It says "If you want to contribute to a project licensed under me, then you MUST contribute your code to proprietary software vendors that want to use it, and you may not charge them for the privilege."
That has got to be one of the more interesting contortions of the English language I have seen this year! You're basically saying that a lack of restrictions is restricted by a lack of restrictions, that one cannot unrestrict software without first resticting it from restrictions. In other words, unrestrictive is the same as restrictive, black is white, and you had better be careful or you'll get killed at the next zebra crossing...
The BSD license may force a situation (if you're required to license under the BSD license, which, without forking, you generally are for BSD projects), but the GPL merely has the absense of that force.
Holy penguin shit, Batman! His brain has become completely unhinged in its socket! Sheesh, even Orwell would have a difficult time with that bit of circumlocution.
Once again you are making a statement you can't support.
And how the fuck is that any different from your unsupported statements asserting the opposite?
If Saddam had done that shit...
Saddam did much much worse than that. And we have eyewitnesses to it. To insinuate that Abu Ghraib is somehow morally equivalent to Saddam's tortuous political prisons is beyond comprehension. That you want this attitude to be pervasive in an objective reference work like an encyclopedia is disturbing to me.
Again, just answer my question, would it be OK if we subject you to the treatment the inmates suffered just in the publicly released photos.
What the fuck do you mean "again?" You've never asked me this question, so stop pretending like I'm evading something you've never asked. But I will answer it just to shut you up.
"No, it would not be okay." But that's entirely irrelevant, because it's still not torture. Abuse yes, but not torture. Not torture. Stop equating abuse with torture. Stop destroying the English language.
Frankly I hope the people personally responsible for the acts at Abu Ghraib get sent to Leavenworth for a very long time. BUT IT STILL ISN'T TORTURE! AAAARGH!
I think raping a child in front of their mother is sufficiently horrible as to be considered torture.
That is definitely torture. However there is no public evidence that it happened at Abu Ghraib.
Possibly, just possibly, there may be some private evidence that has been suppressed. Just possibly. But however unfortunate that may be should it be true, one still cannot use that non-existant evidence to claim sexual torture at Abu-Ghraib. A key principle in legal systems around the world is that you may only prosecute based on the available evidence.
There is NO public evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib under US occupation. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Linking a sexual torture article to Abu Ghraib is thus SUBJECTIVE BIASED OPINION.
Believe me, I am not defending Abu Ghraib. Not in the least! But do not heap upon it crimes that did not occur there.
Articles about liberal media outlets are going to attract conservatives desiring to "fix" them. rticles about conservative media outlets are going to attract liberals desiring to "fix" them. Thus the biases in BOTH the articles.
"Infliction of severe or excrutiating physical, mental or emotional pain or agony."
All torture is abuse, but not all abuse is torture. While not all Abu Ghraib pictures were released to the public, the ones that were do not depict severe or excrutiating inflictions of pain.
The photo's that were publicly released didn't include...
That's the whole point. The photo's that were NOT publicly released are irrelevant because we do NOT know what they are. You cannot claim them as valid wikipedia references for torture because you do NOT know that they are.
It is NOT objective to claim sexual torture at Abu Ghraib. Period. Whether or not you believe differently is entirely irrelevant, because it is NOT objective. Please look up the word "objective" if you are having intellectual difficulty with this.
That's the whole point of this thread, if you ever bothered reading the original post. The link to Abu Ghraib was *subjective*. It was *biased*. It was *inappropriate* for an encyclopedia. I don't know how much more plain you can get than that.
Flaming Wikipedia for inaccuracy is missing the two most important single points about Wikipedia that no other encyclopedia has.
Apologizing from Wikipedia's inaccuracies is missing the main point of this entire topic: Wikipedia is untrustworthy! Not only is it inaccurate, it's so damned inaccurate that it will never manage to earn any significant level of trust.
Excuse me, but if the article has a section on "Sexual Torture" it is obviously on topic to include Abu Graib, even if you choose to believe there wasn't rape there when there is at least a 50/50 chance there was.
Except that there was no sexual torture at that prison. Abuse maybe, but not torture. Torture has a specific meaning, and it does not apply in this situation. Hyperbole is not objectivity. Linking to Abu Ghraib from the rape page is hyperbole, and thus NOT OBJECTIVE.
