It's like you shoot your friend in the back tonight, and (s)he dies in 2010. It's not that your friend no longer died after you fired the gun, but rather the 2-3 year wait kinda cancels the 'smoking gun' effect.
Actually, depending on where the person was shot in the back, the bullet could indeed kill them a number of years later.
Likewise, it's not impossible that, even if she's right about the time difference (which is debatable as others have pointed out), the meteor strike could have set off a series of events that led to the demise of the dinosuars.
I prefer the following quote by Thomas Jefferson - "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Also "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither." which is attributed to either Jefferson or Franklin, depending on where you find it.
Both are very very applicable to the current state of affairs.
Read the discussion board for the local paper where I am. They're already making claims about that bad here. There are a lot of *really* vocal neo-cons here (in an economically depressed area where it makes very little sense to be that way).
Of course, they are the same people who have made claims that no person is worth $20/hour and that companies don't care if a town has nice schools and libraries, etc.
I am often amazed that I don't have a dent in my desk from where my forehead slams into it...
From what I've read lately (I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the articles. I believe it was in a dead tree publication that I get), Microsoft is trying a new approach for the next OS. They're making it more module based, starting with a core set of functionality and then adding on the appropriate modules for the various editions.
It's a good idea that's been used by a number of operating systems in the past and it's about time that they got around to trying it. I hope it succeeds. It should cut out some of the bloat and possibly make backwards compatibility even easier.
Funny how unemployment isn't skyrocketing when everyone is being automated out of work.
You need to check your assumptions, because they don't reflect reality.
Actually, his assumptions do, largely, fit reality.
The unemployment figures, on the other hand, are calculated in such a way that they *don't* reflect reality because if they did, people would realize the state they're actually in.
And they wonder why IT people are so often cynical.
Granted, some of them just put on a show because they think that's the way IT people are supposed to be, but a fair number of us have been through the ringer at least once.
After that, you really do learn to get everything in writing, signed (preferably in blood with witnesses), in triplicate with the additional copies stored in secure locations.
Stallman doesn't do "open source"; he does "free software"
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I am well aware of the difference. In fact, I tend to avoid the "Free" software people because of the zealotry.
It was meant to be as ideologically driven, crazy, etc.
Which is why it wasn't used nearly as much until the practical, reasonable people showed that it didn't have to be a moral crusade. The man is hurting his own bloody cause as I've said countless times before.
It's his "ethics" (particularly his trying to force them on others and the rabid manner in which he does so instead of just saying "here's a license. use it or don't") that is really turning people off to the whole thing.
He's an unreasonable zealot, and people are finally starting to see that. I've seen it for quite a long time, but not everyone has. I think that, for a lot of people, the moment of realization was GPLv3. I also have to say that I really do think he's getting worse as time goes on. I'm honestly expecting to see the guy get diagnosed with dementia, and I find that thought rather sad.
It ticks him off to no end that people have taken what he wanted to be an idealogical tool (basically a religion, really) and used it as a practical one instead of for "moral" reasons. People looked at the GPLv2, went "this is a decent tool, but it's not a religion" and used it.
The truth is that, by and large, the business and software worlds don't want to follow zealots (at least not ones that are painfully obvious) and they aren't on a moral crusade (nor should they be. Affect positive change? Sure, everyone should at least try. Moral crusade? Um, no).
If it wasn't for the practical people out there, nobody would really even care about the GPL for the most part (to be honest, most people wouldn't even know about it). To be perfectly honest, Linus did more to help spread it than Stallman *ever* did (which also has to gall the living daylights out of him).
I don't know why you think v2 wasn't part of some moral crusade; it was
I never said that I didn't think it was part of some moral crusade. It simply wasn't as rabid as what he wants the current (v3) and likely future licenses to be.
v3 is a less than popular license for a few reasons. Among them are the facts that Linux uses v2 exclusively and what seems to be a realization on the part of a lot of people just how rabid Stallman has become (not that he wasn't off before, but he's getting worse as time goes by. It's really kind of frightening to watch).
