An old saying: "Jack of all trades, master of none."
This is true for programming as well. You can aquire a deep understanding of a few languages, or basic survival skills in dozens. Aquiring a deep understanding in dozens of languages is a truly exceptional feat.
Huh? Which airport? I travel with a FreeBSD laptop all the time. About twice a month. I've never been asked to boot up the laptop. Since I tend to arrive for flights early (in an effort to avoid missing them), I like to observe people going through security. I've never seen any of them ever have to boot up their laptops. Then again, I've never seen dogs in an airport either (that weren't guidedogs).
Of course, it's possible. Did it look like a normal laptop, or was it old, worn, covered in stickers, held closed with a rubber band, etc? Did it have a funky case mod? Did it have internal modifications that might look unusual in an xray? Did you piss off the TSA worker? Did you argue when asked to remove it from the bag. Otherwise act suspicious?
There's all sorts of things that can be done with laws without banning things.
Every law bans something. If you pass a law coercing one behavior, you have just banned the opposite behavior. Even something as warm, fuzzy and "progressive" as mandating that nurses get special credits towards medical degrees, will ban schools from setting higher standards for their degrees.
At some point you have to draw the line as to where government's power should end. In my opinion, it should end LONG BEFORE it gets to the point of tmicromanaging medical school curriculums for the purpose of balancing gender roles between nurses and physicians.
he only way to fix it is to scale the federal government back to its Constitutional powers
Amen! Every power you grant to politicians of your own party is power granted to the opposition. If you don't like big government when the other party is in power, then the time to scale back on government is when you own party is in power.
Every day thousands of journalists across the globe write articles, and their editors edit them, and their publishers publish them... AND GET PAID DOING IT! And to top things off, they CHARGE YOU FOR THE FUCKING NEWSPAPER! That is called "paid speech". Far from disagreeing with it, I want more of it! Pay reporters all the market will bear! Put a tin cup out in front of every soapbox! Ads on every blog!
Paid speech may not be free as in beer, but it damned well had better remain free as in speech!
A blog with only 500 readers is TINY BLOG! This isn't an attempt to limit Evil(tm) corporations and curb the Evil(tm) rich. This isn't about social justice, it's about silencing the political opinions of individuals!
But what if it's right wing conservative speech? Surely we should stop that! If registering bloggers doesn't work, we can always bring back the fairness doctrine. What good is the constitution if you can't use it to silence those that disagree with you?
What difference does that make? Free speech is free speech is free speech. If the press can sell its newspapers for a quarter, by damn I'm going to put ads on my blog! Your rights don't go out the window just because you made some money.
As my sig says, "fair is the enemy of free". A free society tends to be a fair society. But in order to get to a state of perfect fairness, freedom must be destroyed. It's like a grass lawn. The more level and uniform you want the lawn, the more often you need to ruthlessly mow down the tall blades.
We've done an admirable job as a society in removing coercive legal barriers against genders. Most of the remaining gender based barriers do not come from the state, but from nature and culture instead.
We can do nothing in regards to nature based barriers, lest we end up a pathetic dystopia. The unavoidable fact is that men and women are differnt. But what about cultural barriers? Indeed, many radical feminists act strangely similar to radical cultural conservatives. Therein lies the danger. Trying to mold culture through laws is a perilous activity. We can attempt to modify culture through voluntary persuasion, but once we get the government involved, we are headed down the path to tyranny.
If there are laws that act as barriers to women, they must be repealed. But we cannot go around punishing parents who encourage their daughters to be nurses instead of doctors. We must change that part of culture through the slow process of voluntary persuasion.
This is the problem with Wikipedia and it's NPOV doctrine. If there is a controversy about a subject, it will be so "balanced" that it will push all non-controversial information into one or two filler paragraphs.
A complaint does not equate to a desire for legislation. For example, I am opposed to the use of narcotics, but an also opposed to narcotic prohibition. There are behaviors which are immoral but which should not be illegal. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
Unlike progressives, many conservatives have the concept that social change can occur through non-violent non-legislative means. Unlike progressives, they do not believe that there is a law to solve every problem. In fact, once you get away from the social conservative wing, you would be hard pressed to find any examples of conservatives trying to "legislate morality". Contrast this with progressives whose "social justice" mission is predicated upon imposing their morality on everyone else.
