So if you wanted to add some code to a BSD project and wanted to use GPL for yours contribution, it would be better to do like this: distribute the modified version under the GPL (which is the more restrictive and allowed by BSD) with a note regarding part of the code being under BSD (and putting all the stuff BSD requires) and a link to the original BSD work you modified.
It's still not giving back to BSD but is giving back to the community nonetheless.
> Nope. If you post one misdeed and that gets edited out, such is life but shouldn't affect your credibility that much because everyone is always getting edited out a few times in the long run.
That makes sense. But if you're one of the bad guys then all you need is a big provider with lots of ip ranges, clean up of previous cookies and altering the user agent, and you have a similar weighted counterattack for the guy who expose a misdeed.
It's not about the quality of what is searched for (unless we get a little paranoid and consider the case where different content is returned by a site depending on the geolocation of the request IP).
It's about the mere act of searching being reported as suspect activity. Or avoid profiling. Needless to say the potential for abuse of this freedom is huge.
Sounds crappy. Let's say you expose some important misdeed. You're likely to be edited out by an army of paid staff who keeps an eye on the 'net. (don't tell me I'm paranoid because i saw it happening and read about stuff like that in the news, even slashdot). You are not contributing much else to wikipedia because you simply wanted to expose what's in your knowledge, so you'll end up with a low karma.
Anyway, i guess it'll be another pagerank or slashdot filter affair. People trying to beat it, devs trying to make it better.
The plus is, there is not only wikipedia. You can always search the rest of the web. The minus is, you search the rest of the web with google which is equivalent if not worse.
We need a good search engine on top of a tor network, and bandwidth to make it run smooth. Not many other way to achieve real net freedom.
Yet he had already to do a 180 on open source software and linux. First "GPL is viral, linux is a toy". Now "we interoperate and cross license with linux vendors and support open source". Who was disconnected from reality?
You might be right on that one. In fact once enough people become aware that they are scammed into buying stuff which is available for free, people will start googling for "GPL dvd mastering" instead of "free dvd mastering".
As for stallman, he's painted like a disconnected from reality idealist hippy. Yet what he prefigurated as possible risks are exactly what happens later. See bitkeeper.
OTOH Gates is the pragmatic down to earth evil genius, right? Yet he already ha
Randomness can stop with the first element that is stable, can grow, can grow after being split (first form of replication), can survive changes in the outside conditions (adapt). Which incidentally fulfills genesis 9:7.
You are not defending a god, you're tying a possible creator God to the creation of the universe in stages because you can't conceive any other way. Do not tell a god how to do things, if he exist he'll be pissed.
Of course a scientist believing that the discovery of the above first element excludes a god because religious books did not describe life as science does are your identical counterpart. Scientists tend to see the world in a mechanical way because till now a mechanical world without any trace of will offered the best approximation of truth.
Till now. There is no guarantee for the future. Heck there is no guarantee that the speed of light won't drop dramatically in the next few seconds. All we know is that the speed of light has been approx c since we began measuring it.
Scientists try and describe everything in mathematical terms until they find a formula that models the situation. Well i can model my "going to eat" with a sufficiently complex formula that encompasses 99% of the cases, and if my model is similar to some used with quantum physics, it'll go to 100% because it's not with a single solution. But all i have is the "how", not the "why". "going to eat" still depends on my will, not on that formula. The will is likely to be an overlooked factor these days.
So back to topic my hunch is that life probably evolved mechanically, in conditions not necessarily internal to the earth (space dust, why not), and that there also might be a "will" that made events with lower probability happen over those with higher probability.
So to piss of both you believers and you scientists:D
IIRC in Italy you couldn't circulate with any kind of mask lest being stopped by the police because it makes it damn hard to identify robbers. And this well before Islamic immigrants came.
So it's true such laws shouldn't exist. It's also true that when a policeman wants to see behind the headscarf people should just do it without irrational whining (because seeing a woman face is irrelevant for "unbelievers"). It's a clash between lack-of-civilizations and completely different from the chinese gov stunts. Next time they'll outlaw armageddon.
1. work at the patent office. 2. award patents with the magic 8 ball procedure (pat. pend.) 3. nobody fires you for that! 4. profit!!! 5. ??? (these are coming from those being sued for infringement)
...the marginalization of any and all pragmatists who seek to unite corporate interest with free software.
You call'em pragmatists? I'd say idealists. You don't unite a lion and a lamb and expect it to live together magically. You have to watch closely the lion.
