I got another email today about my choice of the BSD license for software that I wrote. I was warned yet again that I am being foolish, that BSD is a "license to steal." Where the fsck do these buttinskis come from? I was told that the GPL would allow me to sue people who violated my license. Do these guys even know what freedom means?
GPL: Because freedom is about suing to get your way.
RMS' opinions on the matter are irrelevant, because the only thing that matters is copyright law. And copyright law does not say linking is derivation.
The GPL doesn't cover even that. It only covers derivative works. Linking is not sufficient to create a derivative work. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
I know the feeling of having to hide your political beliefs. I live in Bush Country and everywhere you go its anti-liberal this and stupid dems that.
I know that feeling too. But I have the opposite situation. I live in the ultra-progressive San Fransisco area, where everywhere you go it's anti-conservative this and stupid republicans that. The hatred here against conservatives is vicious.
Republicans do not have a monopoly on bad behavior. Democrats are every bit as bad for not reining in their supporters.
Sounds probable to me that their detector is malfunctioning.Sounds probable to me that their detector is malfunctioning.
Did it give the same extreme aggravation to the person in front of you? Did it give the same extreme aggravation to the person behind you? No! Otherwise you would have said so, because that's a much more interesting and relevant anecdote! Something was different about *YOU*, and so you were given extra scrutiny.
No, it's not. We don't know when it's going to rain next.
We do know what the snowpack in the Sierras is, so we will know how much water will be available for central valley agriculture. We also know the water level in dams, so we have a good idea of the water situation for the next six months.
Besides, if we can't tell what the water supply is going to be like with the snowpack or reservoir levels, then neither will a bureaucrat. Your argument that the market can't work is also an argument against state agencies rationing out water. Because they won't know how MUCH to ration out! If we're all doomed to die of thirst, then I would at least like to die of thirst a free man, instead of a slave to the nanny state....once everyone is maxed-out, the price goes from dirt cheap, to infinitely expensive, in an instant.
Please show me one example of an "infinitely expensive" price. When you do I will bow to your superior economic wisdom.
If it is, then so are all of the other "renewable" resources that depend on it. In economic terms all resources are limited. But in colloquial usage a "limited" resource is one that can't be renewed. Like petroleum, iron ore, or real estate.
Fresh water is seasonal. It comes back the next year. Really it does. Even if you have a drought, you still get back *some* water, and the drought won't last more than a few years. I'm not arguing you shouldn't conserve water, because it is still scarce (like all renewable resources are). I'm just saying it isn't limited in the ordinary sense of the word.
We have water meters here (CA), and you know something, economics isn't a big motivator.
Some places in California do not. Really! Fresno is one example. Every few years some councilman suggests water meters, but the citizens oppose it by a huge majority.
If the economics of of water meters isn't paying off, it's because the price of water is too low. Give people a "water voucher", or X number of free gallons per month, so the poor can get the water they need, then put the rest of it on the market system. Why should someone with five acres of lawn and two swimming pools pay the same $15 a month that a poor single mom does?
People do conserve electricity and gasoline, because those resources still have a significant market component to their pricing. If water was a market resource, people would be conserving it as well. And because we do have a very good idea of the water supply six months in advance, the market can price it accordingly. It's a specious argument to suggest we have to wait until the pipes are dry before we raise the price.
You went through the detector multiple times, each time having the opportunity to remove all metal from your person. While you say you didn't have any metal, from the perspective of the other guy, you're acting very suspicious.
No shoes, no belt, just jeans and shirt? And the detector keeps beeping? Sounds probable to me that you have metal on you! Time to pull out the wand and find out where it is! Duh! If he is not supposed to pay attention to the buzzing of the metal detector, then what the fsck is he supposed to do? Is our airport security now supposed to be based on the honor system? Tell everyone they can't bring knives and guns onboard, and cross our fingers hoping they don't?
p.s. I've never seen anyone pantsed in front of other travellers before. It reportedly happened a few times immediately after 9/11, but I haven't seen it in all of my flying. I say you're making this up.
p.p.s. Taking the shoes off isn't "optional". It's required if they tell you to.
p.p.p.s. If you don't like this, don't fly. Talk to your representatives and senators. Run for office. But by all means don't fly.
You're completely missing the point. Unless you are going to select EVERYONE, you going to have to limit who you scrutinize. One way is to randomly select some people. The other way is to "profile". Since profiling is more likely to select the bad guy than random sampling, profiling makes sense. (Actually, a combination of both is best).
