"Excess calories make you fat. That's a law of physics; I have no idea why some people dispute it. It's like arguing with the law of gravity. The only question is whether calories coming from different sources are absorbed more slowly or quickly, but the end result is the same unless you're exercising to stay in shape. A calorie is a unit of energy and if that energy is not used, it must be stored. Energy doesn't just disappear into thin air; when you consume it, you either use it or you store it."
This would require human waste to have no caloric value.
His 'solution' doesn't work. To beat it you make a little browser script which highlights stories in the "random stories" box by checking them against ones people have agreed to buy clicks for.
A lot of this is rendering time; links still has to download the page with javascript even if it's not going to execute it. And if the css is included in the main file it downloads that too. The main saving is on images and you can have a graphical browser that optionally loads images.
SENT...CENT....see an issue here? For half of the call with the first rep, whenever the sound "cent" is used, it is actualy meant to be "sent", so it adds to the confusion on top of everything else.
This doesn't really explain it. The guy says "cents" several times, which would not have been misinterpreted as "sents". English has helpful morphology sometimes.
Human trials are fantastically expensive and very slow. If simulation was at all practical the pharmaceutical industry would be all over it. But people are just too complicated. An approach that documented the systems we believe are at work within the body wouldn't do the job because chemicals might change the way the systems interacted. A full cellular-level simulation would require more information about the body and more processing power than we have (and are likely to have in the next 40 years). Maybe some simulation could help decrease the number of failed tests, but we're not going to be replacing human trials any time soon.
most of the food industry uses ingredients in their food that are known to increase appetite. Corn syrup, high levels of salt, MSG, etc... They do this because it makes people want to buy and eat more and more of their food.... Can you imagine if the cigarette industry got a bill passed that said they couldn't be held accountable for people being addicted to the nicotine additive?
Nicotine is fundamentally different from corn syrup, salt, MSG, and the like. These make food taste better but are not addictive. I don't find it disturbing that food companies make food that people want to eat, even if they do have a 'profitable science' behind how they do it.
Contracts are about fair exchange of services, not making one party take all the risk and the other party to have none. While some contracts are not considered fair one party cannot completely assume the burden of all risks or responsibilities for both parties.
Risk taking can be a service. We can have a contract to exchange your money for my risk taking in order to further some purpose.
The problem is that you're denying the next developer freedom and calling that your freedom. More precisely, you're saying you want people to have as much freedom as possible, but doing that by denying freedom. This is a contradiction and one that is called hypocrisy.
Freedoms can come into conflict. And the freedom to view and modify the source code of the programs you are using is one I value above the freedom to keep others from doing so.
Yes, by keeping your source tree open. Please let me know how you are not being an a**hole by forcing people to do the same. After all, if they choose the close there copy that does not mean that you have to close yours. Basically, your tree remains open as long as you want. Why force that on others?
Because I want end users to be able to have access to the source code for the programs they run.
For that matter, why isn't a BSD license plus the "all modifications must be sent upstream" not appropriate.
That wouldn't be too bad. Provided they had to inform their distributees that they could get source code from me. But it's also practically almost the same, especially as there's not a hardship of distribution; sourceforge.net is free. The main barrier is that the GPL is established and I want my code fully liscense compatible with it.
There's no such thing as a "default" copyright, or anything like it. The license is written with "the Regents" in there because they originally wrote the license. It doesn't mean anything, and nobody would be stupid enough to copy it without changing it.
Sorry; I was unclear. I didn't mean 'default' as in 'you can optionally fill in something else for regents', but instead that the standard/original case had distinct author and copyright holder. You're not being paid for someone else to get the credit, but for them to get the results of your work. A paper written by a Berkley prof would be attributed to the prof, even though the regents would get the copyright. And the prof, not the regents, gets the credit.
How about, is it selfish to require other developers to use the
license that you choose, NOT one that they choose.
The liscense I've chosen (GPL) is pretty close to the idea that "you're free to do whatever you want with this except deny that freedom to others". If they want to choose another liscense, it can only directly or indirectly restrict someone's freedom. Directly if they want to add additional restrictions ("this software is for non-commercial use only"; "some code written by X, if you redistribute you must include this notice), indirectly if they want to allow others to have the freedom to deny freedoms. Perhaps there are minor points they would like to change, but I don't currently know of any way to deal with this tidily. If someone wants to do something strange they should talk to me.