This is coming from someone who is actually an advocate of open source and has been a voice for it. Articles I've written have helped quite a few businesses to try their hand at using and even releasing open source software. Heck, I even release the stuff I make for my own use as open source most of the time because I figure that if I find it useful, someone else might too.
I'll admit it openly and publicly. I don't like Stallman and I don't agree with his ideology or how he tries to force it on others (being so petty as not to talk to LUGs unless they call themselves "GNU/Linux" groups comes to mind).
Does that mean that I don't see value in some of the things he has done? Certainly not. However, I don't think this blind following of him by so many zealots is a positive thing.
The fact that he's done positive things doesn't mean that he isn't hurting his own cause by the way he does things. The entire world of software isn't going to be "Free" and it *shouldn't* be for the simple fact that people need to eat and not every piece of commercial software is viable as an open source project.
Software and licenses are tools, to be used when they make sense and set aside when they don't make sense, not religions as Stallman and so many of his followers would have you treat them.
If you "loathe Stallman's crusade", better steer clear of GPL v2 as well.
Yet another person who doesn't understand using a tool on occasion because it is the right tool for a job and using a tool because someone tells you that everything should be freeeeeee.
I refuse to use v3 because it's really starting to show his moral crusade as far as that goes. The man's been wrong-headed for a long long time. That doesn't mean that he doesn't occasionally do something useful. In addition, he tries very very hard to force his views on others (partially in order to remain "relevant" - "GNU/Linux" comes to mind).
I use GPLv2 for my open stuff because it lets those things be open and lets me maintain some control over them (sure, you can fork things, but the original is mine). I don't do it because I think everything should be "Free" or because I like Stallman. I use it because it's occasionally useful.
BIG difference
Also, regarding the GP poster, it is a valid point that it would be nice if Sun's open source releases were GPL, just so they would be compatible with each other and with the bulk of open source code - I don't think it is just "bitching" to request that code donations be done in as useful a form as possible, as long as the request is polite.
He slammed Sun for not releasing *everything* they do under the GPL. That is bitching and fanboyism and was done in anything but a polite manner.
a (non-annoying!) smart tag that offers to do refactoring if you rename some variable or function.
I have come to love that feature. The first time I saw it, I was amazed and happy.
You want to auto refactor my code based on a change I made? Why yes please.
I also have to agree that Eclipse is a bit resource hungry (I actually liked it and used it for a few years). One of the other things that got me is how long it takes their version of intellisense to actually pop up while I was working (by the time it appeared, I had already finished typing). On the same machine, VS2005 does it basically instantly.
As nice as Sun makes it sound, they really aren't fully committed to the GPL. They only seem to use the GPL when it suits them
A company using a license only when it makes sense to do so? How terrible!
If Sun was truly committed to free software, they would use the GPL on everything because in a true free software space it doesn't matter if your customers mix-and-match the pieces
Let's get real here, folks. Making some of your software available as open source does not mean that you should have to make *everything* you create open source. I certainly don't. Some things are open source (all of the ones on my site at the moment are GPLv2 because I loathe the moral crusade the fanatic otherwise known as RMS is trying to get the world to join in with v3); some things are commercial.
I get so sick and tired of the GPL fanboys who think that everything else is evil. The people who own the code get to decide what they want to do with it, not you. Deal with it.
If they want to give it away, be happy that you got something new to use or play with. If they want to sell it, either buy it or don't, but for the love of everything decent, stop bitching about the fact that not everything is released under your favorite license.
I've known a lot of developers that have stopped writing open source software because they got sick and tired of dealing with the fact that no matter what they released, people bitched at them because it wasn't "free enough" or because not *ALL* of their software was open source.
The whole of the world doesn't want to be Stallman followers and, to be honest, I view that as a very very good thing because the man is off his rocker.
With regard to the entry you linked to - ever notice how almost no candidate actually acts on the platform that they speak so much about during an election?
