It's a shame no one uses a BSD-style license that's time-limited. That way, companies could do their proprietary thing, make their money, and only release their source after they've already milked their products for what they're worth.
The Zesiger License is the only license I know about that seems to achieve the goals of both the GPL and BSD licenses.
I'm not a historian so don't get your panties in a knot if I don't act like one - But, I don't think I have to be so highly educated to realize that it's irrelevant who was targeted in a specific inquisition. Killing is killing, regardless of whether it's illiterate peasants, or elite boat-rocking scientists. The Catholic church is no less evil, either way. It's hard to be courteous and respectful to people who tolerate and support the organizations responsible for such unimaginable violence.
The self-righteousness and complete disregard for facts from many atheists is funny.
At least when the atheists do it, it doesn't result in death and torture on an epic scale. In any case, what RELEVANT facts have been completely disregarded? Are atheists the "Bad Guys"? What atheist organizations kill for their beliefs? What do atheists even have to do with any of this?
What's really interesting for mormons is, what if we are alone?
For catholics, their early mistakes, and subsequent corrections, basically condemn their religion as a farce, across the board. Most of them don't realize that the last Inquisition didn't end until 1834. Yes, THAT Inquisition, where random people, as well as scientists, were burned at the stake, tortured, etc for supposedly threatening the power of the Church.
All lies have flaws that eventually expose them as the lies they really are, but few religions are as much a beacon of fraud, greed, and evil as the history of the Catholic church. Anyone sensible ought to be able to see that - Though I know many won't, for whatever reasons. I hate to use the word "obvious", because a lot of people just don't get things sometimes, regardless of how smart or sensible they seem. Not sure why.
One thing I am sure of though, is that religious people are are easy to categorize as the kinds who might behave unpredictably based on "beliefs" or "faith" or whatever. Practically speaking, it's worked for weeding out odd would-be roommates. A lot of my friends are religious, and in this world, you'd be mighty lonely if you ostracized the religous ones...but, as far as my roommates are concerned, the religious ones might be great, and you'll get along just fine for a whole year, and then one day I might find my roommate eating my food, or not flushing the toilet because God supposedly told him to.
The hebrew people who wrote the old testament were backwards hillbillies, even for their time. Most people don't realize this, but compared to the other civilizations, it's true. While some civilizations were building pyramids and grand cities, the hebrews were still living in the middle of nowhere, stoning women who had been raped because they were "unclean".
Their writings are practically worshipped by religious people, and for no one good reason. It's not necessarily the oldest, biggest, most interesting, or best set of writing available from that time period. It's just religious, and that's all that's interesting about it. I'm not a religious scholar, so maybe there's something unique and special about the old testament/talmud/etc that I don't know about, but so far, no one who says it's the word of god has been able to say anything about it other than it's supposedly the word of god.
when people maliciously compromise machines, the machines are just doing as they're told. That doesn't make it legal.
The key here is that these new forms of "popups" are specifically designed for the sole purpose of getting around popup blockers, meaning, the designers know that they're doing something to someone that the person is trying to defend themselves against.
Now, if a website owner blocked access to the website for people using popup blockers, that would make more sense. Otherwise, the situation seems a lot like the websites that install viruses through IE exploits.
if web users are actively blocking popups, but advertisers are deceptively forcing them upon users, could that be construed as some sort of harrassment, in a legal sense? Maybe it could be considered some kind of computer crime, much like attempting to access a machine that is obviously not intended for you to access?
Well paid and with decent benefits? Not in my experience. $10 per hour, no benefits, and basically having to work as a throwaway "temp" of sorts. This is American manufacturing, as I have personally seen it from 2000 to the present day. The only bright side is it's easier to sue somebody for not keeping the temperature just right, or whatever other ridiculous things that people are doing to make a living...
Luckily, Carmack isn't a single mother. He's properly married, and she can fill in for him for a while. If he locked himself in a hotel room for a month to finish some pressing work, I don't think his children would be scarred for life.
I will be curious to see how well he juggles the new addition to his family, and his work. Hmm, baby juggling...
