It would remove the keystone that's propping up the entertainment industry.
It just won't happen. You can't simply make a court order that removes the legal copyrights from this group of people, simply because you cannot group these people into a nondiscriminatory class.
You might be able to invalidate the GPL clause by clause, but the bottom line is copyright, and if you want to mess with that you need an act of Congress, literally.
There is simply no way a single action can both invalidate the GPL *AND* revoke all the individual copyrights. And any action that you can conceive of that would do this, would not pass the test of being nondiscriminatory. I wonder how many big players would come out of the woodwork claiming damages if they even try this?
Finding that the GPL is invalid, would not be the same thing as the Constitutional amendment that would be required to revoke my and your copyrights to works that were licensed under it. And anything that DOES do that, could certainly be used against Microsoft in the event that their EULA was found to be invalid. Each and every person with a copyright interest in a GPL product would be entitled to a hearing on the question.
Your copyrights do not enter the public domain without a court order, or without your express consent, or without the required time passing after your death, which might turn out to be perpetual anyway. It doesn't make a whit of difference who you licensed your work to, under what terms, or whether those terms were valid or invalid.
>Section 5 and 7 clearly prohibit use of GPL- >licensed products
I thought so too, but as someone recently pointed out, section 0 makes it clear that the GPL is silent regarding restrictions on use, only on distribution.
And sections 5 and 7 are quite explicitly about distribution. You already have the right to use the software regardless of the GPL, and regardless of whether or not it is illegal or accepted. This is a basic matter of copyright law.
Strictly speaking, alcohol and tobacco are not "legal."
They are controlled substances.
The problem I see, is that they are not on the same controlled substances lists as the other drugs. Rather than putting so much effort on "legalizing" drugs, I think a better approach would be to insist that alcohol and tobacco be placed on schedules 1 and 2, respectively.
Then, the shit will hit the fan. Your average, reasonable conservative Joe will finally start to see the problem in the government's drug policy.
"For what it costs to imprison a single drug offender, we could be paying a teacher to teach 25-30 kids. Builds schools, not jails."
Well, teachers and schoolhouse builders didn't figure out a way to turn the whole dope thing into a big pork barrel for lawmakers, did they? Police and jailhouse builders did. If they're so smart, why the hell don't they find themselves in positions of power? EVER?
"Yet, if their child fell from the straight and narrow, would they want them imprisoned and have their lives ruined with a criminal record"
I think you would be shocked at how many people answer "yes" to that question.
The truth is, drug prohibition enjoys widespread support from the American people, significant voices of opposition notwithstanding. The counterculture folks like to omit that part. You might poll your peer group, and get an overwhelming impression that the "war on drugs" is an unmitigated disaster. Yet, on the whole, "we" tend to regard it as a success.
I think that trying to fight it is a mistake. A better approach would be to lobby to have Alcohol classified as a Schedule II controlled substance (it has medical uses) and Nicotine classified as Schedule I. It would probably be a lot easier to do that than to legalize marijuana or whatever. That's what it will take to get people to start to understand what a mistake the war on drugs is. Put alcohol on schedule 2, and the backlash against its prohibition will force the whole house of cards down.
If you don't accept the license, the you have rejected this clause, which is the only thing that gives you the right to use the software in the first place. But that seems vague and therefore open to interpretation (dammit Richard.)
>If the GPL is invalid... >then SCO is guilty of pirating the Linux kernel!!
Absolutely. It actually should be worse than that for SCO:
EVEN IF the GPL is NOT invalid, SCO has publicly rejected its terms.
So the validity of the GPL does not enter the discussion, period. SCO has no right to use the software unless it has negotiated some other license terms, period.
I'm surpised we aren't already hearing about TRO's being filed, C&D's being sent, and suits being filed on this. It's pretty simple: GPL software is licensed, not sold. Either you accept the terms of the license, or you do not. If you do not accept the terms of the license because you believe the license to be invalid or because its terms are not legal in your jurisdiction or because of other interests you may have, that's just too bad for you.
If your mortgage agreement has an illegal clause in it, you don't get your house for free.
If I don't agree with what's written on my parking ticket, it's not going to stop my car from being towed if I don't move it.
If I have legal problems that prevent me from agreeing with the GPL, I cannot use SAMBA on my network, period.