It's all fine and good if you want to be notified of improvments,
but requiring others to use your choosen license is just plain
belligerent.
I don't just want to be notified of them, I want to be able to use them. And I want others to be able to use them. I want my programs to get better but still remain usable by anyone who wishes.
Also, what someone else does with your code else-where does
nothing to the free nature of the code that you still possess. Or
do you as well believe that getting your picture taken will steal
your soul?
If they want to privately make changes for their own use, that's allowed. I have the power to keep public distribution free, so I invoke it.
Plagarism is failing to credit the source, while the BSD license requires proper atribution.
It does? The relavant portion seems to be:
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the University of California, Berkeley nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Perhaps you meant the advertising clause?
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
But this clause is usually not included in "BSD-Liscensed" projects. So it looks like there's no compulsary attribution in standard BSD.
Any non-commercial software (including GPL'd) is written from altruistic motivations. Who are you to say how far that altruism should go? Indeed, many of the major pieces of software we use wouldn't have become standards if they were under a more restrictive license.
Nope. I've written software that I thought would be useful to me. I then released it (GPL) with the dual motivation that someone would find it useful and that people might make improvements. The former is altruism, but if my motivations were entirely selfish I would still release software that I thought other people would find useful because that increases the chances that others will work on it. Alternately, look at IBM. They're a for-profit entity and not supposed to be altruistic. But they think work on open source projects is still in their interest because they benifit from the 'ecosystem' that arises.
Proponents of said licenses would question just what it is the contributors want to protect. Did they turn over the code for public use or didn't they? You can't plagiarize something that was offered to you as a gift -- and that's sort of the point of open source, isn't it? That your work becomes part of the commons?
Becomes part of the commons -- and stays there.
I question the motives of open source developers who use the GPL because it affords them plaudits for the authorship of their code. The GPL doesn't really care about any developers' desire to receive credit and accolades for their efforts. The only real reason the GPL requires that works derived from GPL-licensed works must also be GPL-licensed is political. The GNU Foundation wants to spread the political cause of Free Software. The GPL is one way to do this.
I don't know what the true motivations of the GNU Foundation are in promoting the GPL, but I do know mine. Software that I have released under the GPL has not been political. It does something I find useful and that I think others might find useful as well. At the same time, I put some work into it, and if someone makes improvements I would like to be able to use them. If I wanted instead to be sure I got credit I would use the origonal BSD liscence or one of the many other ones that require attribution.
Many other developers lack these political ambitions, however. For them, the BSD style license is perfectly fine. It protects them in various ways, like limiting the developers' liability, without the entanglements of Richard Stallman's political agenda. At the same time, it allows them to offer some code to the community, without any selfish motives of social status.
When you release something to the community with the intent for it to be free, is it selfish to want it to remain free?
Debian's idea of 'stable' is distinct from individual projects' definitions. Debian testing contains mostly projects rated 'stable' by their admins, and over time as it becomes clear that these versions really are stable they get moved into Debian stable.
Slashdot Mirror
Coming back to slashdot after reading reddit for a while, it is a very weird feeling not to be able to vote on posts.
"Excess calories make you fat. That's a law of physics; I have no idea why some people dispute it. It's like arguing with the law of gravity. The only question is whether calories coming from different sources are absorbed more slowly or quickly, but the end result is the same unless you're exercising to stay in shape. A calorie is a unit of energy and if that energy is not used, it must be stored. Energy doesn't just disappear into thin air; when you consume it, you either use it or you store it."
This would require human waste to have no caloric value.
"If you eat like a predator, you'll have a body like a predator. If you eat like a herbivore, you'll look like one."
Why only eating? Why not acting? Chase down those animals yourself (with no tools); that'll improve your body.
It was hard not to note the italics.
From the Vth: nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Funny; I'd always thought the words "incriminate or degrade" were in there.
withholding the password would be obstruction of justice
Couldn't you choose an incriminating password and plead the 5th?
Forgot that. They shouldn't be able to.
forgery of an official document necessarily infringes on the issuing agency's copyright for the original's graphical design
One cool thing about copyright (in the US): it does not protect the government. Anything the gov't puts out is in the public domain.
His 'solution' doesn't work. To beat it you make a little browser script which highlights stories in the "random stories" box by checking them against ones people have agreed to buy clicks for.