Being the traditionalist hillbilly that I am, I feel compelled to correct what seems (to me) to be a horrendous and vile mistake: John Carmack's child was born to his *WIFE*, not his girlfriend.
Secondly... most really creative, innovative, and grand things are done by folks who don't have kids- not something that's talked about a lot, but this is a *general* fact certainly supported by history.
I'm highly skeptical of this actually being some kind of rule. The only people I can think of who were real technological movers and shakers who didn't have kids were "mad-scientists"...And even some of those people seem to have at least had illegitimate children, even if they were never formally married. In any case, I'd suspect the fruitcakes would have a harder time with procreation than the normal folk, and on top of that, oftentimes the people who think of things that no one else would have thought of, are the very same people who are ALWAYS thinking abnormal things.
Now, perhaps you actually meant to imply that having children diverts one's attention away from one's work, and thus hinders success...I see no reason why this necessarily should be, though I'll agree with you that once a family is involved, most people wisely choose not to take the kind of risks that might be necessary to achieve technological breakthroughs.
That sort of behavior seems to only be necessary for males, who tend to refrain from, or are refused for, marriage until they've achieved a level of success that will assure his mate that he can provide for her. Once again, this is also not how things necessarily must go. As far as women are concerned, I tend to be old fashioned about where the attention of a woman with young children belongs...but, the fact of the matter is that plenty of women have raised large families and STILL managed to do amazing things. I could easily argue that women are not at all hindered by having children, as long as they are part of healthy, supportive family.
This seems like a good place to point out that married people, on average, live longer, and live wealthier than unmarried people...yes, even with children. Another interesting tidbit is that married college students find it easier to perform well in their studies since, effectively, the half of their lives that don't directly involve school can be attended to by the student's spouse - Paying rent, doing the laundry, mowing the lawn, etc.
The USA and Europe are amazingly anti-family, I'm shocked people say things like what you've just said. I must tell you that I'm heavily pro-family, and even though I'm not religious at all, I am thoroughly disgusted by what has become common practice in the USA and Europe. What really angers me is that the notion that marriage is bad is actually taught in schools in the form of "If you get married before you've finished college and succeeded in your career, your life will be ruined". It's total crap, and besides that, government educators have no business manipulating human relationships.
I know everybody's different, and some people don't think at all like I do on this topic...but if any of those types are reading this, tell me which is better: A society full of married couples who've started families at the expense of big houses and graduate degrees, or a society full of multiple divorcees, unmarried teenage mothers, and sexually transmitted diseases?
Honestly, I think somehow blaming problems on families is really the wrong way to look at it. If families are a hindrance to the system, perhaps it's the system that needs to go...not the other way around.
Prison is about taking away some freedoms of a person convicted of a crime.
All it takes for someone to lose their freedom in the "Land of the Free" is being laid off at precisely the same time that a parking ticket comes due - Pay the government before you feed your family, or else there will be no family.
Anyone remember why the citizens of the United States were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms by the revolutionaries that founded our country? The first revolution was started over taxes on tea...will the next revolution be more like the one started at the Bastille?
With large portions of our population imprisoned either wrongly or for silly reasons (like parking tickets), we have an unhappy powder-keg on our hands, and the population continues to ignorantly re-elect animals like this Arizona Sheriff. Criminals they may be, but do you really want them to be angry, humiliated, and desperate criminals?
Most people don't care, they just want "justice". Someone once arrogantly said "Let them eat cake", and that person ended up in two pieces at the hands of criminals with a burning desire for blood. What will happen to this Sheriff if a lot of angry people catch him alone? Will his voters save him? I doubt it. They'll probably just watch it happen on TV. Would we have had Adolf Hitler if the Allies had been more empathetic with post WWI Germany? Maybe...then again, if Germany hadn't been so angry and humiliated, they might have just continued to make the world's best children's toys, just like before. Instead, they killed millions.