Just one example. The article talked about Hannity being conservative, but there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the liberal cohost for his show. None. Nada. This is bias by omission.
This explains why Wikipedia is so horribly wrong. Now that it's been clarified that there is no objectivity whatsoever to be found in Wikipedia, there's no longer any reason for people to use it as a reference source.
At the very least, merely *trying* to decide on who's an expert is step in the right direction. As it is now, assuming that random wandering geeks are qualified to edit articles on nuclear reactors is so asinine it boggles the mind.
It's like complaining it's too hard to find an expert paint contractor, so you put out a sign saying "anyone, paint my house, please." You're still not going to find any expert paint contractors, but you will attract the attention of vandals and taggers.
I ran across an excellent criticism of wiki the other day. I can't remember the link to it, but the summary was that while wiki made an excellent complementary source, wiki sites suck as primary reference sources. This applies so well to wikipedia. As a primary source it sucks, but it's somewhat decent as a complementary source. You wouldn't want to based your master's thesis on it, but it's good enough to write your third grade report with.
You're link to the article on Fox News is so so apropos. It's a stunning example of bias.
As Scotty would say, "Sse the right tool for the job." But that's only half the story. You also have to use the right tool in the right way. Too many people are using UML inappropriately. This is partly the fault of clueless managers, but mainly it's the fault of arrogant programmers.
UML is not a code-generation language. Even though many tools have this as an option, don't use it. Just don't go there. In fact, stop using Rational Rose and Argo and start using Visio and/or Dia instead.
If you're diagramming every method for every class, you're diagramming far too much. UML wasn't meant for that level of detail. If you find yourself obsessing over access specifiers in your diagram, you need to cut back on your caffeine intake.
Make your class diagrams high level. Capture the broad design of the software, not the details of implementation. This may require you to ignore most of the bells and whistles Rational gives you.
If you're not writing the requirements, don't create the use case diagrams. Let the bubbleheads do that. But do verify that the use cases are correct and sane.
Use different types of diagrams as appropriate. A device driver would never need a class diagram, but a state diagram would be invaluable.
We decided, as a practice project, to re-implement one of our small subprojects with UML.
In the immortal words of former California gubernatorial candiate Gary Colemen: "What the fsck you talking about Willis!" You don't implement anything with UML. Duh!
Translation: Take the advice of an old person and pay the Mafia when they send Guido around to your shop for protection money. If you don't pay organized crime what they demand, then something bad will happen to your kneecaps and the Mafia won't be there to pay your medical bills.
No, it is indeed a tax. If it's not voluntary, collected by the government, and enforced by the government, then it's a tax. Duh. That the proceeds go to a third party is completely irrelevant.
You're marked as funny, but that moderation needs to got to the submission instead. How to make an international call? Use the phone! You pick up the receiver, type in the number, wait a few seconds, then talk. Simple. Even if you're not subscribed to a long distance service, you can still buy a card from any of hundreds of retailers near you.
Nonsense. Even RMS admits he didn't invent Free Software. All he did was to start a movement to RETURN to his MIT past where all software was Free. He didn't invent the concept, here merely was the first to attempt to codify the concept.
But RMS can? What fscking sense does that make? It's a pointless definition if RMS can redefine it every time he runs across a license he doesn't like. And he has done it before.
A definition needs to be firm, and not an amorphous collection of random rants. It needs to be taken out of the politics of whim. Which is why I still go by those original four simple bullet points.
Why do I need RMS to keep telling me what Free Software is? Is he somehow more important than the definition? Is he the Pope who whose Bull is more authoritative than the Bible? Of course not!
Go read the FSF's definition of Free Software. I agree that the RPL isn't a great license, but it meets the FSF's definition: free to use; free to modify; free to redistribute; free to improve.
I define Free Software as software meeting the Free Software definition. I specifically do NOT define it as requiring Richard Stallman's blessing or imprimatur.
Slashdot Mirror
It says "If you want to contribute to a project licensed under me, then you MUST contribute your code to proprietary software vendors that want to use it, and you may not charge them for the privilege."
