So what happens on a team with a couple dozen people like you? Does everybody maintain rigorous ownership of "their code" so it stays in "their style?" Or do you let responsibilities overlap and just let the coding style vary at random?
We all have better things to do than make sure we use "var=value" here and "var = value" there. That's just overhead. The nature of the standard doesn't really matter - even hungarian is perfectly readable once you get used to it. But committing to a project-wide standard gives everybody a lot less bother in the end. Except for people like you I guess.
I've never met someone like you in the 15 years I've been in this business. Maybe that's because I wouldn't work for a company that indulged egos like yours.
The editors could (at least try to) contact the author of the page an hour prior to the slashdotting, and offer to host a copy of the original. That would at least give them a chance to avoid being DoSed.
Admittedly this requires advanced technologies that are still under development (such as "electronic mail" and "mirroring") but I think it has potential.
100mw is NOT going to be OK with the FCC. 10mw is enough to get busted.
To comply with the unlicensed rules, you need to turn that thing down by a couple orders of magnitude. The lower limit isn't actually in watts, it's actually something like 85uv @ 3 meters. I don't recall exactly, but it's not my ass on the line here... go read the rules before yous gets busted.:-)
To comply with the licensed rules (you said you don't wanna lose your ham license), you need to start broadcasting your call sign periodically. Worse, you need to stop broadcasting music - mostly because the FCC will kick your ass for abusing your amateur license (again, go read the rules), but partly because the artists' organizations may kick your ass for not paying royalties. Yeah it's only your neighbors you're entertaining, but they can be every bit as abusive as the FCC.
Wait... did Bruce P write that article, or does the story just link to some random guy who bought one of these things?
...for people who don't bother to read it. Section 6, for example:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
This forker has no clue what he's talking about. It's a two-way street: the same rights that allowed him to fork from your code, allow you to take whatever you want from his code.
His accusation that this is "unethical" is just laughable. Sharing is the whole point of the GPL. He should read it sometime.
If you distribute it within your organization, does that constitute "distribution" in a sense that requires you to share any changes you might have made?
Oh well, just a matter of time before highly encrypted and anonymous P2P hits the masses.
Without a doubt.
I'd wager that the plaintext-and-public P2P networks are declining in direct proportion to an increase in the popularity of encrypted-and-(somewhat-)private networks. Stopping people who want to swap files will be every bit as difficult as stopping spammers. The infrastructure is just too well suited to the application.
The way for a person with a vision to get an open source project rolling is to create something worth building on. If you start with "ok, let's write something that does X..." you'll be mired in discussions about what X means and the right way to do X and how come you're not Y.
(If you doubt this, consider the way things are going with ASRG.)
Meanwhile, someone who skipped the design-by-clusterfxxk step will quietly crank out a foundation to build upon, leaving the squabblers behind. With any luck, a few people will crank out a few options.
Discussion is good, but there's a hell of a lot to be said for implementation, and the real-world evaluation of functioning implementations.
On the one hand, you're responding to a question about Colorado's list with an answer about the federal list. On the other hand, you do bring up an interesting point. Check out this page.
Q: What happens to my complaint?
A: Do not call complaints will be entered into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide. While the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems, your complaint will help us investigate the company, and could lead to law enforcement action.
It doesn't say anything about a right of private action, a la the junk fax law. So, if you get bothered, just hope that millions of other people got bothered as well. Maybe (maybe) Uncle Sam will do something about it.
Bummer.
And then there's this:
Q: What if I get a telemarketing call, but can't get the telemarketer's name or phone number?
A: For law enforcement officials to take action on your complaint, they need either the telemarketer's name or phone number. If you want to report a Do Not Call violation, please get that information.
I just thought that was funny. It amounts to suggestion that telemarketers block their caller-id to avoid trouble, and a suggestion that callees express interest long enough to find out everything they can about the caller.
I learned that lesson a while back when got a call on my cellphone years ago from a telemarketer who claimed he didn't know the name of his employer. He hung up after I asked what was printed on his paychecks.
SCO has claimed in general that 2.4 and 2.5 kernels infringe, but they haven't said which specific versions do so. There's no reason to assume that the alleged infringement started in 2.4.1
Actually, the fact that they have claimed that all 2.4 kernels infringe is reason to assume that the alleged infringement started in 2.4.1.
If it turns out that only 2.4.14 and later actually contain infringing code, then SCO's claim that "2.4 kernels infringe" is false, and users of pre-.14 kernels have been subjected to what SCO must acknowledge was a baseless legal threat, when they state that the infringing code didn't actually appear until 2.4.14.
We all know that SCO's threats are baseless anyhow, but what you describe would be a particularly stupid thing for them to do. There is a tiny but nonzero chance that a judge might rule in their favor in the overall case. However, if they later state that the infringing code didn't appear until 2.4.14 then there is a 100% chance that they have knowingly made baseless legal threats. That would expose SCO to yet another round of lawsuits.