The trick is to know the profile. It's usually NOT based on appearance, but on behavior and other factors. Could terrorists be using disguises? Of course they are! Duh! You can argue all you want that profiling won't catch the masterminds, and I'll agree with you. But not all terrorists are masterminds. Not all are brilliant. If it catches any terrorists at all, it will be a success. Talk to the police about profiling. When they have a good profile, it works.
Plus, by profiling you make it very easy for certain people to "opt out"
The point of profiling is not to spread the misery! Don't be flipping stupid! The point is to effectively target your limited resources! If more ordinary travelers gets targeted than senators, it's because terrorists are more likely to pose as ordinary travelers than as senators.
They're not random in the sense that they're using any sort of entropy device. Instead they've probably got a quota of so many "step outs" per hour, and grab a guy in line every five minutes or so.
The last time I got told to step out, I was obviously part of a group of three. We were all dressed business casual, with laptop bags, and roughly the same age. Why was I picked and not my two coworkers? It's obvious to me that I wasn't being "singled" out for special treatment. Another time my laptop got picked for the special chemical swab, but it was one of three iBook G4s going through the belt, and the TSA guy had to ask whose it was. You guys need to stop with the paranoia act, because they are NOT out to harass you.
At one airport I was able to observe TSA at work through a glass partition, over the course of an hour while waiting for my flight. The only guy I saw who they deliberately targetted was acting goofy. He would remove a couple of coins from his pocket, the wand would buzz, he would remove a few more coins, the wand would buzz again, he would remove his huge belt bucket, the wand would buzz again, he removed his keys, and the wand would buzz again. So they took him off to the room. He had all the appearances of being a stoner. They stopped him AGAIN when he tried to board the plane with a cup of coffee after being told not five minutes before by the attendant that he couldn't take it on the plane.
Making rules about how much of a limited resource people can use.
Water isn't a limited resource as it is fully recyclable and have oceans and oceans of it. There's no such thing as "water shortages". However, it is seasonal. While low flow toilets make sense in Las Vegas, they make no sense in Seattle.
A far better solution than nanny laws is to have water meters and charge by the gallon. Some places in the country simply don't have water meters. Even some traditionally "dry" places don't have them. When you pay a flat fee no matter how much water you use, what's the point of conserving? But if it costs you $5 more a month to use the "high flow" toilet, you might consider replacing it to save money, or water the lawn less, or other conservation practices.
They saved the best for last -- the 10th amendment. If the constitution does not specifically grant the government power to do something, they cannot do it.
Really? I would really like to believe that, but the government does not. Farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, midnight basketball programs, health care, schools, national parks, the Federal Reserve, NASA, DEA, SBA, HUD, gun control, etc. As much as I wish the our government would honor the 10th amendment, I'm not expecting it to happen. As long as we keep electing people like Clinton and Bush, and almost electing people like Gore and Kerry, nothing is going to change.
While I am most certainly opposed to warrantless wiretapping, I nonetheless cannot find any constitutional article or ammendment prohibiting it. There's something in there about "due process", but due process isn't the same thing as a warrant. And listening in on a conversation isn't the same thing as seizure (although it could be considered search).
That doesn't mean warrantless wiretapping is wrong, it just means that the consititution doesn't prohibit it.
No, this was a case of an employee just not caring. I asked where a certain model monitor was. He pointed. Finding it myself I discovered that it was on a high shelf under stack of other boxes. I needed a ladder to get to it. I was offered no assistance in getting it down. I had to tell him to get it for me. He was actually going to stand there watching me, a customer, remove an awkward 44 pound box from a 14 foot shelf. Once he got it down, he walked off, leaving me carrying the box all they way through the store to the front counter.
It's not that I'm so weak I can't pick up 44 pounds, or so clumsy I can't walk with a very wide awkward box in my arms. It's that I shouldn't have to! Besides the huge liability risk, it's just plain rude.
And it's not that he was swamped with customers, because there were only five customers in the store at the time. He just didn't give a shit. And so I no longer give a shit about Best Buy. He was my first and last encounter with a Best Buy "representative". First impressions count.
And don't try to lay the blame on me! If they want me to fill out forms they can damned well pay me for it! If they can't figure out who their bad employees are without my help, then they've got no business being in business.