What can 1 out of 75 American men do? What can one 1 of 12 black American men do? What can 50 million ex-cons do? Do you really want to make that many people desperate and angry? Do you really want to publically humilate them? Do you really want to keep them unemployed and homeless? Do you really want the ruthless Sheriff of Nottingham doling out "punishment" to the mob that may kill you one day?
The French Aristocracy had an army of Swiss mercenaries armed with state-of-the-art muskets. The prisoners killed them all with sticks and shovels. Can a haggard bunch of desperate criminals wreak havoc on the smooth operation of the USA? A dozen or so foreigners managed to cripple the US economy on September 11th, 2001. What can 50 million of our own home-made suicidal killers do? These are valid questions...ones that are probably going to be answered in the most unfortunate way possible. Maybe our new criminal leaders will be wiser than our democratically elected ones.
I just did a google search for "technetium seti sun" and I saw a figure on the order of 10^5 tons of technetium to get ET's attention. That's a lot, but it could be done, especially if we make a habit of dumping nuclear waste into the sun. If we just dumped all of our nuclear waste into the sun, it wouldn't be as ideal as dumping pure technetium, but it would be obvious to anyone looking at our star that someone is dumping nuclear waste into it. I'm sure we could come up with quite a lot of it too, especially after we start using nuclear reactors in space. It's kind of ridiculous to try to lift that much off of the earth, but space based reactors could easily dump their waste into the sun. There's no need to dump into the sun, but if we really wanted to attract attention to ourselves, that would be an easy way to do it.
The best idea I've seen for getting the attention of ET's is to dump a few tons of elements into the sun that do not occur naturally, such as technetium. Basically, it's nuclear waste, and when an alien astronomer looks at our star, they'd see spectral lines of elements that could only be produced in a nuclear reactor...A sure sign of intelligent civilization.
Sodium just kinda fizzles in water, lithium might explode though. In any case, it'd have to be a short range round because that'd be a super-lightweight bullet that would slow rapidly upon leaving the muzzle.
thanks for your pearls of wisdom. I've bookmarked it, and I'm going to refer to it often. My resume already looks exactly like what you've described, except it's mostly manufacturing and business rather than IT. I've been bearing loads way beyond my ability, so staying "ahead of the curve" has not been an option for me. I've been living lean, working hard, I don't drink, don't smoke, and don't party, so I'm always either working, or planning my next move. Granted, not much room for fun yet, but after reading your little piece, I think I'm on the right track. How many different meals can one make with earthy potatoes and some stolen mayonaise?
coseti.org promotes the optical approach to seti, which makes a great deal more sense than radio seti. Anyways, I don't plan on posting again here, so I'll quickly mention the #setiathome chan on EFnet, in case anyone wants to IRC the topic of SETI.
The notion that humans only use 10% of their brains is completely wrong. It stemmed from the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie, that was published in 1936. On page 206 Carnegie quotes Professor William James, a psychologist at Harvard, as saying
"Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resources. Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within his limits. He possesses powers of various sorts which he habitually fails to use."
And furthermore, on page 11 of the foreward, Lowell Thomas misquotes Professor James where he says
"Professor William James of Harvard used to say that the average man develops only 10 percent of his latent mental ability."
So, maybe Professor James did actually say something like that, but he said it just as a motivator for people, not because it had any basis in scientific research. The only reason "everyone knows" that people only use 10% of their brains is because of Dale Carnegie's wildly popular book, which incidentally, was marketed to sales people, who are notoriously science-illiterate.
To put it into perspective, would you be as intelligent as you are now if you lost 90% of your brain? It's sad that American school teachers sometimes teach this crap in their classrooms, when it's only raison d'etre is a misquote in a 1930's book for salesmen.
I've done a lot of buying from amazon zshops, half.com etc. It seems that amazon.com runs a much tighter ship than ebay does. I got ripped off for about $100 on ebay once, and only then did I realize how helpless the situations is. On amazon, I can buy used, I can buy new, and so far it's all been smooth.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Dragonfly BSD attempts to address this. I hope they do well.
It's a shame no one uses a BSD-style license that's time-limited. That way, companies could do their proprietary thing, make their money, and only release their source after they've already milked their products for what they're worth.