Yeah, it's not that bad once everyone understands which components are stateless and which are persistent and why. Then you just set everything up so the various flags and triggers are correct, and so there are no bypasses in the process.
Then US copyright law will need to be evaluated from first principles. The GPL is very straightforward, and is merely an application of copyright interests, making specific grants of distribution rights which are reserved to authors under copyright law.
If there is anything to find "invalid" about the GPL, it's going to be very, very difficult for such a finding to be narrowly tailored so that it only affects the GPL and does not affect every other agreement that has ever been made under copyright law, and it's also going to be a challenge for a court to make a finding that ONLY respects the GPL, because that would not pass the basic test of fairness and gets into 14th Amendment territory.
No judge is going to order the GPL "invalid" without stating the reasons. Any reasons given are guaranteed to affect other licenses. Without reasons given, it would obviously be a case of prejudice against the "GPL".
There might be specific problems with the GPL, but the overall implication of the agreement is solid and doesn't do much besides exercise an author's right under copyright law. I have never heard an argument against the GPL that does not abridge authors' rights under copyright law, and I doubt that such an argument can be made.
"That would mean that the big companies would have to pay every author of every line of open-source software they use. "
You seem to mistakenly assume that the authors would be somehow obliged to accept payment.
How about, they simply refuse?
I can see that being much more damaging than any amount of money they could charge.
If SCO has publicly rejected the GPL, to me that should already spell the end of them. They distributed, continue to distribute, and continue to use software for which they have openly rejected the license. Whatever SCO can do to you for using a pirated version of their software, you can now do to them for using GPL software, because whether the license is valid or not, without that license they have NOTHING.
"Don't the copyright holders of the linux source code who contributed their code to linux under GPL have the right to sue SCO[?]"
They have the right to sue NOW. SCO made public statements saying they reject the terms of the GPL, period. Any distribution or use of the software, if they do not accept the license terms and if they do not have some other agreement with the copyright holders, is plainly a violation of US copyright law.
This is the holy grail document already. So release the hounds.
If they've officially rejected the terms of the GPL, there are grounds for a firm cease and desist order against them using the products.
If you do not accept the terms of the license, and if you have not negotiated some other license with all copyright holders, you have NO RIGHT to use the software. NONE. No more right than I have to use an unlicensed version of SCO.
Use the DMCA force and issue a takedown order already.
"Elliptic curve" does not refer to the same thing as an ellipse graphed in the XY plane.
If you're serious, and you have parameters, you can plot an elliptic curve on xy or r-theta with something like y = sqrt(Ax^3 + Bx^2 + Cx + D).
But that just lets you visualize a given curve in R. The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper when you learn that the curve can be mapped to the complex plane any other algebraic closure. And it really gets interesting when you learn that it maps to a Riemann surface.
I almost understand what I've said so far, but my mechanics trail off sharply around "Complex plane". But if you can get the TI-83 to plot a Riemann surface, good for you.
Most geeks don't even seem to realize just how long Jack Valenti has been in the government.
He was a pretty high ranking official in the Kennedy administration, and has had a longer life and a more lucrative political career since then, than anyone else who was in the motorcade. Geeks know the name because of his position at the MPAA. The don't seem to realize he's been in the government since before Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush Senior took their first polisci course.
To describe the career of someone like Valenti, is very similar to the description of a dictator. He should have retired 20 years ago.
I don't really believe that he should have taken a bullet in the motorcade, but I have to wonder if the entertainment industry has suffered with his hands on the reins.
I can't muster much sympathy. If I can still go to the bathroom by myself when I'm his age, I'll have exceeded expectations. Pretty much any time you go after age 80, I gotta say qualifies as a "Timely" death... And yes, if you ask ME at age 80, I'll say the same thing, but I'll be slightly bitter about it.
I still routinely use a Toshiba 405CS, which has survived a great deal of abuse. A long time ago, I'm thinking maybe 1997, I hand installed a minimal linux system on it, together with windows 95/OSR2. I've upgraded that to a "98lite", but the linux stuff I have left alone, with the tweek here and there. I stopped messing with the kernel sometime in 2.2. I have a net card and a modem that work with it, if I wanted to I could run blackbox or fvwm, but generally it's a 80x60 console with screen, because all I ever want it to do is, vim, pine, ssh, and nethack. It still gets almost 5 hours on a battery. It used to get 6, but I guess LI batteries don't live that long.