Now, with that in mind, why do you actually buy into what a candidate says their platform is? Looking at their past actions is much *much* more indicative of their actions if they actually get the office they are running for,
Technology breeds criminals implies that technology needs to be slowed or stopped. No it doesn't. If that's what you infer, you're jumping to conclusions.
Actually, you're the one who is wrong. To breed means to create. Saying that technology breeds criminals means that it creates them where they wouldn't otherwise be, and that implies that technology is to blame. Therefore, if it is the cause of creating criminals, it must somehow be held in check.
It's a pretty clear implication.
By contrast, saying that criminals use technology means simply that. It acknowledges that criminals will be there whether or not they have new gadgets to use, but will use the technology that they have available.
I may be wrong, but I think that Radiohead went truly indie, much like Nine Inch Nails has again (now that they goaded the record company into cutting them loose)
Frighteningly enough, I actually used to have a file with my records, copies of my x-rays, etc in it because it was easier than having them look everything up or call various specialists because of a few past injuries.
It got to the point where I just ended up memorizing most of it and a fair chunk of my family med history. Freaked the heck out of one doc the first time I saw her and she asked me if I had any family histories of certain things and various questions about past medical history.
She just looked at me for a minute and said she'd never actually had someone who could answer those questions before.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like you shoot your friend in the back tonight, and (s)he dies in 2010. It's not that your friend no longer died after you fired the gun, but rather the 2-3 year wait kinda cancels the 'smoking gun' effect.
Actually, depending on where the person was shot in the back, the bullet could indeed kill them a number of years later.
Likewise, it's not impossible that, even if she's right about the time difference (which is debatable as others have pointed out), the meteor strike could have set off a series of events that led to the demise of the dinosuars.
"By the people, for the people"?
I prefer the following quote by Thomas Jefferson - "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
Also "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither." which is attributed to either Jefferson or Franklin, depending on where you find it.
Both are very very applicable to the current state of affairs.
Read the discussion board for the local paper where I am. They're already making claims about that bad here. There are a lot of *really* vocal neo-cons here (in an economically depressed area where it makes very little sense to be that way).
Of course, they are the same people who have made claims that no person is worth $20/hour and that companies don't care if a town has nice schools and libraries, etc.
I am often amazed that I don't have a dent in my desk from where my forehead slams into it...
From what I've read lately (I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the articles. I believe it was in a dead tree publication that I get), Microsoft is trying a new approach for the next OS. They're making it more module based, starting with a core set of functionality and then adding on the appropriate modules for the various editions.
It's a good idea that's been used by a number of operating systems in the past and it's about time that they got around to trying it. I hope it succeeds. It should cut out some of the bloat and possibly make backwards compatibility even easier.
Funny how unemployment isn't skyrocketing when everyone is being automated out of work.
You need to check your assumptions, because they don't reflect reality.
Actually, his assumptions do, largely, fit reality.
The unemployment figures, on the other hand, are calculated in such a way that they *don't* reflect reality because if they did, people would realize the state they're actually in.
And they wonder why IT people are so often cynical.
Granted, some of them just put on a show because they think that's the way IT people are supposed to be, but a fair number of us have been through the ringer at least once.
After that, you really do learn to get everything in writing, signed (preferably in blood with witnesses), in triplicate with the additional copies stored in secure locations.
Stallman doesn't do "open source"; he does "free software"
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I am well aware of the difference. In fact, I tend to avoid the "Free" software people because of the zealotry.
It was meant to be as ideologically driven, crazy, etc.
Which is why it wasn't used nearly as much until the practical, reasonable people showed that it didn't have to be a moral crusade. The man is hurting his own bloody cause as I've said countless times before.
It's his "ethics" (particularly his trying to force them on others and the rabid manner in which he does so instead of just saying "here's a license. use it or don't") that is really turning people off to the whole thing.
He's an unreasonable zealot, and people are finally starting to see that. I've seen it for quite a long time, but not everyone has. I think that, for a lot of people, the moment of realization was GPLv3. I also have to say that I really do think he's getting worse as time goes on. I'm honestly expecting to see the guy get diagnosed with dementia, and I find that thought rather sad.