No I didn't fill it out! I got treated with bad service, and their response was to tell me to waste a half hour of my life filling out a stupid piece of paper. WTF? Just because you've been indoctrinated into filling out forms in big box stores doesn't make it any less onerous. You shouldn't have to fill out a form to get treated like a human being.
It's really simple. All I wanted to do was to express my disatisfaction with some shoddy service I received in the computer department. It shouldn't have taken me more than ten seconds to do. Any other store that would have been it. But Best Buy wanted me to waste a bunch of time filling out a form.
I didn't fill out the form just to be obstinate. I didn't fill it out because Best Buy isn't worth spending any extra effort on. If they're only going to pay attention to customers who dutifully fill out forms, then I hope their stock tanks.
The only reason I'm wasting time posting about this is so that other people won't waste theirs going to Best Buy.
Precisely! If you are unwilling to be a representative of the company, find another job!
I was in Best Buy last week. It was my first time I've ever been in one. And because of my experience, will probably be the last as well. I was given very poor service by the "representative" in the computer section. No need to go into how bad his service was, because the kicker was the cashier at the front counter. I told her about the bad service, and she smiled and said, "here's a complaint form to fill out."
I dont' want to fill out a freaking form! I want to TELL you about the bad service. Because I thought you might care about it. There was no one else in line, so it wasn't like I was holding anything up. If you don't care enough about your customers to spend thirty seconds listening to one, then I hope your stock tanks!
"We're sorry you aren't happy. Have a nice day. Please come again."
Why do you say "traditional corporate structure"? Is it meant to be a subtle pejorative? Because what you are describing is "traditional organizational structure". Get your mind off corporations and look around. This is the virtually all successful organizations are structured. Governments, social clubs, schools, churches, sports teams, etc. Even bazaars.
Just because there are rules and a structure does not mean the "bazaar" is selling out to the "cathedral".
Slashdot Mirror
GPL: License to sue.
I got another email today about my choice of the BSD license for software that I wrote. I was warned yet again that I am being foolish, that BSD is a "license to steal." Where the fsck do these buttinskis come from? I was told that the GPL would allow me to sue people who violated my license. Do these guys even know what freedom means?
GPL: Because freedom is about suing to get your way.
RMS' opinions on the matter are irrelevant, because the only thing that matters is copyright law. And copyright law does not say linking is derivation.
The GPL covers explicitly *linking only*.
The GPL doesn't cover even that. It only covers derivative works. Linking is not sufficient to create a derivative work. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366
I know the feeling of having to hide your political beliefs. I live in Bush Country and everywhere you go its anti-liberal this and stupid dems that.
I know that feeling too. But I have the opposite situation. I live in the ultra-progressive San Fransisco area, where everywhere you go it's anti-conservative this and stupid republicans that. The hatred here against conservatives is vicious.
Republicans do not have a monopoly on bad behavior. Democrats are every bit as bad for not reining in their supporters.
Sounds probable to me that their detector is malfunctioning.Sounds probable to me that their detector is malfunctioning.
Did it give the same extreme aggravation to the person in front of you? Did it give the same extreme aggravation to the person behind you? No! Otherwise you would have said so, because that's a much more interesting and relevant anecdote! Something was different about *YOU*, and so you were given extra scrutiny.
"The point of profiling is not to spread the misery! Don't be flipping stupid!"
It is a highly beneficial side-effect of random profiling.
Making people miserable is highly beneficial?!?
No, it's not. We don't know when it's going to rain next.
...once everyone is maxed-out, the price goes from dirt cheap, to infinitely expensive, in an instant.
We do know what the snowpack in the Sierras is, so we will know how much water will be available for central valley agriculture. We also know the water level in dams, so we have a good idea of the water situation for the next six months.
Besides, if we can't tell what the water supply is going to be like with the snowpack or reservoir levels, then neither will a bureaucrat. Your argument that the market can't work is also an argument against state agencies rationing out water. Because they won't know how MUCH to ration out! If we're all doomed to die of thirst, then I would at least like to die of thirst a free man, instead of a slave to the nanny state.
Please show me one example of an "infinitely expensive" price. When you do I will bow to your superior economic wisdom.
Fresh water, is a limited resource.
If it is, then so are all of the other "renewable" resources that depend on it. In economic terms all resources are limited. But in colloquial usage a "limited" resource is one that can't be renewed. Like petroleum, iron ore, or real estate.
