Why would I write something if I wasn't going to distribute it? I'm talking real world here, not hobby.
The Nazi concept of forcing me to do something against my will. If I value add, I want to be paid for my work performed; I don't want to be forced to give it away. Giving away source code should be a choice, not forced upon you.
Like I said, BSD is way more reasonable in that you can choose to resubmit your changes. GPL you dont have that choice == Nazi.
What open source license does that? (Hint: the GPL, for example, does not require you to publish anything.)
From Wiki on GPL:
Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
Many distributors of GPL'ed programs bundle the source code with the executables. An alternative method of satisfying the copyleft is to provide a written offer to provide the source code on a physical medium (such as a CD) upon request. In practice, many GPL'ed programs are distributed over the Internet, and the source code is made available over FTP or HTTP. For Internet distribution, this complies with the license.
Sure seems like a requirement to publish the source of any derivative works to me. If you have to use open source, BSD license seems way less Nazi like to me.
There's no such thing as 'better'. Given an specific task or application, one language may be better suited to it than another, but 'better' or 'best' language has no meaning when looking at all possible applications.
Then again, I suppose if Hollyweird can sue someone for building a custom version of a movie with the swearing and naughty bits bleeped out..
Actually that bugs the hell out of me. If a movie comes on TV I want the see the movie as intended, not some hacked up derivative based on someone elses misdirected moral values. I should decide what I can and cannot watch - not someone else. For the most part I've stopped watching movies broadcast on US television because they are so hacked to pieces they are unwatchable. Usually in Canada a movie on TV will have warnings on it stating what the content is, but not be edited.
So it might take quite a bit of publicity to get a population aware of the meaning of a siren. It would be especially difficult in the vicinity of a good beach, where much of the population could be vacationers and tourists. And standardizing such things would be difficult in much of the world.
It would be a lot simpler and cost effective just to set off a loud siren like an air raid siren. Thats how they do it now: simple, and everyone can hear it day or night and knows what it means.
No. Wrong. Infeasible. Space is not magic. Same rules apply there as here. A light that big is a myth, just like infinite power from solar sails, space elevators, and Hubble is strong enough to see the Apollo landing craft and satellites in orbit around Mars.
That was the point. All streets are lit (similar to dusk, not bright but not dark) in the cities. No paying for electric lights. Cities would never get dark.
Agreed. This is just science fiction. Regardless of available power, the size of light required on orbit to generate the required intensity simple does not exist. The only way to do this would be to create a large mirror to redirect the suns light to the required spot. However studies done with this idea as a replacement for city street lighting did not make economic sense. So it certainly wouldn't make economic sense for a warning system especially when far cheaper alternative exists (like sound horns).
Nearly ALL medical equipment, especially new anything from MRI machines to drugs are both developed and manufactured in the United States.
There are three major MRI manufacturers in the world. They are Siemens (German), Philips (Dutch) and GE (American). All other manufacturers use one of these three base systems. So your post is clearly wrong about MRIs since less than a third are actually made or even has R&D in the US. Of the top twelve pharmaceutical companies, six are American. Again not even close to ALL.
One way that countries have saved major bucks on health care is to not contribute to the system but depend completely on used and after market sales of devices.
If you think Canada, UK, Germany, France, etc only buy used equipment, then you are sorely misinformed as to the quality of their health care.
How about Canada's tort law. You can only claim actual damages (not imaginary ones). So if you slip and fall, you can claim actual out of pocket expenses, not say $10million for psychological trauma.
So the solution is to mandate that everyone receive their health care though huge insurance company and/or governmental bureaucracies? Yeah, that'll fix it.
In most other countries, the government is responsible for heathcare directly without any insurance companies. Is that what you want (it works for them).
If he has a problem, legitimate or not, all he has to do is tinfoil the inside of his house (then drywall or plaster over it) and he'll make a nice Faraday cage so no EM will ever bother him again.
The common statement is the US heath care is the best in the world. In reality, yes, if you can afford it you can get care in the US that you cannot reasonably get anywhere else in the world.
However, that level of heath care is only available to maybe 10-15% of the population who can actually afford it. Insurance wont cover it so you have to pay yourself. The vast majority has the same standard of care as everyone else (Canada, Europe, Japan, and others). However about 15% of the US population has absolutely no coverage, relying on the minimum required by law. These people have the heath care equivalent of what is available in the third world.