So there is nothing at all unusual about conservatives complaining about liberal bias but not wanting to legislate equal time.
p.s. "Republicans" are a different story. While there is an overlap between conservatives and Republicans, there are a great many Republicans who are not conservatives. Some of them may indeed be in favor of bringing back the fairness doctrine. The name that springs to my mind in this regard is big-government Republican John McCain.
Please point to the clause that allows you to do this.
Condition number 1 says redistribution of the source code must retain the license (copyright, conditions, disclaimer). Condition number 2 says that redistribution of binaries must be accompanied by the license.
You may of course, rudely wrap the BSD license inside of the GPL. Examples would be distributing a package under the GPL even though the software inside it was BSD. You cannot restrict the user from redistributing the package contents under the terms BSD license, so attempting to place GPL restrictions on the package would be rather pointless. But I've seen people try.
He's half right. You cannot take my BSD licensed software and relicense it under the GPL. However, you are perfectly free to create your own derivative work and license it under the GPL. The differences between the two are slight, but they are there. You cannot take my software and file off the BSD license. But you are able to fork off my software and license that any way you want. But in order to do the latter, it has to be a derivative work and not a mere copy. IFAIK, mere translation via compilation doesn't count either.
It's funny how some GPL advocates seem obsessed on relicensing your code under the GPL. It's like telling them everything in the fridge is free for them to eat, except for the sandwich you made for tomorrow's lunch. Then you find out the next morning that the only thing they ate was the sandwich.
Slashdot Mirror
Farm animals do not have "birthing processes" any more than they have "excretory processes" or "ruminatory processes". Sheesh.
The "Free" in FOSS means BOTH "Free as in GNU" and "Free as in free". So the BSD and MIT licenses count.
From painful experience, I would choose the former.
An old saying: "Jack of all trades, master of none."
This is true for programming as well. You can aquire a deep understanding of a few languages, or basic survival skills in dozens. Aquiring a deep understanding in dozens of languages is a truly exceptional feat.
But all Real Programmers know all languages! At least that's what Slashdot keeps telling me...
AC: Stupid article, the guy could have used Haskell and solved his problems
BB: But maybe he didn't know Haskell?
AC: Then he deserves get fired!
Huh? Which airport? I travel with a FreeBSD laptop all the time. About twice a month. I've never been asked to boot up the laptop. Since I tend to arrive for flights early (in an effort to avoid missing them), I like to observe people going through security. I've never seen any of them ever have to boot up their laptops. Then again, I've never seen dogs in an airport either (that weren't guidedogs).
Of course, it's possible. Did it look like a normal laptop, or was it old, worn, covered in stickers, held closed with a rubber band, etc? Did it have a funky case mod? Did it have internal modifications that might look unusual in an xray? Did you piss off the TSA worker? Did you argue when asked to remove it from the bag. Otherwise act suspicious?
But Nancy is in charge of congress now! She promised she would look out for us! Don't you ... believe her?
Hmmm, "blog license"... I'm not sure I like the sound of that. Sounds more like China than the US.
There's all sorts of things that can be done with laws without banning things.
Every law bans something. If you pass a law coercing one behavior, you have just banned the opposite behavior. Even something as warm, fuzzy and "progressive" as mandating that nurses get special credits towards medical degrees, will ban schools from setting higher standards for their degrees.
At some point you have to draw the line as to where government's power should end. In my opinion, it should end LONG BEFORE it gets to the point of tmicromanaging medical school curriculums for the purpose of balancing gender roles between nurses and physicians.
he only way to fix it is to scale the federal government back to its Constitutional powers
Amen! Every power you grant to politicians of your own party is power granted to the opposition. If you don't like big government when the other party is in power, then the time to scale back on government is when you own party is in power.
There's nothing the Democrats can do that is so awful that liberals can't find a way to blame Bush for it...
No no no! Didn't you hear? Not us! Yourselves!
Paid speech is not free speech.
Every day thousands of journalists across the globe write articles, and their editors edit them, and their publishers publish them... AND GET PAID DOING IT! And to top things off, they CHARGE YOU FOR THE FUCKING NEWSPAPER! That is called "paid speech". Far from disagreeing with it, I want more of it! Pay reporters all the market will bear! Put a tin cup out in front of every soapbox! Ads on every blog!
