When I think of a city bus stop, I visualize a metal sign post that says bus stop and maybe a bench on the sidewalk. It's not really that much of a public asset and pretty much means if you wait here long enough a city bus will come pick you up. When a city bus isn't there it is a regular sidewalk curb where other people can be picked up or dropped off (like any other sidewalk).
My understanding of the protests wasn't about the use of the bus stops but the increase of rent within the neighborhoods due to IT workers looking for places to live. Google changing the mode of transportation won't stop that.
I was referring to enhancements to that code that may be used to perform a bait-and-switch or embrace-and-extend move. You are deliberately ignoring that and de-emphasising the importance of the freedom of the user. It's a very common thing for businesses and other self-interested organisations to do.
Again we are full circle back to "So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code."
You got your rights confused. BSD protects the user's right. GPL protects the developer's right.
To begin with, everything is fine.
Then the major (principle) sponsor of the project decides to add some proprietary language features to one or several of the languages supported by this compiler suite, rewrote large parts of their own code to use these features and encouraged, bribed or coerced their 3rd-party development community (many of which already pay for the dubious privilege of being allowed to compile and distribute their code for that platform) to use these new language features. Perhaps these features look cool and groovy to begin with and make development easier.
Now this major company, what with the compiler suite and tools being BSD licensed have no legal obligation or incentive to release the source for their "enhancements" to the tools to the outside world. After all 99% of end-developers probably only care about getting a ready-to-use binary...
A problem with your scary story is that the original BSD code remains available for use by anyone. The proprietary extensions would have to prove themselves worthwhile since we are talking about a standards based compiler, and the original BSD code is not affected by the extension. If the proprietary extension is worth the money then the people who find it valuable can pay for it without affecting the 99% of the people who would continue to use the freely available BSD code.
Another being that in reality GPL is not immune to something similar. Take GNAT for example. You can use the free GPL version of GNAT that is one version behind OR you could pay for the latest commercial version (they call it access to pre-releases now) of the code which includes some optimizations not available in the GPL version.
But you were just trolling, weren't you?
It's not trolling when you are trying to educate someone about their misperceptions.
So you rather pay $300 for a traditional PC with a wireless card than a small form factor and quiet $300 device?
The $299 is MSRP and will most definitely be discounted once it hit retailers. The market is too crowded for them to price it higher than a comparably featured device.
So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code.
I see nothing wrong with life saving procedures for the mother. Unfortunately you'll see planned parenthood calling a lot of lifestyle saving procedures as life saving.
The problem with your argument being that Apple sponsors the clang and llvm project. I'm sure they put in more money than you, and we still enjoy the use of the BSD code.
AT&T is almost back to its former monopolistic glory and feels confident enough to squeeze every dime out of all the content providers and customers. Congratulations AT&T for bringing back the old days.
Thank goodness I don't have them anymore. Oh wait, yes there are other carriers out there. I can see how this can backfire on AT&T. Instead of paying AT&T for the privilege of unlimited data to their customer. I see content providers encouraging their customers to choose a better carrier.
It looks like he was a buffoon. He voted no on everything including adjournment of the meetings. To top it off, it looks like the only reason he resigned was because he got bored and wanted to perform one last stunt. No one was forcing him to resign.
The icing on the cake being that the idiot still plans to attend the meetings.
I asked around and it looks like my state does not have an open land tradition. However managed property occasionally have an "open gate" tradition where they will advertise that hunting is available on their property during parts of the hunting season. The land is owned by forest organizations or paper mils and you usually have to get paperwork establishing risk and liability and pay a very small fee.
Otherwise property enclosed in a manner that is designed to exclude intruders (e.g. barbed wire or wire fence) anyone found on the premise is subject to criminal trespass in the second degree. My state does not indemnify land owners from liability from hunting activities which explains why most private property is fenced.
Or possibly we can take a step back and recognize that you're much more likely to be killed by lightning than a hunter's bullet.
If you don't mind me interjecting here but you're wrong. Each year an average of 1000 hunting accidents occur in the US and Canada a year with about 100 of them being fatal. Compare that to 23 being the total number of lightning related death in the US for 2013. Evidently you are 4 times more likely to be killed by a hunter's bullet than a lighting strike.
I do agree that the fatalities don't warrant outlawing hunting. However they do warrant laws that restrict hunting in residential areas.