This thing was already obsolete when it was manufactured, (a P-75), and when I got it I already had a nice Dell, as did everyone at my work. These were literally being thrown away, but I wanted it because I knew it would have a much longer battery life, and just because I can't stand to see something this useful going to waste. That Dell broke 3 different ways, more than 3 times, and I just left it on a shelf in the server room one day. Even today, I have a P4 Toshiba with a gig of ram and a big drive, I still find myself using this P75 once in a while.
If my Shuttle SN41G2 had an AGP slot and maybe a second PCI slot, I'd have replaced my 2 other machines with them already. I *love* my shuttle, it is an awesome machine for the computerized part of my music studio, working triple duty as a multitrack recorder, multitrack effects box, and synthesizer. It's quiet, it's extremely *compatabile* and it's extremely fast.
Unfortunately, no AGP slot means I can't have the video card I want for my other machines, so I hold off on upgrading.
Some of the more expensive newer shuttles have AGP slots, but they are past the price point that would get me to "just buy them."
I've been wondering when to expect the "digital back" for my Nikon F. I don't want to replace my lenses. Even if I HAD the ten grand it would take, I wouldn't want to trade the lenses I have. Some of these, I consider to be in the "find of a lifetime" category.
Yabbut, the point of being an activist is to MAKE IT KNOWN to the establishment that YOU are against them. You're DARING them to take some action against you. It sucks for you if they do anything to you, of course, but it's good for the cause when your followers avenge your corpse or try to free you from prison, etc.
The problem is, we're so cushy these days, there's hardly an issue worth killing or dying over.
This will not see the inside of the court house, for the simple reason that the plaintiff does not posess the one document needed to press the matter: They do not have any agreement signed by you.
Or do they? What does the sales reciept say? Is your hardware store going to provide this to the manufacturer under a subpoena, or are they going to risk their future in favor of defending your rights?
If you didn't sign anything, there's simply no case. Rather, it becomes a matter of "he said, she said", and that's not going to get anywhere in court. It might even be fun to let the trial go. But the judge won't even let you do voir dire for the jury on a "he said she said" basis of evidence.
If you DID sign any agreement like this, then YOU are the one doing damage to civil liberties, NOT the manufacturer. Shame on you for signing it.
If you didn't sign it, then use it for shitpaper in the outhouse you build with the biscuit pattern.
Not that any woodworker worthy of the appellation is gonna pay money for a goddamned biscuit pattern anyway. The cabinet guys I know do their dovetails freehand, and they do fine work.
IF the tool, etc., is covered by a patent, and you live in a jurisdiction where that patent has merit and is enforceable, then you're wrong.
Otherwise IF you signed a contract that states you waived your rights, then you're wrong.
This, however, is simply a company saying what they WISH.
Wishing doesn't make it so. If their patent is ever granted, then they might have a leg to stand on and will not really need this license.
On the other hand, this is not really a tool, it's a pattern. If clothing patterns can be copyrighted, so can woodworking patterns. But then the only thing the consumer needs to be aware of is their rights and responsibilities under copyright law, and that still doesn't stop them from making a dress from the pattern and selling it.
>what's wrong with an ordinary non-ink pencil? >I must be stupid....
In a low gravity situation, graphite dust is a problem. Wood pencils are no good because you sure as hell don't want shavings from sharpening them. Mechanical pencils would be okay, but you'd have to use something other than ordinary graphite. I use mechanical pencils, and I've been on a quest for years, for one that doesn't just snap the lead every time I write. I ended up with a Faber Castell 1.2mm pencil made of sapient pearwood. Hard to find the lead but it solves the problem for me. The only other mechanical pencils that I've found to be worth a damn are the Staedtler drafting pencils and the.9 version of the Pentel Twist-Erase.
But I don't work in an environment without gravity, or around machinery where a single particle of dust might turn me into cold space junk or a fireball.
Slashdot Mirror
>If the GPL code is made Public Domain
The same rules will Free The Mouse.
It would remove the keystone that's propping up the entertainment industry.
It just won't happen. You can't simply make a court order that removes the legal copyrights from this group of people, simply because you cannot group these people into a nondiscriminatory class.
You might be able to invalidate the GPL clause by clause, but the bottom line is copyright, and if you want to mess with that you need an act of Congress, literally.