It ticks him off to no end that people have taken what he wanted to be an idealogical tool (basically a religion, really) and used it as a practical one instead of for "moral" reasons. People looked at the GPLv2, went "this is a decent tool, but it's not a religion" and used it.
The truth is that, by and large, the business and software worlds don't want to follow zealots (at least not ones that are painfully obvious) and they aren't on a moral crusade (nor should they be. Affect positive change? Sure, everyone should at least try. Moral crusade? Um, no).
If it wasn't for the practical people out there, nobody would really even care about the GPL for the most part (to be honest, most people wouldn't even know about it). To be perfectly honest, Linus did more to help spread it than Stallman *ever* did (which also has to gall the living daylights out of him).
I don't know why you think v2 wasn't part of some moral crusade; it was
I never said that I didn't think it was part of some moral crusade. It simply wasn't as rabid as what he wants the current (v3) and likely future licenses to be.
v3 is a less than popular license for a few reasons. Among them are the facts that Linux uses v2 exclusively and what seems to be a realization on the part of a lot of people just how rabid Stallman has become (not that he wasn't off before, but he's getting worse as time goes by. It's really kind of frightening to watch).
This is coming from someone who is actually an advocate of open source and has been a voice for it. Articles I've written have helped quite a few businesses to try their hand at using and even releasing open source software. Heck, I even release the stuff I make for my own use as open source most of the time because I figure that if I find it useful, someone else might too.
I'll admit it openly and publicly. I don't like Stallman and I don't agree with his ideology or how he tries to force it on others (being so petty as not to talk to LUGs unless they call themselves "GNU/Linux" groups comes to mind).
Does that mean that I don't see value in some of the things he has done? Certainly not. However, I don't think this blind following of him by so many zealots is a positive thing.
The fact that he's done positive things doesn't mean that he isn't hurting his own cause by the way he does things. The entire world of software isn't going to be "Free" and it *shouldn't* be for the simple fact that people need to eat and not every piece of commercial software is viable as an open source project.
Software and licenses are tools, to be used when they make sense and set aside when they don't make sense, not religions as Stallman and so many of his followers would have you treat them.
What are low-income families doing with cable anyway?
Some apartments come with cable in much the same way that some include certain utilities.
If you "loathe Stallman's crusade", better steer clear of GPL v2 as well.
Yet another person who doesn't understand using a tool on occasion because it is the right tool for a job and using a tool because someone tells you that everything should be freeeeeee.
I refuse to use v3 because it's really starting to show his moral crusade as far as that goes. The man's been wrong-headed for a long long time. That doesn't mean that he doesn't occasionally do something useful. In addition, he tries very very hard to force his views on others (partially in order to remain "relevant" - "GNU/Linux" comes to mind).
I use GPLv2 for my open stuff because it lets those things be open and lets me maintain some control over them (sure, you can fork things, but the original is mine). I don't do it because I think everything should be "Free" or because I like Stallman. I use it because it's occasionally useful.
BIG difference
Also, regarding the GP poster, it is a valid point that it would be nice if Sun's open source releases were GPL, just so they would be compatible with each other and with the bulk of open source code - I don't think it is just "bitching" to request that code donations be done in as useful a form as possible, as long as the request is polite.
He slammed Sun for not releasing *everything* they do under the GPL. That is bitching and fanboyism and was done in anything but a polite manner.
You fucking idiot. Standing by your virtues is not fanboyism, it's integrity.
Trying to force your "virtues" on other people is not a sign of integrity. It's a sign of fanaticism.
a (non-annoying!) smart tag that offers to do refactoring if you rename some variable or function.
I have come to love that feature. The first time I saw it, I was amazed and happy.
You want to auto refactor my code based on a change I made? Why yes please.