I live in the southeast. We do not have an open land tradition in my state. We are allowed to post no trespassing signs on our property. However the public is allowed to fish within navigable waters within the property. They must travel by water and not use the dry portions of the property. This is never a real issue because we are blessed with a large amount of publicly owned forests that allow seasonal hunting. I'm within an hour drive to 40,000 acres managed by forever wild.
I currently live in the city, but I do lease a lot within a hunting and fishing camp about an hour away near the forever wild management area. We've had problems with hunters following game into restricted private property areas and taking a shot. The restricted area is where the housing units are located. I've driven to the trailer on a couple occasions and found it damaged due to improper hunting.
There are other reasons for exclusive land use. My wife's family has 80 acres in Mississippi and restrict hunting to family members and their guests (too far to drive for me and I like fishing more than hunting). During the offseason they maintain the game stock and blinds so they really get upset with strangers taking advantage of their work. That seems like a good reason for them to exercise their right of exclusive access to their property.
I may eventually buy some land in the more rural areas of my county. Since I plan to reside on the property, I would exercise my property rights to forbid all hunting on the property. Knowing how much of a problem some hunters can be at both my lease lot and my wife's family lot, I would most definitely take advantage of any technology that allowed me to monitor my property without risk of confronting an armed stranger.
They are allowed to fish in navigable waters within private property, but the land owner is allowed to post no trespassing signs. So basically fishing is allowed if they can navigate via water without actually walking on property and hunting only allowed with land owner's permission.
I plan on purchasing land of my own, but currently lease property within a larger hunting/fishing community. The issue isn't exclusive access to property but rather hunters following game into restricted areas where housing units are nearby.
It doesn't explain why U.S. Customs saw a need to destroy the item. Usually it is handled by the USDA which can quarantine the items in question. Even if quarantine isn't an option, why did the U.S. Customs perform the duties of a USDA/PPQ officer?
This has little to do with ACA other than the employer is not able to stop offering health insurance all together. The real issue is the employer wants to be able to claim religious reasons when picking and choosing which of the required coverages they want to ignore.
You only "earn" the benefits offered by the employer in exchange for your labor.
How else would you earn it? I assume you don't perform sexual favors for your benefits, but that would be ironic considering the subject.
If you don't like that, then you can start your own business.
Working for a different employer is another option. Both are certainly options that my employer understands which is why they include employees in the selection process in the months prior to open enrollment. They also explain in detail the reasons behind their decisions and how much of the burden will be picked up by the employees. Prior to the ACA, health insurance was offered as an incentive to retain the employees in lieu of spending more money for higher salaries . Most employers don't just offer employee benefits solely out of the kindness of their hearts.
Anything else is the result of an overly-developed sense of entitlement.
It's not an overly-developed sense of entitlement when your potential employer offers you a salary and a booklet detailing their employee benefits. I can see how you think that since ACA has muddied the water a bit. I don't agree with the idea of forcing employers into offering insurance, but that was what the republicans wanted instead of the single-payer system. In the end, I think keeping the insurance private was the correct route though not necessarily pain free. My idea of the government offering catastrophic medical insurance and let private insurance companies offer additional benefits with no preexisting medical exclusions wasn't even a thought on either side of the aisle. This would have allowed employers to optionally offer medical insurance as an incentive and wouldn't have forced individuals into purchasing insurance.
But back to the subject at hand, the government through its use of a medical panel made requirements for all insurance policies to cover certain procedures. The ones who are having an overly-developed sense of entitlement are the employers who are forcing their views about contraception upon their employees by specifically eliminating coverage which won't necessarily equate to any cost savings to them. This is strictly an ideological issue with them not a financial one. I guess they aren't into the whole "free will" movement and allowing their employees to follow their individual religious beliefs. Remember no one is pointing a gun at you and forcing you to purchase birth control.
Yes but the original requirement was to destroy the Earth. Management thought the abort function was too costly so it wasn't approved as a requirement.
Coca-Cola owns a lot of vending machines and their new computerized cola fountain is pretty cool too. I see this as a natural progression towards automatically sending in refill and service requests.
As long as I can still use a drone to monitor activity on my own property during hunting season. It would make it safer to look for trespassers and call the sheriff by eliminating the possibility of being "mistaken" for a deer and shot.
Not against hunting, just against hunters shooting on my property.