A lot of this is rendering time; links still has to download the page with javascript even if it's not going to execute it. And if the css is included in the main file it downloads that too. The main saving is on images and you can have a graphical browser that optionally loads images.
It's just a perl script. Make it run on your desktop and get it's input by polling the servers.
Or Yiu Sore?
Maybe they want to be sure no one's posted it anywhere?
Human trials are fantastically expensive and very slow. If simulation was at all practical the pharmaceutical industry would be all over it. But people are just too complicated. An approach that documented the systems we believe are at work within the body wouldn't do the job because chemicals might change the way the systems interacted. A full cellular-level simulation would require more information about the body and more processing power than we have (and are likely to have in the next 40 years). Maybe some simulation could help decrease the number of failed tests, but we're not going to be replacing human trials any time soon.
Nicotine is fundamentally different from corn syrup, salt, MSG, and the like. These make food taste better but are not addictive. I don't find it disturbing that food companies make food that people want to eat, even if they do have a 'profitable science' behind how they do it.
And why shouldn't we mention "super sizing"?
Freedoms can come into conflict. And the freedom to view and modify the source code of the programs you are using is one I value above the freedom to keep others from doing so.
Yes, by keeping your source tree open. Please let me know how you are not being an a**hole by forcing people to do the same. After all, if they choose the close there copy that does not mean that you have to close yours. Basically, your tree remains open as long as you want. Why force that on others?
Because I want end users to be able to have access to the source code for the programs they run.
For that matter, why isn't a BSD license plus the "all modifications must be sent upstream" not appropriate.
That wouldn't be too bad. Provided they had to inform their distributees that they could get source code from me. But it's also practically almost the same, especially as there's not a hardship of distribution; sourceforge.net is free. The main barrier is that the GPL is established and I want my code fully liscense compatible with it.
I don't, so I GPL.
Sorry; I was unclear. I didn't mean 'default' as in 'you can optionally fill in something else for regents', but instead that the standard/original case had distinct author and copyright holder. You're not being paid for someone else to get the credit, but for them to get the results of your work. A paper written by a Berkley prof would be attributed to the prof, even though the regents would get the copyright. And the prof, not the regents, gets the credit.
The liscense I've chosen (GPL) is pretty close to the idea that "you're free to do whatever you want with this except deny that freedom to others". If they want to choose another liscense, it can only directly or indirectly restrict someone's freedom. Directly if they want to add additional restrictions ("this software is for non-commercial use only"; "some code written by X, if you redistribute you must include this notice), indirectly if they want to allow others to have the freedom to deny freedoms. Perhaps there are minor points they would like to change, but I don't currently know of any way to deal with this tidily. If someone wants to do something strange they should talk to me.
It's all fine and good if you want to be notified of improvments, but requiring others to use your choosen license is just plain belligerent.
I don't just want to be notified of them, I want to be able to use them. And I want others to be able to use them. I want my programs to get better but still remain usable by anyone who wishes.
Also, what someone else does with your code else-where does nothing to the free nature of the code that you still possess. Or do you as well believe that getting your picture taken will steal your soul?
If they want to privately make changes for their own use, that's allowed. I have the power to keep public distribution free, so I invoke it.
The copyright notice says who owns the copyright, not who wrote it. And in the default case that is the Regents of the University of California.
It does? The relavant portion seems to be:
Perhaps you meant the advertising clause? But this clause is usually not included in "BSD-Liscensed" projects. So it looks like there's no compulsary attribution in standard BSD.Any non-commercial software (including GPL'd) is written from altruistic motivations. Who are you to say how far that altruism should go? Indeed, many of the major pieces of software we use wouldn't have become standards if they were under a more restrictive license.
Nope. I've written software that I thought would be useful to me. I then released it (GPL) with the dual motivation that someone would find it useful and that people might make improvements. The former is altruism, but if my motivations were entirely selfish I would still release software that I thought other people would find useful because that increases the chances that others will work on it. Alternately, look at IBM. They're a for-profit entity and not supposed to be altruistic. But they think work on open source projects is still in their interest because they benifit from the 'ecosystem' that arises.
Debian's idea of 'stable' is distinct from individual projects' definitions. Debian testing contains mostly projects rated 'stable' by their admins, and over time as it becomes clear that these versions really are stable they get moved into Debian stable.