There is simply no way a single action can both invalidate the GPL *AND* revoke all the individual copyrights. And any action that you can conceive of that would do this, would not pass the test of being nondiscriminatory. I wonder how many big players would come out of the woodwork claiming damages if they even try this?
Finding that the GPL is invalid, would not be the same thing as the Constitutional amendment that would be required to revoke my and your copyrights to works that were licensed under it. And anything that DOES do that, could certainly be used against Microsoft in the event that their EULA was found to be invalid. Each and every person with a copyright interest in a GPL product would be entitled to a hearing on the question.
Your copyrights do not enter the public domain without a court order, or without your express consent, or without the required time passing after your death, which might turn out to be perpetual anyway. It doesn't make a whit of difference who you licensed your work to, under what terms, or whether those terms were valid or invalid.
>Section 5 and 7 clearly prohibit use of GPL-
>licensed products
I thought so too, but as someone recently pointed out, section 0 makes it clear that the GPL is silent regarding restrictions on use, only on distribution.
And sections 5 and 7 are quite explicitly about distribution. You already have the right to use the software regardless of the GPL, and regardless of whether or not it is illegal or accepted. This is a basic matter of copyright law.
I understand French, Spanish, English, and, um, Canadian.
Strictly speaking, alcohol and tobacco are not "legal."
They are controlled substances.
The problem I see, is that they are not on the same controlled substances lists as the other drugs. Rather than putting so much effort on "legalizing" drugs, I think a better approach would be to insist that alcohol and tobacco be placed on schedules 1 and 2, respectively.
Then, the shit will hit the fan. Your average, reasonable conservative Joe will finally start to see the problem in the government's drug policy.
"For what it costs to imprison a single drug offender, we could be paying a teacher to teach 25-30 kids. Builds schools, not jails."
Well, teachers and schoolhouse builders didn't figure out a way to turn the whole dope thing into a big pork barrel for lawmakers, did they? Police and jailhouse builders did. If they're so smart, why the hell don't they find themselves in positions of power? EVER?
"Yet, if their child fell from the straight and narrow, would they want them imprisoned and have their lives ruined with a criminal record"
I think you would be shocked at how many people answer "yes" to that question.
The truth is, drug prohibition enjoys widespread support from the American people, significant voices of opposition notwithstanding. The counterculture folks like to omit that part. You might poll your peer group, and get an overwhelming impression that the "war on drugs" is an unmitigated disaster. Yet, on the whole, "we" tend to regard it as a success.
I think that trying to fight it is a mistake. A better approach would be to lobby to have Alcohol classified as a Schedule II controlled substance (it has medical uses) and Nicotine classified as Schedule I. It would probably be a lot easier to do that than to legalize marijuana or whatever. That's what it will take to get people to start to understand what a mistake the war on drugs is. Put alcohol on schedule 2, and the backlash against its prohibition will force the whole house of cards down.
>Outside of the USA radio is actually not bad.
I've heard bad radio in England, France, Mexico and Canada.
If you don't accept the license, the you have rejected this clause, which is the only thing that gives you the right to use the software in the first place. But that seems vague and therefore open to interpretation (dammit Richard.)
>If the GPL is invalid...
>then SCO is guilty of pirating the Linux kernel!!
Absolutely. It actually should be worse than that for SCO:
EVEN IF the GPL is NOT invalid, SCO has publicly rejected its terms.
So the validity of the GPL does not enter the discussion, period. SCO has no right to use the software unless it has negotiated some other license terms, period.
I'm surpised we aren't already hearing about TRO's being filed, C&D's being sent, and suits being filed on this. It's pretty simple: GPL software is licensed, not sold. Either you accept the terms of the license, or you do not. If you do not accept the terms of the license because you believe the license to be invalid or because its terms are not legal in your jurisdiction or because of other interests you may have, that's just too bad for you.
If your mortgage agreement has an illegal clause in it, you don't get your house for free.
If I don't agree with what's written on my parking ticket, it's not going to stop my car from being towed if I don't move it.
If I have legal problems that prevent me from agreeing with the GPL, I cannot use SAMBA on my network, period.
>"The horror, the horror"
Yeah, it's not that bad once everyone understands
which components are stateless and which are persistent and why. Then you just set everything up so the various flags and triggers are correct, and so there are no bypasses in the process.