The Zesiger License is the only license I know about that seems to achieve the goals of both the GPL and BSD licenses.
I'm not a historian so don't get your panties in a knot if I don't act like one - But, I don't think I have to be so highly educated to realize that it's irrelevant who was targeted in a specific inquisition. Killing is killing, regardless of whether it's illiterate peasants, or elite boat-rocking scientists. The Catholic church is no less evil, either way. It's hard to be courteous and respectful to people who tolerate and support the organizations responsible for such unimaginable violence.
The self-righteousness and complete disregard for facts from many atheists is funny.
At least when the atheists do it, it doesn't result in death and torture on an epic scale. In any case, what RELEVANT facts have been completely disregarded? Are atheists the "Bad Guys"? What atheist organizations kill for their beliefs? What do atheists even have to do with any of this?
good to know, thanks for the info.
the girl in the red dress is wearing a glove on her left hand and she's sort of "presenting" the band with her left hand.
The BL-C10A PTZ camera is about $200
What's really interesting for mormons is, what if we are alone?
For catholics, their early mistakes, and subsequent corrections, basically condemn their religion as a farce, across the board. Most of them don't realize that the last Inquisition didn't end until 1834. Yes, THAT Inquisition, where random people, as well as scientists, were burned at the stake, tortured, etc for supposedly threatening the power of the Church.
All lies have flaws that eventually expose them as the lies they really are, but few religions are as much a beacon of fraud, greed, and evil as the history of the Catholic church. Anyone sensible ought to be able to see that - Though I know many won't, for whatever reasons. I hate to use the word "obvious", because a lot of people just don't get things sometimes, regardless of how smart or sensible they seem. Not sure why.
One thing I am sure of though, is that religious people are are easy to categorize as the kinds who might behave unpredictably based on "beliefs" or "faith" or whatever. Practically speaking, it's worked for weeding out odd would-be roommates. A lot of my friends are religious, and in this world, you'd be mighty lonely if you ostracized the religous ones...but, as far as my roommates are concerned, the religious ones might be great, and you'll get along just fine for a whole year, and then one day I might find my roommate eating my food, or not flushing the toilet because God supposedly told him to.
The hebrew people who wrote the old testament were backwards hillbillies, even for their time. Most people don't realize this, but compared to the other civilizations, it's true. While some civilizations were building pyramids and grand cities, the hebrews were still living in the middle of nowhere, stoning women who had been raped because they were "unclean".
Their writings are practically worshipped by religious people, and for no one good reason. It's not necessarily the oldest, biggest, most interesting, or best set of writing available from that time period. It's just religious, and that's all that's interesting about it. I'm not a religious scholar, so maybe there's something unique and special about the old testament/talmud/etc that I don't know about, but so far, no one who says it's the word of god has been able to say anything about it other than it's supposedly the word of god.
when people maliciously compromise machines, the machines are just doing as they're told. That doesn't make it legal. The key here is that these new forms of "popups" are specifically designed for the sole purpose of getting around popup blockers, meaning, the designers know that they're doing something to someone that the person is trying to defend themselves against. Now, if a website owner blocked access to the website for people using popup blockers, that would make more sense. Otherwise, the situation seems a lot like the websites that install viruses through IE exploits.
if web users are actively blocking popups, but advertisers are deceptively forcing them upon users, could that be construed as some sort of harrassment, in a legal sense? Maybe it could be considered some kind of computer crime, much like attempting to access a machine that is obviously not intended for you to access?
here's commerce-friendly license that could serve as a "commercial GPL" - Zesiger License
Well paid and with decent benefits? Not in my experience. $10 per hour, no benefits, and basically having to work as a throwaway "temp" of sorts. This is American manufacturing, as I have personally seen it from 2000 to the present day. The only bright side is it's easier to sue somebody for not keeping the temperature just right, or whatever other ridiculous things that people are doing to make a living...
Luckily, Carmack isn't a single mother. He's properly married, and she can fill in for him for a while. If he locked himself in a hotel room for a month to finish some pressing work, I don't think his children would be scarred for life.