That has got to be one of the more interesting contortions of the English language I have seen this year! You're basically saying that a lack of restrictions is restricted by a lack of restrictions, that one cannot unrestrict software without first resticting it from restrictions. In other words, unrestrictive is the same as restrictive, black is white, and you had better be careful or you'll get killed at the next zebra crossing...
The BSD license may force a situation (if you're required to license under the BSD license, which, without forking, you generally are for BSD projects), but the GPL merely has the absense of that force.
Holy penguin shit, Batman! His brain has become completely unhinged in its socket! Sheesh, even Orwell would have a difficult time with that bit of circumlocution.
Once again you are making a statement you can't support.
And how the fuck is that any different from your unsupported statements asserting the opposite?
If Saddam had done that shit...
Saddam did much much worse than that. And we have eyewitnesses to it. To insinuate that Abu Ghraib is somehow morally equivalent to Saddam's tortuous political prisons is beyond comprehension. That you want this attitude to be pervasive in an objective reference work like an encyclopedia is disturbing to me.
Again, just answer my question, would it be OK if we subject you to the treatment the inmates suffered just in the publicly released photos.
What the fuck do you mean "again?" You've never asked me this question, so stop pretending like I'm evading something you've never asked. But I will answer it just to shut you up.
"No, it would not be okay." But that's entirely irrelevant, because it's still not torture. Abuse yes, but not torture. Not torture. Stop equating abuse with torture. Stop destroying the English language.
Frankly I hope the people personally responsible for the acts at Abu Ghraib get sent to Leavenworth for a very long time. BUT IT STILL ISN'T TORTURE! AAAARGH!
Actually torture is very well defined.
Yes it is. Unfortunately, your definition is not it. Please look it up in a dictionary. By your definition, *every* interrogation would be torture.
Colmes might not be a socialist progressive from Berkeley, but he's still a liberal. Sheesh, I can't believe I fed that troll...
I think raping a child in front of their mother is sufficiently horrible as to be considered torture.
That is definitely torture. However there is no public evidence that it happened at Abu Ghraib.
Possibly, just possibly, there may be some private evidence that has been suppressed. Just possibly. But however unfortunate that may be should it be true, one still cannot use that non-existant evidence to claim sexual torture at Abu-Ghraib. A key principle in legal systems around the world is that you may only prosecute based on the available evidence.
There is NO public evidence of torture at Abu Ghraib under US occupation. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Linking a sexual torture article to Abu Ghraib is thus SUBJECTIVE BIASED OPINION.
Believe me, I am not defending Abu Ghraib. Not in the least! But do not heap upon it crimes that did not occur there.
Yes, the NYTimes article is biased as well. Duh.
Articles about liberal media outlets are going to attract conservatives desiring to "fix" them. rticles about conservative media outlets are going to attract liberals desiring to "fix" them. Thus the biases in BOTH the articles.
Whose definition of torture are you using?
"Infliction of severe or excrutiating physical, mental or emotional pain or agony."
All torture is abuse, but not all abuse is torture. While not all Abu Ghraib pictures were released to the public, the ones that were do not depict severe or excrutiating inflictions of pain.
The photo's that were publicly released didn't include...
That's the whole point. The photo's that were NOT publicly released are irrelevant because we do NOT know what they are. You cannot claim them as valid wikipedia references for torture because you do NOT know that they are.
It is NOT objective to claim sexual torture at Abu Ghraib. Period. Whether or not you believe differently is entirely irrelevant, because it is NOT objective. Please look up the word "objective" if you are having intellectual difficulty with this.
That's the whole point of this thread, if you ever bothered reading the original post. The link to Abu Ghraib was *subjective*. It was *biased*. It was *inappropriate* for an encyclopedia. I don't know how much more plain you can get than that.
Flaming Wikipedia for inaccuracy is missing the two most important single points about Wikipedia that no other encyclopedia has.
Apologizing from Wikipedia's inaccuracies is missing the main point of this entire topic: Wikipedia is untrustworthy! Not only is it inaccurate, it's so damned inaccurate that it will never manage to earn any significant level of trust.
Excuse me, but if the article has a section on "Sexual Torture" it is obviously on topic to include Abu Graib, even if you choose to believe there wasn't rape there when there is at least a 50/50 chance there was.