> If the gpl gets declared invalid ...
Then US copyright law will need to be evaluated from first principles. The GPL is very straightforward, and is merely an application of copyright interests, making specific grants of distribution rights which are reserved to authors under copyright law.
If there is anything to find "invalid" about the GPL, it's going to be very, very difficult for such a finding to be narrowly tailored so that it only affects the GPL and does not affect every other agreement that has ever been made under copyright law, and it's also going to be a challenge for a court to make a finding that ONLY respects the GPL, because that would not pass the basic test of fairness and gets into 14th Amendment territory.
No judge is going to order the GPL "invalid" without stating the reasons. Any reasons given are guaranteed to affect other licenses. Without reasons given, it would obviously be a case of prejudice against the "GPL".
There might be specific problems with the GPL, but the overall implication of the agreement is solid and doesn't do much besides exercise an author's right under copyright law. I have never heard an argument against the GPL that does not abridge authors' rights under copyright law, and I doubt that such an argument can be made.
"That would mean that the big companies would have to pay every author of every line of open-source software they use. "
You seem to mistakenly assume that the authors
would be somehow obliged to accept payment.
How about, they simply refuse?
I can see that being much more damaging than any amount of money they could charge.
If SCO has publicly rejected the GPL, to me that should already spell the end of them. They distributed, continue to distribute, and continue to use software for which they have openly rejected the license. Whatever SCO can do to you for using a pirated version of their software, you can now do to them for using GPL software, because whether the license is valid or not, without that license they have NOTHING.
"Don't the copyright holders of the linux source code who contributed their code to linux under GPL have the right to sue SCO[?]"
They have the right to sue NOW. SCO made public statements saying they reject the terms of the GPL, period. Any distribution or use of the software, if they do not accept the license terms and if they do not have some other agreement with the copyright holders, is plainly a violation of US copyright law.
This is the holy grail document already. So release the hounds.
If they've officially rejected the terms of the GPL, there are grounds for a firm cease and desist order against them using the products.
If you do not accept the terms of the license, and if you have not negotiated some other license with all copyright holders, you have NO RIGHT to use the software. NONE. No more right than I have to use an unlicensed version of SCO.
Use the DMCA force and issue a takedown order already.
The GPL is not "Enforced", it's COPYRIGHT LAW that's "selectively enforced" by authors, publishers, distributors, and the US Government.
FSF isn't a law enforcement agency.
The pressure plates don't do anything, and neither do the pedestrian crossing buttons. They generate a placebo effect, that's all.
It's worse than that, even.
Consider the problem of automating around manual processes, not just "old mainframes."
"Elliptic curve" does not refer to the same thing as an ellipse graphed in the XY plane.
If you're serious, and you have parameters, you can plot an elliptic curve on xy or r-theta
with something like y = sqrt(Ax^3 + Bx^2 + Cx + D).
But that just lets you visualize a given curve in R. The rabbit hole goes a lot deeper when you learn that the curve can be mapped to the complex plane any other algebraic closure. And it really gets interesting when you learn that it maps to a Riemann surface.
I almost understand what I've said so far, but my mechanics trail off sharply around "Complex plane". But if you can get the TI-83 to plot a Riemann surface, good for you.
Most geeks don't even seem to realize just how long Jack Valenti has been in the government.
He was a pretty high ranking official in the Kennedy administration, and has had a longer life and a more lucrative political career since then, than anyone else who was in the motorcade. Geeks know the name because of his position at the MPAA. The don't seem to realize he's been in the government since before Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush Senior took their first polisci course.
To describe the career of someone like Valenti, is very similar to the description of a dictator. He should have retired 20 years ago.
I don't really believe that he should have taken a bullet in the motorcade, but I have to wonder if the entertainment industry has suffered with his hands on the reins.
I can't muster much sympathy. If I can still go to the bathroom by myself when I'm his age, I'll have exceeded expectations. Pretty much any time you go after age 80, I gotta say qualifies as a "Timely" death... And yes, if you ask ME at age 80, I'll say the same thing, but I'll be slightly bitter about it.