Fresh water is seasonal. It comes back the next year. Really it does. Even if you have a drought, you still get back *some* water, and the drought won't last more than a few years. I'm not arguing you shouldn't conserve water, because it is still scarce (like all renewable resources are). I'm just saying it isn't limited in the ordinary sense of the word.
We have water meters here (CA), and you know something, economics isn't a big motivator.
Some places in California do not. Really! Fresno is one example. Every few years some councilman suggests water meters, but the citizens oppose it by a huge majority.
If the economics of of water meters isn't paying off, it's because the price of water is too low. Give people a "water voucher", or X number of free gallons per month, so the poor can get the water they need, then put the rest of it on the market system. Why should someone with five acres of lawn and two swimming pools pay the same $15 a month that a poor single mom does?
People do conserve electricity and gasoline, because those resources still have a significant market component to their pricing. If water was a market resource, people would be conserving it as well. And because we do have a very good idea of the water supply six months in advance, the market can price it accordingly. It's a specious argument to suggest we have to wait until the pipes are dry before we raise the price.
Actually, I found it funny. But that was ten years ago when I heard it the first time.
You went through the detector multiple times, each time having the opportunity to remove all metal from your person. While you say you didn't have any metal, from the perspective of the other guy, you're acting very suspicious.
No shoes, no belt, just jeans and shirt? And the detector keeps beeping? Sounds probable to me that you have metal on you! Time to pull out the wand and find out where it is! Duh! If he is not supposed to pay attention to the buzzing of the metal detector, then what the fsck is he supposed to do? Is our airport security now supposed to be based on the honor system? Tell everyone they can't bring knives and guns onboard, and cross our fingers hoping they don't?
p.s. I've never seen anyone pantsed in front of other travellers before. It reportedly happened a few times immediately after 9/11, but I haven't seen it in all of my flying. I say you're making this up.
p.p.s. Taking the shoes off isn't "optional". It's required if they tell you to.
p.p.p.s. If you don't like this, don't fly. Talk to your representatives and senators. Run for office. But by all means don't fly.
You're completely missing the point. Unless you are going to select EVERYONE, you going to have to limit who you scrutinize. One way is to randomly select some people. The other way is to "profile". Since profiling is more likely to select the bad guy than random sampling, profiling makes sense. (Actually, a combination of both is best).
The trick is to know the profile. It's usually NOT based on appearance, but on behavior and other factors. Could terrorists be using disguises? Of course they are! Duh! You can argue all you want that profiling won't catch the masterminds, and I'll agree with you. But not all terrorists are masterminds. Not all are brilliant. If it catches any terrorists at all, it will be a success. Talk to the police about profiling. When they have a good profile, it works.
Plus, by profiling you make it very easy for certain people to "opt out"
The point of profiling is not to spread the misery! Don't be flipping stupid! The point is to effectively target your limited resources! If more ordinary travelers gets targeted than senators, it's because terrorists are more likely to pose as ordinary travelers than as senators.
They're not random in the sense that they're using any sort of entropy device. Instead they've probably got a quota of so many "step outs" per hour, and grab a guy in line every five minutes or so.
The last time I got told to step out, I was obviously part of a group of three. We were all dressed business casual, with laptop bags, and roughly the same age. Why was I picked and not my two coworkers? It's obvious to me that I wasn't being "singled" out for special treatment. Another time my laptop got picked for the special chemical swab, but it was one of three iBook G4s going through the belt, and the TSA guy had to ask whose it was. You guys need to stop with the paranoia act, because they are NOT out to harass you.
At one airport I was able to observe TSA at work through a glass partition, over the course of an hour while waiting for my flight. The only guy I saw who they deliberately targetted was acting goofy. He would remove a couple of coins from his pocket, the wand would buzz, he would remove a few more coins, the wand would buzz again, he would remove his huge belt bucket, the wand would buzz again, he removed his keys, and the wand would buzz again. So they took him off to the room. He had all the appearances of being a stoner. They stopped him AGAIN when he tried to board the plane with a cup of coffee after being told not five minutes before by the attendant that he couldn't take it on the plane.
Making rules about how much of a limited resource people can use.
Water isn't a limited resource as it is fully recyclable and have oceans and oceans of it. There's no such thing as "water shortages". However, it is seasonal. While low flow toilets make sense in Las Vegas, they make no sense in Seattle.
A far better solution than nanny laws is to have water meters and charge by the gallon. Some places in the country simply don't have water meters. Even some traditionally "dry" places don't have them. When you pay a flat fee no matter how much water you use, what's the point of conserving? But if it costs you $5 more a month to use the "high flow" toilet, you might consider replacing it to save money, or water the lawn less, or other conservation practices.