I find them hilarious. One year an activist trespassed on school property wearing a large fish costume and handing out flyers equating fishing to murder. It was a particularly hot day and eventually he succumbed to heat exhaustion and flopped around like a trout before the paramedics arrived. I wish I can find the link to the local news cast.
Slashdot Mirror
When I think of a city bus stop, I visualize a metal sign post that says bus stop and maybe a bench on the sidewalk. It's not really that much of a public asset and pretty much means if you wait here long enough a city bus will come pick you up. When a city bus isn't there it is a regular sidewalk curb where other people can be picked up or dropped off (like any other sidewalk).
My understanding of the protests wasn't about the use of the bus stops but the increase of rent within the neighborhoods due to IT workers looking for places to live. Google changing the mode of transportation won't stop that.
Again we are full circle back to "So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code."
You got your rights confused. BSD protects the user's right. GPL protects the developer's right.
A problem with your scary story is that the original BSD code remains available for use by anyone. The proprietary extensions would have to prove themselves worthwhile since we are talking about a standards based compiler, and the original BSD code is not affected by the extension. If the proprietary extension is worth the money then the people who find it valuable can pay for it without affecting the 99% of the people who would continue to use the freely available BSD code.
Another being that in reality GPL is not immune to something similar. Take GNAT for example. You can use the free GPL version of GNAT that is one version behind OR you could pay for the latest commercial version (they call it access to pre-releases now) of the code which includes some optimizations not available in the GPL version.
It's not trolling when you are trying to educate someone about their misperceptions.
So you rather pay $300 for a traditional PC with a wireless card than a small form factor and quiet $300 device?
The $299 is MSRP and will most definitely be discounted once it hit retailers. The market is too crowded for them to price it higher than a comparably featured device.
So you're not upset that the current codebase will remain available as BSD. You just want everyone to be forced to make available all of their extensions or software that may use some portion of the code.
I see nothing wrong with life saving procedures for the mother. Unfortunately you'll see planned parenthood calling a lot of lifestyle saving procedures as life saving.
The problem with your argument being that Apple sponsors the clang and llvm project. I'm sure they put in more money than you, and we still enjoy the use of the BSD code.
AT&T is almost back to its former monopolistic glory and feels confident enough to squeeze every dime out of all the content providers and customers. Congratulations AT&T for bringing back the old days.
Thank goodness I don't have them anymore. Oh wait, yes there are other carriers out there. I can see how this can backfire on AT&T. Instead of paying AT&T for the privilege of unlimited data to their customer. I see content providers encouraging their customers to choose a better carrier.
Crap... It was that stupid "The Day After Tomorrow" movie.
It looks like he was a buffoon. He voted no on everything including adjournment of the meetings. To top it off, it looks like the only reason he resigned was because he got bored and wanted to perform one last stunt. No one was forcing him to resign.
The icing on the cake being that the idiot still plans to attend the meetings.
I think the $99 per lens is the single focal length price.
He defecates in random directions.
I don't see this happening ever. There are positive health benefits associated with birth control. The same can not be said of abortions.
A lot of people (myself included) do not mind paying to prevent unwanted pregnancies but absolutely will refuse to pay to terminate one.
I did misunderstand.
I asked around and it looks like my state does not have an open land tradition. However managed property occasionally have an "open gate" tradition where they will advertise that hunting is available on their property during parts of the hunting season. The land is owned by forest organizations or paper mils and you usually have to get paperwork establishing risk and liability and pay a very small fee.
Otherwise property enclosed in a manner that is designed to exclude intruders (e.g. barbed wire or wire fence) anyone found on the premise is subject to criminal trespass in the second degree. My state does not indemnify land owners from liability from hunting activities which explains why most private property is fenced.
If you don't mind me interjecting here but you're wrong. Each year an average of 1000 hunting accidents occur in the US and Canada a year with about 100 of them being fatal. Compare that to 23 being the total number of lightning related death in the US for 2013. Evidently you are 4 times more likely to be killed by a hunter's bullet than a lighting strike.
I do agree that the fatalities don't warrant outlawing hunting. However they do warrant laws that restrict hunting in residential areas.
I live in the southeast. We do not have an open land tradition in my state. We are allowed to post no trespassing signs on our property. However the public is allowed to fish within navigable waters within the property. They must travel by water and not use the dry portions of the property. This is never a real issue because we are blessed with a large amount of publicly owned forests that allow seasonal hunting. I'm within an hour drive to 40,000 acres managed by forever wild.