Of course, I have to admit that SCO's lawyers just might be that incompetent. They certainly haven't given us much reason to assume competence so far.
I just added some command-line instructions to make clear the terms of the other license (the GNU license) under which the code in question is distributed.
Slashdot Mirror
We all have better things to do than make sure we use "var=value" here and "var = value" there. That's just overhead. The nature of the standard doesn't really matter - even hungarian is perfectly readable once you get used to it. But committing to a project-wide standard gives everybody a lot less bother in the end. Except for people like you I guess.
I've never met someone like you in the 15 years I've been in this business. Maybe that's because I wouldn't work for a company that indulged egos like yours.
Much as I like Firefox and all the goodness it offers, I had to switch back to Mozilla to bring my system back to a usable speed.
Admittedly this requires advanced technologies that are still under development (such as "electronic mail" and "mirroring") but I think it has potential.
(ba-doom, pish)
But the point is, he is not using the part 15 rules anyhow (too much power) so nothing permitted under part 15 applies.
Good point about the lack of intersection between then FM radio band and the call-sign rules. Mea culpa.
To comply with the unlicensed rules, you need to turn that thing down by a couple orders of magnitude. The lower limit isn't actually in watts, it's actually something like 85uv @ 3 meters. I don't recall exactly, but it's not my ass on the line here... go read the rules before yous gets busted. :-)
To comply with the licensed rules (you said you don't wanna lose your ham license), you need to start broadcasting your call sign periodically. Worse, you need to stop broadcasting music - mostly because the FCC will kick your ass for abusing your amateur license (again, go read the rules), but partly because the artists' organizations may kick your ass for not paying royalties. Yeah it's only your neighbors you're entertaining, but they can be every bit as abusive as the FCC.
Wait... did Bruce P write that article, or does the story just link to some random guy who bought one of these things?
...for people who don't bother to read it. Section 6, for example:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
This forker has no clue what he's talking about. It's a two-way street: the same rights that allowed him to fork from your code, allow you to take whatever you want from his code.
His accusation that this is "unethical" is just laughable. Sharing is the whole point of the GPL. He should read it sometime.
If you distribute it within your organization, does that constitute "distribution" in a sense that requires you to share any changes you might have made?
Without a doubt.
I'd wager that the plaintext-and-public P2P networks are declining in direct proportion to an increase in the popularity of encrypted-and-(somewhat-)private networks. Stopping people who want to swap files will be every bit as difficult as stopping spammers. The infrastructure is just too well suited to the application.
(If you doubt this, consider the way things are going with ASRG.)
Meanwhile, someone who skipped the design-by-clusterfxxk step will quietly crank out a foundation to build upon, leaving the squabblers behind. With any luck, a few people will crank out a few options.
Discussion is good, but there's a hell of a lot to be said for implementation, and the real-world evaluation of functioning implementations.
Q: What happens to my complaint?
A: Do not call complaints will be entered into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide. While the FTC does not resolve individual consumer problems, your complaint will help us investigate the company, and could lead to law enforcement action.
It doesn't say anything about a right of private action, a la the junk fax law. So, if you get bothered, just hope that millions of other people got bothered as well. Maybe (maybe) Uncle Sam will do something about it.
Bummer.
And then there's this:
Q: What if I get a telemarketing call, but can't get the telemarketer's name or phone number?
A: For law enforcement officials to take action on your complaint, they need either the telemarketer's name or phone number. If you want to report a Do Not Call violation, please get that information.
I just thought that was funny. It amounts to suggestion that telemarketers block their caller-id to avoid trouble, and a suggestion that callees express interest long enough to find out everything they can about the caller.
I learned that lesson a while back when got a call on my cellphone years ago from a telemarketer who claimed he didn't know the name of his employer. He hung up after I asked what was printed on his paychecks.
Winamp isn't a web site at all. But if you don't like the UI, there's about a billion skins available.
In that case, it's been a pleasure doing business with you.
That's MY karma you're pimping. Dammit, where's my cut?
Actually, the fact that they have claimed that all 2.4 kernels infringe is reason to assume that the alleged infringement started in 2.4.1.
If it turns out that only 2.4.14 and later actually contain infringing code, then SCO's claim that "2.4 kernels infringe" is false, and users of pre-.14 kernels have been subjected to what SCO must acknowledge was a baseless legal threat, when they state that the infringing code didn't actually appear until 2.4.14.
We all know that SCO's threats are baseless anyhow, but what you describe would be a particularly stupid thing for them to do. There is a tiny but nonzero chance that a judge might rule in their favor in the overall case. However, if they later state that the infringing code didn't appear until 2.4.14 then there is a 100% chance that they have knowingly made baseless legal threats. That would expose SCO to yet another round of lawsuits.
Of course, I have to admit that SCO's lawyers just might be that incompetent. They certainly haven't given us much reason to assume competence so far.
I just added some command-line instructions to make clear the terms of the other license (the GNU license) under which the code in question is distributed.