I will be curious to see how well he juggles the new addition to his family, and his work. Hmm, baby juggling...
haha, touche. Looks like I'm not the only sappy romantic reading slashdot afterall!
Being the traditionalist hillbilly that I am, I feel compelled to correct what seems (to me) to be a horrendous and vile mistake: John Carmack's child was born to his *WIFE*, not his girlfriend.
I'm highly skeptical of this actually being some kind of rule. The only people I can think of who were real technological movers and shakers who didn't have kids were "mad-scientists"...And even some of those people seem to have at least had illegitimate children, even if they were never formally married. In any case, I'd suspect the fruitcakes would have a harder time with procreation than the normal folk, and on top of that, oftentimes the people who think of things that no one else would have thought of, are the very same people who are ALWAYS thinking abnormal things.
Now, perhaps you actually meant to imply that having children diverts one's attention away from one's work, and thus hinders success...I see no reason why this necessarily should be, though I'll agree with you that once a family is involved, most people wisely choose not to take the kind of risks that might be necessary to achieve technological breakthroughs.
That sort of behavior seems to only be necessary for males, who tend to refrain from, or are refused for, marriage until they've achieved a level of success that will assure his mate that he can provide for her. Once again, this is also not how things necessarily must go. As far as women are concerned, I tend to be old fashioned about where the attention of a woman with young children belongs...but, the fact of the matter is that plenty of women have raised large families and STILL managed to do amazing things. I could easily argue that women are not at all hindered by having children, as long as they are part of healthy, supportive family.
This seems like a good place to point out that married people, on average, live longer, and live wealthier than unmarried people...yes, even with children. Another interesting tidbit is that married college students find it easier to perform well in their studies since, effectively, the half of their lives that don't directly involve school can be attended to by the student's spouse - Paying rent, doing the laundry, mowing the lawn, etc.
The USA and Europe are amazingly anti-family, I'm shocked people say things like what you've just said. I must tell you that I'm heavily pro-family, and even though I'm not religious at all, I am thoroughly disgusted by what has become common practice in the USA and Europe. What really angers me is that the notion that marriage is bad is actually taught in schools in the form of "If you get married before you've finished college and succeeded in your career, your life will be ruined". It's total crap, and besides that, government educators have no business manipulating human relationships.
I know everybody's different, and some people don't think at all like I do on this topic...but if any of those types are reading this, tell me which is better: A society full of married couples who've started families at the expense of big houses and graduate degrees, or a society full of multiple divorcees, unmarried teenage mothers, and sexually transmitted diseases?
Honestly, I think somehow blaming problems on families is really the wrong way to look at it. If families are a hindrance to the system, perhaps it's the system that needs to go...not the other way around.
All it takes for someone to lose their freedom in the "Land of the Free" is being laid off at precisely the same time that a parking ticket comes due - Pay the government before you feed your family, or else there will be no family.
Anyone remember why the citizens of the United States were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms by the revolutionaries that founded our country? The first revolution was started over taxes on tea...will the next revolution be more like the one started at the Bastille?
With large portions of our population imprisoned either wrongly or for silly reasons (like parking tickets), we have an unhappy powder-keg on our hands, and the population continues to ignorantly re-elect animals like this Arizona Sheriff. Criminals they may be, but do you really want them to be angry, humiliated, and desperate criminals?
Most people don't care, they just want "justice". Someone once arrogantly said "Let them eat cake", and that person ended up in two pieces at the hands of criminals with a burning desire for blood. What will happen to this Sheriff if a lot of angry people catch him alone? Will his voters save him? I doubt it. They'll probably just watch it happen on TV. Would we have had Adolf Hitler if the Allies had been more empathetic with post WWI Germany? Maybe...then again, if Germany hadn't been so angry and humiliated, they might have just continued to make the world's best children's toys, just like before. Instead, they killed millions.