I currently live in the city, but I do lease a lot within a hunting and fishing camp about an hour away near the forever wild management area. We've had problems with hunters following game into restricted private property areas and taking a shot. The restricted area is where the housing units are located. I've driven to the trailer on a couple occasions and found it damaged due to improper hunting.
There are other reasons for exclusive land use. My wife's family has 80 acres in Mississippi and restrict hunting to family members and their guests (too far to drive for me and I like fishing more than hunting). During the offseason they maintain the game stock and blinds so they really get upset with strangers taking advantage of their work. That seems like a good reason for them to exercise their right of exclusive access to their property.
I may eventually buy some land in the more rural areas of my county. Since I plan to reside on the property, I would exercise my property rights to forbid all hunting on the property. Knowing how much of a problem some hunters can be at both my lease lot and my wife's family lot, I would most definitely take advantage of any technology that allowed me to monitor my property without risk of confronting an armed stranger.
They are allowed to fish in navigable waters within private property, but the land owner is allowed to post no trespassing signs. So basically fishing is allowed if they can navigate via water without actually walking on property and hunting only allowed with land owner's permission.
I plan on purchasing land of my own, but currently lease property within a larger hunting/fishing community. The issue isn't exclusive access to property but rather hunters following game into restricted areas where housing units are nearby.
It doesn't explain why U.S. Customs saw a need to destroy the item. Usually it is handled by the USDA which can quarantine the items in question. Even if quarantine isn't an option, why did the U.S. Customs perform the duties of a USDA/PPQ officer?
Already reduced to straw man arguments?
This has little to do with ACA other than the employer is not able to stop offering health insurance all together. The real issue is the employer wants to be able to claim religious reasons when picking and choosing which of the required coverages they want to ignore.
How else would you earn it? I assume you don't perform sexual favors for your benefits, but that would be ironic considering the subject.
Working for a different employer is another option. Both are certainly options that my employer understands which is why they include employees in the selection process in the months prior to open enrollment. They also explain in detail the reasons behind their decisions and how much of the burden will be picked up by the employees. Prior to the ACA, health insurance was offered as an incentive to retain the employees in lieu of spending more money for higher salaries . Most employers don't just offer employee benefits solely out of the kindness of their hearts.
It's not an overly-developed sense of entitlement when your potential employer offers you a salary and a booklet detailing their employee benefits. I can see how you think that since ACA has muddied the water a bit. I don't agree with the idea of forcing employers into offering insurance, but that was what the republicans wanted instead of the single-payer system. In the end, I think keeping the insurance private was the correct route though not necessarily pain free. My idea of the government offering catastrophic medical insurance and let private insurance companies offer additional benefits with no preexisting medical exclusions wasn't even a thought on either side of the aisle. This would have allowed employers to optionally offer medical insurance as an incentive and wouldn't have forced individuals into purchasing insurance.
But back to the subject at hand, the government through its use of a medical panel made requirements for all insurance policies to cover certain procedures. The ones who are having an overly-developed sense of entitlement are the employers who are forcing their views about contraception upon their employees by specifically eliminating coverage which won't necessarily equate to any cost savings to them. This is strictly an ideological issue with them not a financial one. I guess they aren't into the whole "free will" movement and allowing their employees to follow their individual religious beliefs. Remember no one is pointing a gun at you and forcing you to purchase birth control.
Yes but the original requirement was to destroy the Earth. Management thought the abort function was too costly so it wasn't approved as a requirement.
Coca-Cola owns a lot of vending machines and their new computerized cola fountain is pretty cool too. I see this as a natural progression towards automatically sending in refill and service requests.
As long as I can still use a drone to monitor activity on my own property during hunting season. It would make it safer to look for trespassers and call the sheriff by eliminating the possibility of being "mistaken" for a deer and shot.
Not against hunting, just against hunters shooting on my property.
I find them hilarious. One year an activist trespassed on school property wearing a large fish costume and handing out flyers equating fishing to murder. It was a particularly hot day and eventually he succumbed to heat exhaustion and flopped around like a trout before the paramedics arrived. I wish I can find the link to the local news cast.
Now you tell me. Jeez, I'm going to have to figure out how to turn that big rock around.