Except that there was no sexual torture at that prison. Abuse maybe, but not torture. Torture has a specific meaning, and it does not apply in this situation. Hyperbole is not objectivity. Linking to Abu Ghraib from the rape page is hyperbole, and thus NOT OBJECTIVE.
Just one example. The article talked about Hannity being conservative, but there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the liberal cohost for his show. None. Nada. This is bias by omission.
Knowledge is unfortunately subjective
This explains why Wikipedia is so horribly wrong. Now that it's been clarified that there is no objectivity whatsoever to be found in Wikipedia, there's no longer any reason for people to use it as a reference source.
At the very least, merely *trying* to decide on who's an expert is step in the right direction. As it is now, assuming that random wandering geeks are qualified to edit articles on nuclear reactors is so asinine it boggles the mind.
It's like complaining it's too hard to find an expert paint contractor, so you put out a sign saying "anyone, paint my house, please." You're still not going to find any expert paint contractors, but you will attract the attention of vandals and taggers.
I ran across an excellent criticism of wiki the other day. I can't remember the link to it, but the summary was that while wiki made an excellent complementary source, wiki sites suck as primary reference sources. This applies so well to wikipedia. As a primary source it sucks, but it's somewhat decent as a complementary source. You wouldn't want to based your master's thesis on it, but it's good enough to write your third grade report with.
You're link to the article on Fox News is so so apropos. It's a stunning example of bias.
UML is not a code-generation language. Even though many tools have this as an option, don't use it. Just don't go there. In fact, stop using Rational Rose and Argo and start using Visio and/or Dia instead.
If you're diagramming every method for every class, you're diagramming far too much. UML wasn't meant for that level of detail. If you find yourself obsessing over access specifiers in your diagram, you need to cut back on your caffeine intake.
Make your class diagrams high level. Capture the broad design of the software, not the details of implementation. This may require you to ignore most of the bells and whistles Rational gives you.
If you're not writing the requirements, don't create the use case diagrams. Let the bubbleheads do that. But do verify that the use cases are correct and sane.
Use different types of diagrams as appropriate. A device driver would never need a class diagram, but a state diagram would be invaluable.
We decided, as a practice project, to re-implement one of our small subprojects with UML.
In the immortal words of former California gubernatorial candiate Gary Colemen: "What the fsck you talking about Willis!" You don't implement anything with UML. Duh!
Translation: Take the advice of an old person and pay the Mafia when they send Guido around to your shop for protection money. If you don't pay organized crime what they demand, then something bad will happen to your kneecaps and the Mafia won't be there to pay your medical bills.
No, it is indeed a tax. If it's not voluntary, collected by the government, and enforced by the government, then it's a tax. Duh. That the proceeds go to a third party is completely irrelevant.
You're marked as funny, but that moderation needs to got to the submission instead. How to make an international call? Use the phone! You pick up the receiver, type in the number, wait a few seconds, then talk. Simple. Even if you're not subscribed to a long distance service, you can still buy a card from any of hundreds of retailers near you.
Duh!
But that's comparing apples to grapefruit.
Of course it is. But in the Brave GNU World, black is white, up is down, and restrictive licenses are less restrictive than unrestrictive licenses.
The Free Software concept is RMS's idea.
Nonsense. Even RMS admits he didn't invent Free Software. All he did was to start a movement to RETURN to his MIT past where all software was Free. He didn't invent the concept, here merely was the first to attempt to codify the concept.
You don't just get to redefine it
But RMS can? What fscking sense does that make? It's a pointless definition if RMS can redefine it every time he runs across a license he doesn't like. And he has done it before.
A definition needs to be firm, and not an amorphous collection of random rants. It needs to be taken out of the politics of whim. Which is why I still go by those original four simple bullet points.
Why do I need RMS to keep telling me what Free Software is? Is he somehow more important than the definition? Is he the Pope who whose Bull is more authoritative than the Bible? Of course not!
Go read the FSF's definition of Free Software. I agree that the RPL isn't a great license, but it meets the FSF's definition: free to use; free to modify; free to redistribute; free to improve.
I define Free Software as software meeting the Free Software definition. I specifically do NOT define it as requiring Richard Stallman's blessing or imprimatur.
Your post is the perfect example of why RMS is wrong when he says "open source software" is a more ambiguous term than "free software."