I also have to agree that Eclipse is a bit resource hungry (I actually liked it and used it for a few years). One of the other things that got me is how long it takes their version of intellisense to actually pop up while I was working (by the time it appeared, I had already finished typing). On the same machine, VS2005 does it basically instantly.
There's a big difference between proponents and fanboys.
For example - I am a proponent of open source, but I am not a fanboy.
Proponents see that sometimes a tool is right for the job and that sometimes it isn't.
Fanboys think that anything that isn't their license is wrong and that everything should be freeeeeeeeeeee no matter what the people who made it want.
i bet most of the software on YOUR site is GPLv2 OR later.
Nope. The software I release under the GPL is released under version 2, not version 2 or later.
Thank you for playing. Please try again.
As nice as Sun makes it sound, they really aren't fully committed to the GPL. They only seem to use the GPL when it suits them
A company using a license only when it makes sense to do so? How terrible!
If Sun was truly committed to free software, they would use the GPL on everything because in a true free software space it doesn't matter if your customers mix-and-match the pieces
Let's get real here, folks. Making some of your software available as open source does not mean that you should have to make *everything* you create open source. I certainly don't. Some things are open source (all of the ones on my site at the moment are GPLv2 because I loathe the moral crusade the fanatic otherwise known as RMS is trying to get the world to join in with v3); some things are commercial.
I get so sick and tired of the GPL fanboys who think that everything else is evil. The people who own the code get to decide what they want to do with it, not you. Deal with it.
If they want to give it away, be happy that you got something new to use or play with. If they want to sell it, either buy it or don't, but for the love of everything decent, stop bitching about the fact that not everything is released under your favorite license.
I've known a lot of developers that have stopped writing open source software because they got sick and tired of dealing with the fact that no matter what they released, people bitched at them because it wasn't "free enough" or because not *ALL* of their software was open source.
The whole of the world doesn't want to be Stallman followers and, to be honest, I view that as a very very good thing because the man is off his rocker.
Cleveland and Columbus are geographically close.
You don't say (says the guy not far from Columbus).
Cleveland will always be choke central for all pro sports. Even the Buckeyes choked in the National Championship game last year.
And the Buckeyes have what to do with Cleveland?
With regard to the entry you linked to - ever notice how almost no candidate actually acts on the platform that they speak so much about during an election?
Now, with that in mind, why do you actually buy into what a candidate says their platform is? Looking at their past actions is much *much* more indicative of their actions if they actually get the office they are running for,
Technology breeds criminals implies that technology needs to be slowed or stopped.
No it doesn't. If that's what you infer, you're jumping to conclusions.
Actually, you're the one who is wrong. To breed means to create. Saying that technology breeds criminals means that it creates them where they wouldn't otherwise be, and that implies that technology is to blame. Therefore, if it is the cause of creating criminals, it must somehow be held in check.
It's a pretty clear implication.
By contrast, saying that criminals use technology means simply that. It acknowledges that criminals will be there whether or not they have new gadgets to use, but will use the technology that they have available.
I may be wrong, but I think that Radiohead went truly indie, much like Nine Inch Nails has again (now that they goaded the record company into cutting them loose)
Frighteningly enough, I actually used to have a file with my records, copies of my x-rays, etc in it because it was easier than having them look everything up or call various specialists because of a few past injuries.
It got to the point where I just ended up memorizing most of it and a fair chunk of my family med history. Freaked the heck out of one doc the first time I saw her and she asked me if I had any family histories of certain things and various questions about past medical history.
She just looked at me for a minute and said she'd never actually had someone who could answer those questions before.
I don't know about vista, but the answer in XP is "no".
It just stops the copy, move or delete after telling you that it couldn't do that.
That only works if you try to quit. After all, I'm sure that AOL had no problem dropping "problem" customers at a moment's notice either...
Actually, if you look at just the cities and not the muti-city metroplexes, it is indeed in the top 25 in terms of populations.
It is #19 in terms of city proper population.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/most_pop_cities_usa.htm
Any worse than *** *******?
Don't say its name. It might show up....