Example: free software licenses are a problem for corporate interests. Because those corporate interests see contravention of the idea behind the license as a commercial advantage and doesn't care about the license itself. Of course they don't say "I want to steal easily" but "the problem is working with all these different licenses". Suuure. It's cumbersome to integrate work with different licenses. But single developers manage just that. The secret is, guess what, try to respect the spirit of the license. If a single developer can, a legal department can, too. Isn't that way easier than filing a patent? And sometimes the same biz complaining about too many licenses, does file patents for innovative ideas which have been around since the seventies.
> A lot the publicly funded research builds on non-publicly funded work that has previously been done at the same place or that is being done in parallel with the publicly funded stuff in that very same place. It's not like you can always carve out a complete research item and work on it independently of prior knowledge or of any additional non-public funding.
Sure, but no private research is ever done on completely sandboxed environment either. Many places in the world have publicly funded universities. Research owes a lot to people long gone to get any compensation. What could you do if galileo patented the scientific method, arabs patented the algorithm, and digits, roman the alphabet, somebody else the phonetic alphabet, the mafia patented the current business methods? You'd be screwed!
Considering just what gets done, the research is funded by the taxpayers, assign the copyright to them.
Consider it a meta-sin and you're set. I see it not even as a defect, but as an added capability that prompted god to chroot us in our present condition. "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." - now THIS ought to make people wondering.
So I think that seeing the wrath of god as being pissed at man disobeying him or doing moral judgement of this sin is an assumption on the meaning and drawing logical conclusion from that assumption limits their scope.
The forbidden fruit is not making people smarter but telling good from evil (that is being capable of reflecting thought upon oneself, as in realizing one is naked). Before eating the fruit, whatever that means, man answers to istinct and/or is incapable of sinning because he can't tell. After, he is able to sin. That means getting out of the condition symbolized by eden automatically.
Is this an explanation or is it just a rationalization of a myth randomly transmitted in a religious book? Impossible to say and irrelevant for my thesis. My thesis is: you can easily make fun of a thing you didn't bother to analyze. And I never got out of a "logical mindset".
Besides, my last three frustrations (this week) were:
- network share disappearing on a laptop (XP), had to manually specify the name to make it reappear. With samba on linux, on the same network, did not lose the share nor ever have to specify, just chose it. Mapping the drive on xp requires seeing docs, on gnome you just make a bookmark for the share as you'd do for whatever other resource.
- plus sign appearing when i dragged an image to a folder's preview pane (XP) did NOT imply the image was copied. This kind of serious usability issue never happened to me with any linux or mac... or appleIIgs graphical environment.
OTOH in debian unstable at home, just after a multi hundred megabytes aptitude dist-upgrade, i got the fonts at the wrong resolution. It's the one frustration in the last 6 months or so and doesn't affect performance. I didn't fix it as I haven't decided if i really want the bigger fonts back.
uhm... but that's a metric for sysadmin PLUS system. If system is not modifiable by sysadmins it factors in choices independent of the sysadmins.
In my parallel universe head of sysadmins would be a sysadmin and judge his stuff simply by observation on some cases they solve. This seems a case where management imposes bureaucracy instead of control.
But I guess they already know WGA and DRM are wrong... for the consumer. Remember this outage cost much more to the consumer than they cost to them, at least until people begin considering the painless alternatives.
The code doesn't need freedom. People need freedom. Let the bad guys incorporate GPLed stuff and they are likely to become an issue because they'll enhance it and defend it as it were all their own, against similar enhancements done to the GPLed branch.
Besides, If i were to buy software from a company I'd like to know if it's stuff they designed and know line by line or if they just rebranded things i could obtain for free elsewhere.
It's still unfair. I mean, he got jail for distributing that star wars fluff, while the pirates of the vastly superior space 1999 still can use linux whenever they please!
> Yes, at lower volumes our hears are far less sensitive in the lower and higher ranges. Once you're up and over around 90dB, our hearing curve evens out and we hear most the of the frequencies at the same level (except for the extremely low and high)
that's what I meant by "acquires", it's a subjective impression.
Slashdot Mirror
So if you wanted to add some code to a BSD project and wanted to use GPL for yours contribution, it would be better to do like this:
distribute the modified version under the GPL (which is the more restrictive and allowed by BSD) with a note regarding part of the code being under BSD (and putting all the stuff BSD requires) and a link to the original BSD work you modified.
It's still not giving back to BSD but is giving back to the community nonetheless.
> Nope. If you post one misdeed and that gets edited out, such is life but shouldn't affect your credibility that much because everyone is always getting edited out a few times in the long run.