What can 1 out of 75 American men do? What can one 1 of 12 black American men do? What can 50 million ex-cons do? Do you really want to make that many people desperate and angry? Do you really want to publically humilate them? Do you really want to keep them unemployed and homeless? Do you really want the ruthless Sheriff of Nottingham doling out "punishment" to the mob that may kill you one day?
The French Aristocracy had an army of Swiss mercenaries armed with state-of-the-art muskets. The prisoners killed them all with sticks and shovels. Can a haggard bunch of desperate criminals wreak havoc on the smooth operation of the USA? A dozen or so foreigners managed to cripple the US economy on September 11th, 2001. What can 50 million of our own home-made suicidal killers do? These are valid questions...ones that are probably going to be answered in the most unfortunate way possible. Maybe our new criminal leaders will be wiser than our democratically elected ones.
I just did a google search for "technetium seti sun" and I saw a figure on the order of 10^5 tons of technetium to get ET's attention. That's a lot, but it could be done, especially if we make a habit of dumping nuclear waste into the sun. If we just dumped all of our nuclear waste into the sun, it wouldn't be as ideal as dumping pure technetium, but it would be obvious to anyone looking at our star that someone is dumping nuclear waste into it. I'm sure we could come up with quite a lot of it too, especially after we start using nuclear reactors in space. It's kind of ridiculous to try to lift that much off of the earth, but space based reactors could easily dump their waste into the sun. There's no need to dump into the sun, but if we really wanted to attract attention to ourselves, that would be an easy way to do it.
The best idea I've seen for getting the attention of ET's is to dump a few tons of elements into the sun that do not occur naturally, such as technetium. Basically, it's nuclear waste, and when an alien astronomer looks at our star, they'd see spectral lines of elements that could only be produced in a nuclear reactor...A sure sign of intelligent civilization.
Sodium just kinda fizzles in water, lithium might explode though. In any case, it'd have to be a short range round because that'd be a super-lightweight bullet that would slow rapidly upon leaving the muzzle.
thanks for your pearls of wisdom. I've bookmarked it, and I'm going to refer to it often. My resume already looks exactly like what you've described, except it's mostly manufacturing and business rather than IT. I've been bearing loads way beyond my ability, so staying "ahead of the curve" has not been an option for me. I've been living lean, working hard, I don't drink, don't smoke, and don't party, so I'm always either working, or planning my next move. Granted, not much room for fun yet, but after reading your little piece, I think I'm on the right track. How many different meals can one make with earthy potatoes and some stolen mayonaise?
coseti.org promotes the optical approach to seti, which makes a great deal more sense than radio seti. Anyways, I don't plan on posting again here, so I'll quickly mention the #setiathome chan on EFnet, in case anyone wants to IRC the topic of SETI.
The notion that humans only use 10% of their brains is completely wrong. It stemmed from the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie, that was published in 1936. On page 206 Carnegie quotes Professor William James, a psychologist at Harvard, as saying
"Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. We are making use of only a small part of our physical and mental resources. Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives far within his limits. He possesses powers of various sorts which he habitually fails to use."
And furthermore, on page 11 of the foreward, Lowell Thomas misquotes Professor James where he says
"Professor William James of Harvard used to say that the average man develops only 10 percent of his latent mental ability."
So, maybe Professor James did actually say something like that, but he said it just as a motivator for people, not because it had any basis in scientific research. The only reason "everyone knows" that people only use 10% of their brains is because of Dale Carnegie's wildly popular book, which incidentally, was marketed to sales people, who are notoriously science-illiterate.
To put it into perspective, would you be as intelligent as you are now if you lost 90% of your brain? It's sad that American school teachers sometimes teach this crap in their classrooms, when it's only raison d'etre is a misquote in a 1930's book for salesmen.
I think a 1px gif is about 50 bytes, why use a 100byte PNG for that? I can't think of even one good reason.
I've done a lot of buying from amazon zshops, half.com etc. It seems that amazon.com runs a much tighter ship than ebay does. I got ripped off for about $100 on ebay once, and only then did I realize how helpless the situations is. On amazon, I can buy used, I can buy new, and so far it's all been smooth.