I still routinely use a Toshiba 405CS, which has survived a great deal of abuse. A long time ago, I'm thinking maybe 1997, I hand installed a minimal linux system on it, together with windows 95/OSR2. I've upgraded that to a "98lite", but the linux stuff I have left alone, with the tweek here and there. I stopped messing with the kernel sometime in 2.2. I have a net card and a modem that work with it, if I wanted to I could run blackbox or fvwm, but generally it's a 80x60 console with screen, because all I ever want it to do is, vim, pine, ssh, and nethack. It still gets almost 5 hours on a battery. It used to get 6, but I guess LI batteries don't live that long.
This thing was already obsolete when it was manufactured, (a P-75), and when I got it I already had a nice Dell, as did everyone at my work. These were literally being thrown away, but I wanted it because I knew it would have a much longer battery life, and just because I can't stand to see something this useful going to waste. That Dell broke 3 different ways, more than 3 times, and I just left it on a shelf in the server room one day. Even today, I have a P4 Toshiba with a gig of ram and a big drive, I still find myself using this P75 once in a while.
If my Shuttle SN41G2 had an AGP slot and maybe a second PCI slot, I'd have replaced my 2 other machines with them already. I *love* my shuttle, it is an awesome machine for the computerized part of my music studio, working triple duty as a multitrack recorder, multitrack effects box, and synthesizer. It's quiet, it's extremely *compatabile* and it's extremely fast.
Unfortunately, no AGP slot means I can't have the video card I want for my other machines, so I hold off on upgrading.
Some of the more expensive newer shuttles have AGP slots, but they are past the price point that would get me to "just buy them."
I've been wondering when to expect the "digital back" for my Nikon F. I don't want to replace my lenses. Even if I HAD the ten grand it would take, I wouldn't want to trade the lenses I have. Some of these, I consider to be in the "find of a lifetime" category.
Yabbut, the point of being an activist is to MAKE IT KNOWN to the establishment that YOU are against them. You're DARING them to take some action against you. It sucks for you if they do anything to you, of course, but it's good for the cause when your followers avenge your corpse or try to free you from prison, etc.
The problem is, we're so cushy these days, there's hardly an issue worth killing or dying over.
This will not see the inside of the court house, for the simple reason that the plaintiff does not posess the one document needed to press the matter: They do not have any agreement signed by you.
Or do they? What does the sales reciept say? Is your hardware store going to provide this to the manufacturer under a subpoena, or are they going to risk their future in favor of defending your rights?
If you didn't sign anything, there's simply no case. Rather, it becomes a matter of "he said, she said", and that's not going to get anywhere in court. It might even be fun to let the trial go. But the judge won't even let you do voir dire for the jury on a "he said she said" basis of evidence.
If you DID sign any agreement like this, then YOU are the one doing damage to civil liberties, NOT the manufacturer. Shame on you for signing it.
If you didn't sign it, then use it for shitpaper in the outhouse you build with the biscuit pattern.
Not that any woodworker worthy of the appellation is gonna pay money for a goddamned biscuit pattern anyway. The cabinet guys I know do their dovetails freehand, and they do fine work.
IF the tool, etc., is covered by a patent, and you live in a jurisdiction where that patent has merit and is enforceable, then you're wrong.
Otherwise IF you signed a contract that states you waived your rights, then you're wrong.
This, however, is simply a company saying what they WISH.
Wishing doesn't make it so. If their patent is ever granted, then they might have a leg to stand on and will not really need this license.
On the other hand, this is not really a tool, it's a pattern. If clothing patterns can be copyrighted, so can woodworking patterns. But then the only thing the consumer needs to be aware of is their rights and responsibilities under copyright law, and that still doesn't stop them from making a dress from the pattern and selling it.
>what's wrong with an ordinary non-ink pencil?
.9 version of the Pentel Twist-Erase.
>I must be stupid....
In a low gravity situation, graphite dust is a problem. Wood pencils are no good because you sure as hell don't want shavings from sharpening them. Mechanical pencils would be okay, but you'd have to use something other than ordinary graphite. I use mechanical pencils, and I've been on a quest for years, for one that doesn't just snap the lead every time I write. I ended up with a Faber Castell 1.2mm pencil made of sapient pearwood. Hard to find the lead but it solves the problem for me. The only other mechanical pencils that I've found to be worth a damn are the Staedtler drafting pencils and the
But I don't work in an environment without gravity, or around machinery where a single particle of dust might turn me into cold space junk or a fireball.