That makes sense. But if you're one of the bad guys then all you need is a big provider with lots of ip ranges, clean up of previous cookies and altering the user agent, and you have a similar weighted counterattack for the guy who expose a misdeed.
It's not about the quality of what is searched for (unless we get a little paranoid and consider the case where different content is returned by a site depending on the geolocation of the request IP).
It's about the mere act of searching being reported as suspect activity. Or avoid profiling. Needless to say the potential for abuse of this freedom is huge.
Sounds crappy. Let's say you expose some important misdeed. You're likely to be edited out by an army of paid staff who keeps an eye on the 'net. (don't tell me I'm paranoid because i saw it happening and read about stuff like that in the news, even slashdot). You are not contributing much else to wikipedia because you simply wanted to expose what's in your knowledge, so you'll end up with a low karma.
Anyway, i guess it'll be another pagerank or slashdot filter affair. People trying to beat it, devs trying to make it better.
The plus is, there is not only wikipedia. You can always search the rest of the web.
The minus is, you search the rest of the web with google which is equivalent if not worse.
We need a good search engine on top of a tor network, and bandwidth to make it run smooth. Not many other way to achieve real net freedom.
Yet he had already to do a 180 on open source software and linux. First "GPL is viral, linux is a toy". Now "we interoperate and cross license with linux vendors and support open source". Who was disconnected from reality?
Sorry about the eiapostatio praecox.
You might be right on that one. In fact once enough people become aware that they are scammed into buying stuff which is available for free, people will start googling for "GPL dvd mastering" instead of "free dvd mastering".
As for stallman, he's painted like a disconnected from reality idealist hippy. Yet what he prefigurated as possible risks are exactly what happens later. See bitkeeper.
OTOH Gates is the pragmatic down to earth evil genius, right? Yet he already ha
Randomness can stop with the first element that is stable, can grow, can grow after being split (first form of replication), can survive changes in the outside conditions (adapt). Which incidentally fulfills genesis 9:7.
:D
You are not defending a god, you're tying a possible creator God to the creation of the universe in stages because you can't conceive any other way. Do not tell a god how to do things, if he exist he'll be pissed.
Of course a scientist believing that the discovery of the above first element excludes a god because religious books did not describe life as science does are your identical counterpart. Scientists tend to see the world in a mechanical way because till now a mechanical world without any trace of will offered the best approximation of truth.
Till now. There is no guarantee for the future. Heck there is no guarantee that the speed of light won't drop dramatically in the next few seconds. All we know is that the speed of light has been approx c since we began measuring it.
Scientists try and describe everything in mathematical terms until they find a formula that models the situation. Well i can model my "going to eat" with a sufficiently complex formula that encompasses 99% of the cases, and if my model is similar to some used with quantum physics, it'll go to 100% because it's not with a single solution. But all i have is the "how", not the "why". "going to eat" still depends on my will, not on that formula. The will is likely to be an overlooked factor these days.
So back to topic my hunch is that life probably evolved mechanically, in conditions not necessarily internal to the earth (space dust, why not), and that there also might be a "will" that made events with lower probability happen over those with higher probability.
So to piss of both you believers and you scientists
Offtopic or not, your comment was not right.
According to wikipedia and to my own not native use of English
headscarves and veils used for Muslim religious dress include:
* burqa
* chador
* niqab
* dupatta
At least you can't create gold out of thin air like the fractional reserve banking does with currency.
IIRC in Italy you couldn't circulate with any kind of mask lest being stopped by the police because it makes it damn hard to identify robbers. And this well before Islamic immigrants came.
So it's true such laws shouldn't exist. It's also true that when a policeman wants to see behind the headscarf people should just do it without irrational whining (because seeing a woman face is irrelevant for "unbelievers"). It's a clash between lack-of-civilizations and completely different from the chinese gov stunts. Next time they'll outlaw armageddon.
"It is more advantageous to have a technical person doing technical work and an incompetent person doing managerial work instead of vice-versa"
Great, you broke it to him. Such tact.
I vote for: "Big blothel is watching you".
Or "I iz in your intarweb - keeping freedom out of your sitez"
1. work at the patent office.
2. award patents with the magic 8 ball procedure (pat. pend.)
3. nobody fires you for that!
4. profit!!!
5. ??? (these are coming from those being sued for infringement)
...the marginalization of any and all pragmatists who seek to unite corporate interest with free software.
You call'em pragmatists? I'd say idealists. You don't unite a lion and a lamb and expect it to live together magically. You have to watch closely the lion.
Example: free software licenses are a problem for corporate interests. Because those corporate interests see contravention of the idea behind the license as a commercial advantage and doesn't care about the license itself.