They saved the best for last -- the 10th amendment. If the constitution does not specifically grant the government power to do something, they cannot do it.
Really? I would really like to believe that, but the government does not. Farm subsidies, corporate subsidies, midnight basketball programs, health care, schools, national parks, the Federal Reserve, NASA, DEA, SBA, HUD, gun control, etc. As much as I wish the our government would honor the 10th amendment, I'm not expecting it to happen. As long as we keep electing people like Clinton and Bush, and almost electing people like Gore and Kerry, nothing is going to change.
Nah, forget that bridge, it's going nowhere...
So in other words, I'm the bad guy because I didn't fill out the complaint form?
I say 'corporate' specifically because we're talking about commerce
Actually, we were talking about Debian, a non-commercial entity.
Bush has appointed 2 supreme court justices.
So? Was he supposed to consult you first or something?
So is wiretapping w/o a warrant
While I am most certainly opposed to warrantless wiretapping, I nonetheless cannot find any constitutional article or ammendment prohibiting it. There's something in there about "due process", but due process isn't the same thing as a warrant. And listening in on a conversation isn't the same thing as seizure (although it could be considered search).
That doesn't mean warrantless wiretapping is wrong, it just means that the consititution doesn't prohibit it.
No, this was a case of an employee just not caring. I asked where a certain model monitor was. He pointed. Finding it myself I discovered that it was on a high shelf under stack of other boxes. I needed a ladder to get to it. I was offered no assistance in getting it down. I had to tell him to get it for me. He was actually going to stand there watching me, a customer, remove an awkward 44 pound box from a 14 foot shelf. Once he got it down, he walked off, leaving me carrying the box all they way through the store to the front counter.
It's not that I'm so weak I can't pick up 44 pounds, or so clumsy I can't walk with a very wide awkward box in my arms. It's that I shouldn't have to! Besides the huge liability risk, it's just plain rude.
And it's not that he was swamped with customers, because there were only five customers in the store at the time. He just didn't give a shit. And so I no longer give a shit about Best Buy. He was my first and last encounter with a Best Buy "representative". First impressions count.
And don't try to lay the blame on me! If they want me to fill out forms they can damned well pay me for it! If they can't figure out who their bad employees are without my help, then they've got no business being in business.
No I didn't fill it out! I got treated with bad service, and their response was to tell me to waste a half hour of my life filling out a stupid piece of paper. WTF? Just because you've been indoctrinated into filling out forms in big box stores doesn't make it any less onerous. You shouldn't have to fill out a form to get treated like a human being.
It's really simple. All I wanted to do was to express my disatisfaction with some shoddy service I received in the computer department. It shouldn't have taken me more than ten seconds to do. Any other store that would have been it. But Best Buy wanted me to waste a bunch of time filling out a form.
I didn't fill out the form just to be obstinate. I didn't fill it out because Best Buy isn't worth spending any extra effort on. If they're only going to pay attention to customers who dutifully fill out forms, then I hope their stock tanks.
The only reason I'm wasting time posting about this is so that other people won't waste theirs going to Best Buy.
He's a representative of the company.
Precisely! If you are unwilling to be a representative of the company, find another job!
I was in Best Buy last week. It was my first time I've ever been in one. And because of my experience, will probably be the last as well. I was given very poor service by the "representative" in the computer section. No need to go into how bad his service was, because the kicker was the cashier at the front counter. I told her about the bad service, and she smiled and said, "here's a complaint form to fill out."
I dont' want to fill out a freaking form! I want to TELL you about the bad service. Because I thought you might care about it. There was no one else in line, so it wasn't like I was holding anything up. If you don't care enough about your customers to spend thirty seconds listening to one, then I hope your stock tanks!
"We're sorry you aren't happy. Have a nice day. Please come again."
If you can't handle 72 hours cramped in a tiny space with other human beings, you have no business being in space.
Yet another Slashdot poster who couldn't recognize humor if it bit him the butt.
Why do you say "traditional corporate structure"? Is it meant to be a subtle pejorative? Because what you are describing is "traditional organizational structure". Get your mind off corporations and look around. This is the virtually all successful organizations are structured. Governments, social clubs, schools, churches, sports teams, etc. Even bazaars.
Just because there are rules and a structure does not mean the "bazaar" is selling out to the "cathedral".