
For instance, this leak could have been done by most anyone who thinks it will advance their career in some fashion and believed they could get away with it. Everyone else, congress, government agencies, commitees, etc will cooperate and proceed with the willfully ignorant and/or self serving responses. Congress will make a political stink and politicians will jump on it, the secret service will push for more funding. Law enforcement and the DHA will use this to push for more enforcement powers, etc. All that happens automatically without more than a single guy being "in on it".
You want another example? The conspiracy to keep marijuana illegal. At one point it was most definitely an organized effort (the term marijuana was actually invented to push through prohibition before anyone figured out that they were actually talking about the hemp that was grown all over the place back then and used for just about everything). Today I don't think there is even a need for an organized conspiracy, everyone who needs to cooperates in the conspiracy without any shadow meetings simply moving based on their own self interest political agenda.
Well there is some distinction here... government contractors are not government employees. Just because the city contracts me to redesign their sewers doesn't mean they dictate what will be run on my office machines unless they are going to supply machines exclusively for that use.
"or use the Exclusive Chip Identification number to make calls anonymously"
omfg, the horror!
That's a perfect choice, its not like there are any devistating natural disasters there that involve high speed far reaching winds and could destroy the lab and spread the airborne pathogens contained within at the same time!
Wait... there is something I'm missing here but these damn ruby red slippers keep popping in my head and interrupting my thought process...
Ah well, at least there aren't any actual people in KS.
Nope.
Single stroke gothic (engineering lettering) is not
http://ziliciouz.xanga.com/photos/e0a58192354251
recruit handwriting
http://www.navygirl.org/NRAC/recruitwriting.htm
Although recruit handwriting sounds like what you are describing since there are apparently lowercase letters in single stroke gothic.
drawing diagrams has nothing to do with typing text on the computer. Just because you are typing the notes doesn't mean you can't draw any needed diagrams with paper.
Of course, as I mentioned elsewhere I do the visualizing in my head, not on paper with diagrams but everyone has their own style.
Nice selective quote there. Lets put it back together though. What I said was...
"Writing by hand isn't a good method to use for writing anything beyond two or three words."
That statement stands as written, WHEN written.
No distinction is needed because I didn't make the statement in 1812. I never claimed it to have always been true or that it always will be true. I simply went with the defaults, that we were talking about whether writing by hand is useful NOW in the United States (the subject of the tfa) not in ancient Egypt. If those weren't reasonable assumptions in your personal magic fairyland I apologize for offending you and the other elves.
What are postcards?
Everything else on that list is best typed.
'Use your imagination.'
OOOOOHHHH you mean using a pen to do these things that are far easier to do with a computer as like an artform right? I get it. So you want to write a letter with a pen so that you can frame it and hang it on the wall? I suppose there is a use for that. Maybe they should teach cursive in art classes...
Because obviously, you'd never write a letter by hand with modern technology. I mean typing is much much faster and you'd only have to type it again into the email anyway. Even if we reverted to archaic systems like snail mail to send a letter (not sure why you would, but just for arguments sake) you are probably going to want someone to be able to read the thing on the other again. Naturally a typed and printed letter is going to be a night and day difference in the readability department.
No doubt there is something to that. I once got a book on biblical hebrew along with an ancient text written in the same and holding a chart of the characters in my hand I couldn't even identify most of the letters in the actual written text, let alone begin to translate them.
Yet there are scholars who do translate that material all day long. Its a form of pattern recognition and like ancient Hebrew there simply isn't any need to know it anymore. Most of us have been spoon fed crystal clear fonts in all our text for a very long time. I bet some of the older generation might be better at reading captchas too they are certainly getting difficult for this human to read.
Yes and we washed dishes by hand for thousands of years and we washed clothes using nothing but a bar of soap and a board in the stream for centuries. And of course the horse and carriage was utilized as transportation for quite some time.
That doesn't mean any of those things are practical today in the world of modern technology. They are all so labor intensive and slow compared to modern technology that they are not practical anymore. Just like the old slow technique of writing things by hand.
Such as?
A woman who gets old and less attractive still has the same genetics she had when she was young and pretty you moron.
There seem to be boatloads of women running around with fashion model builds. As far as I know, that has always been the female definition of beauty, not the male.
Most of the guys I know want to see well defined hips and butt and the curve that goes with it along with plump firm breasts, preferably the naturally plump and firm breasts that can only exist on a girl between 17 and 23. However, the ideal we are looking for has that shapely figure but has it without the slightest hint of fat or cellulite.
The girls coming out of the younger generation seem to have the no fat or cellulite concept but they have no curves at all. Some are flat chested, some are not. More are than aren't although they usually fix that later with breast implants. Basically they have the build of a ten year old boy. They do seem to have nice skin though.
Lets look at Sarah Jessica Parker. A good example because we can see both in the same woman:
She has a hot body here (also referred to as a paper bag fuck because you'd stick a paper bag over the ugly face)
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/051028/13457__la_l.jpg
And yet by this she has totally lost her shape (although plastic surgery has made her less of a paper bag fuck)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/14/article-0-01C744D3000004B0-600_468x611.jpg
Why would she do this to herself? Well in her case its probably because she is older now and most women can't have a ripe hot body like that at her age, to keep hips that size and shape on someone over 35 means nasty cellulite in my experience. But 16 and 17 year old girls are imitating the same shapeless look and it is a waste.
Yes, text on the Internet is typed so its legible in caps or lowercase. If you are doing more than filling your name into a form you shouldn't be writing by hand in caps or otherwise.
Actually I'm a Midwesterner. That makes my accent standard american and my speech rate typical. I'm not a slow talking southerner or a fast talking New Yorker/Chicagoian (which is so rapid they don't even make all the sounds in the words) and definitely not as fast as a Georgian (sorry to dash your slow speaking southerner stereotype).
Stenotype machines came about and were put into use when qwerty meant mechanical typewriters which are dramatically slower than a good modern loud ass cheap springy action keyboard. They are also typically used to record the speech of multiple speakers not dictation.
I can type about as fast as I can formulate words and sentences in my mind, let alone actually speak them. I think you will find that anyone who spent several years as an old school chataholic learned to type as fast enough that they don't have to interrupt their thoughts to wait for their fingers to catch up.
yup have a look here
http://www.navygirl.org/NRAC/recruitwriting.htm
The numerals are standardized as well. I have made one variation on this in my personal use. I write a one like 1 with the top line angled downward and a base so that it is clearly distinguished from I. I suppose you could put the lines on top and bottom of I too. Either way.
Apparently not.