Of course they don't say "I want to steal easily" but "the problem is working with all these different licenses". Suuure.
It's cumbersome to integrate work with different licenses. But single developers manage just that. The secret is, guess what, try to respect the spirit of the license. If a single developer can, a legal department can, too. Isn't that way easier than filing a patent? And sometimes the same biz complaining about too many licenses, does file patents for innovative ideas which have been around since the seventies.
> A lot the publicly funded research builds on non-publicly funded work that has previously been done at the same place or that is being done in parallel with the publicly funded stuff in that very same place. It's not like you can always carve out a complete research item and work on it independently of prior knowledge or of any additional non-public funding.
Sure, but no private research is ever done on completely sandboxed environment either. Many places in the world have publicly funded universities. Research owes a lot to people long gone to get any compensation. What could you do if galileo patented the scientific method, arabs patented the algorithm, and digits, roman the alphabet, somebody else the phonetic alphabet, the mafia patented the current business methods? You'd be screwed!
Considering just what gets done, the research is funded by the taxpayers, assign the copyright to them.
> Eating the fruit was a sin.
Consider it a meta-sin and you're set. I see it not even as a defect, but as an added capability that prompted god to chroot us in our present condition. "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." - now THIS ought to make people wondering.
So I think that seeing the wrath of god as being pissed at man disobeying him or doing moral judgement of this sin is an assumption on the meaning and drawing logical conclusion from that assumption limits their scope.
>My thesis is: you can find meaning in anything if you analyze for long enough.
Which is independent of the correspondence of the meaning to truth or falsehood, still. So I still wouldn't make fun of it.
>Well then I hope you'll at least be consistent and analyze Alice in Wonderland thoroughly for messages from God.
I'm waiting for his author to have reportedly proclaimed himself son of God and dying for it. Just to be consistent.
The forbidden fruit is not making people smarter but telling good from evil (that is being capable of reflecting thought upon oneself, as in realizing one is naked). Before eating the fruit, whatever that means, man answers to istinct and/or is incapable of sinning because he can't tell. After, he is able to sin. That means getting out of the condition symbolized by eden automatically.
Is this an explanation or is it just a rationalization of a myth randomly transmitted in a religious book? Impossible to say and irrelevant for my thesis. My thesis is: you can easily make fun of a thing you didn't bother to analyze. And I never got out of a "logical mindset".
Painless as in No Friggin WGA.
Besides, my last three frustrations (this week) were:
- network share disappearing on a laptop (XP), had to manually specify the name to make it reappear. With samba on linux, on the same network, did not lose the share nor ever have to specify, just chose it. Mapping the drive on xp requires seeing docs, on gnome you just make a bookmark for the share as you'd do for whatever other resource.
- plus sign appearing when i dragged an image to a folder's preview pane (XP) did NOT imply the image was copied. This kind of serious usability issue never happened to me with any linux or mac... or appleIIgs graphical environment.
OTOH in debian unstable at home, just after a multi hundred megabytes aptitude dist-upgrade, i got the fonts at the wrong resolution. It's the one frustration in the last 6 months or so and doesn't affect performance. I didn't fix it as I haven't decided if i really want the bigger fonts back.
uhm... but that's a metric for sysadmin PLUS system. If system is not modifiable by sysadmins it factors in choices independent of the sysadmins.
In my parallel universe head of sysadmins would be a sysadmin and judge his stuff simply by observation on some cases they solve. This seems a case where management imposes bureaucracy instead of control.
But I guess they already know WGA and DRM are wrong... for the consumer. Remember this outage cost much more to the consumer than they cost to them, at least until people begin considering the painless alternatives.
The code doesn't need freedom. People need freedom. Let the bad guys incorporate GPLed stuff and they are likely to become an issue because they'll enhance it and defend it as it were all their own, against similar enhancements done to the GPLed branch.
Besides, If i were to buy software from a company I'd like to know if it's stuff they designed and know line by line or if they just rebranded things i could obtain for free elsewhere.
I say, if you can expose them, do it.
It's still unfair. I mean, he got jail for distributing that star wars fluff, while the pirates of the vastly superior space 1999 still can use linux whenever they please!
> they are saying that if he wants the easy path of punishment.
So is windows an easier form of punishment than jail, now?
I must have missed a release.
> Yes, at lower volumes our hears are far less sensitive in the lower and higher ranges. Once you're up and over around 90dB, our hearing curve evens out and we hear most the of the frequencies at the same level (except for the extremely low and high)
that's what I meant by "acquires", it's a subjective impression.