Paid speech may not be free as in beer, but it damned well had better remain free as in speech!
A blog with only 500 readers is TINY BLOG! This isn't an attempt to limit Evil(tm) corporations and curb the Evil(tm) rich. This isn't about social justice, it's about silencing the political opinions of individuals!
So in other words, this isn't an issue because only those who break this proposed law will go to jail?
But what if it's right wing conservative speech? Surely we should stop that! If registering bloggers doesn't work, we can always bring back the fairness doctrine. What good is the constitution if you can't use it to silence those that disagree with you?
The key here is "Paid attempts."
What difference does that make? Free speech is free speech is free speech. If the press can sell its newspapers for a quarter, by damn I'm going to put ads on my blog! Your rights don't go out the window just because you made some money.
I wasn't going to start a political blog, but now I'm going to. Just to rub their noses in it.
Everyone was so worried about Microsoft, that they completely ignored Adobe and Macromedia until it was too late.
As my sig says, "fair is the enemy of free". A free society tends to be a fair society. But in order to get to a state of perfect fairness, freedom must be destroyed. It's like a grass lawn. The more level and uniform you want the lawn, the more often you need to ruthlessly mow down the tall blades.
We've done an admirable job as a society in removing coercive legal barriers against genders. Most of the remaining gender based barriers do not come from the state, but from nature and culture instead.
We can do nothing in regards to nature based barriers, lest we end up a pathetic dystopia. The unavoidable fact is that men and women are differnt. But what about cultural barriers? Indeed, many radical feminists act strangely similar to radical cultural conservatives. Therein lies the danger. Trying to mold culture through laws is a perilous activity. We can attempt to modify culture through voluntary persuasion, but once we get the government involved, we are headed down the path to tyranny.
If there are laws that act as barriers to women, they must be repealed. But we cannot go around punishing parents who encourage their daughters to be nurses instead of doctors. We must change that part of culture through the slow process of voluntary persuasion.
This is the problem with Wikipedia and it's NPOV doctrine. If there is a controversy about a subject, it will be so "balanced" that it will push all non-controversial information into one or two filler paragraphs.
A complaint does not equate to a desire for legislation. For example, I am opposed to the use of narcotics, but an also opposed to narcotic prohibition. There are behaviors which are immoral but which should not be illegal. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
Unlike progressives, many conservatives have the concept that social change can occur through non-violent non-legislative means. Unlike progressives, they do not believe that there is a law to solve every problem. In fact, once you get away from the social conservative wing, you would be hard pressed to find any examples of conservatives trying to "legislate morality". Contrast this with progressives whose "social justice" mission is predicated upon imposing their morality on everyone else.
So there is nothing at all unusual about conservatives complaining about liberal bias but not wanting to legislate equal time.
p.s. "Republicans" are a different story. While there is an overlap between conservatives and Republicans, there are a great many Republicans who are not conservatives. Some of them may indeed be in favor of bringing back the fairness doctrine. The name that springs to my mind in this regard is big-government Republican John McCain.
Please point to the clause that allows you to do this.
Condition number 1 says redistribution of the source code must retain the license (copyright, conditions, disclaimer). Condition number 2 says that redistribution of binaries must be accompanied by the license.
You may of course, rudely wrap the BSD license inside of the GPL. Examples would be distributing a package under the GPL even though the software inside it was BSD. You cannot restrict the user from redistributing the package contents under the terms BSD license, so attempting to place GPL restrictions on the package would be rather pointless. But I've seen people try.
He's half right. You cannot take my BSD licensed software and relicense it under the GPL. However, you are perfectly free to create your own derivative work and license it under the GPL. The differences between the two are slight, but they are there. You cannot take my software and file off the BSD license. But you are able to fork off my software and license that any way you want. But in order to do the latter, it has to be a derivative work and not a mere copy. IFAIK, mere translation via compilation doesn't count either.
It's funny how some GPL advocates seem obsessed on relicensing your code under the GPL. It's like telling them everything in the fridge is free for them to eat, except for the sandwich you made for tomorrow's lunch. Then you find out the next morning that the only thing they ate was the sandwich.
Building FreeBSD from scratch:
/usr/src
cd
make buildworld
make buildkernel
make installkernel
make installworld
reboot