I'm not in heath care itself but I'm connected to the health care industry.
Are you kidding me?? The Republicans are the absolute WORST in protecting of individual rights. More laws are passed by the GOP/conservatives that erode personal rights than any other.
Republicans are also responsible for the biggest growth to government and the biggest deficit/spending in the history of the US. Look at the Homeland security that was setup under Jackass Bush. A $52 billion annual budget and an admitted $15billion in wasted contacts so far. This is government overhead and a complete waste of money. But do Republicans bitch about that? No, they'll bitch about heath care which will actually help people. Bunch of two faced bastards.
Because they go over budget doesn't mean anything on its own. Perhaps it is underfunded, and they give heath care a low number to make the books look good.
Regardless, the fact is the US spends vastly more per capita on heath care than any other country, while simultaneously having the largest percentage of the population without any coverage. Clearly something is wrong there.
My sole point was in certain industries and services, there HAS to be regulation. If you think that corporations without any form of regulation will just do whats best for everyone then you are a complete idiot. You just have to look at the environmental damage certain mining and oil companies have done to the environment operating in countries without regulations as proof. I am NOT an advocate of bigger government, in fact I think governments are too big now. You didn't seem to actually read what I was saying and just made grandiose assumptions.
And can you please explain your signature? Is your argument: Socialism = bad, Universal Health Care = good, therefore Universal Health Care != Socialism? It is almost like you make an argument against socialism, but then don't... therefore you are right. What?!?
That isn't anything close to what I said. People seem to equate social programs like health care to socialism. They are not in any way equivalent. I never made any statement as to socialism itself.
You seem to like to take statements completely out of context just so you can get a chance to rant. Maybe you should actually listen to what others have to say and get over your arrogance.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would I write something if I wasn't going to distribute it? I'm talking real world here, not hobby.
The Nazi concept of forcing me to do something against my will. If I value add, I want to be paid for my work performed; I don't want to be forced to give it away. Giving away source code should be a choice, not forced upon you.
Like I said, BSD is way more reasonable in that you can choose to resubmit your changes. GPL you dont have that choice == Nazi.
ISAPI filters. How quaint!
Sure, but look how many fewer words I used.
What open source license does that? (Hint: the GPL, for example, does not require you to publish anything.)
From Wiki on GPL:
Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
Many distributors of GPL'ed programs bundle the source code with the executables. An alternative method of satisfying the copyleft is to provide a written offer to provide the source code on a physical medium (such as a CD) upon request. In practice, many GPL'ed programs are distributed over the Internet, and the source code is made available over FTP or HTTP. For Internet distribution, this complies with the license.
Sure seems like a requirement to publish the source of any derivative works to me. If you have to use open source, BSD license seems way less Nazi like to me.
You shouldn't use C to write web pages any more than I should use PHP and HTML to write my 3D OpenGL programs.
Use the right tool for the job. There is no one fits all.
There's no such thing as 'better'. Given an specific task or application, one language may be better suited to it than another, but 'better' or 'best' language has no meaning when looking at all possible applications.
I was talking about movies broadcast on TV.
Then again, I suppose if Hollyweird can sue someone for building a custom version of a movie with the swearing and naughty bits bleeped out..
Actually that bugs the hell out of me. If a movie comes on TV I want the see the movie as intended, not some hacked up derivative based on someone elses misdirected moral values. I should decide what I can and cannot watch - not someone else. For the most part I've stopped watching movies broadcast on US television because they are so hacked to pieces they are unwatchable. Usually in Canada a movie on TV will have warnings on it stating what the content is, but not be edited.
I would say the same about open source software. Especially the ones with the licence agreement that forces me to publish any derivative works.
So it might take quite a bit of publicity to get a population aware of the meaning of a siren. It would be especially difficult in the vicinity of a good beach, where much of the population could be vacationers and tourists. And standardizing such things would be difficult in much of the world.
How about:
Civil defense sirens blared in each county of Hawaii starting at 6 a.m. Hawaiian time as residents and tourists calmly began leaving their coastline homes and resorts and moving to higher ground. It was the first widespread evacuation for a tsunami in 16 years. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Chile_Earthquake/tsunami-warning-hawaii-islands-brace-waves-hit/story?id=9964404
Seems like most everyone knew what it meant..
Even cheaper than that is a SIREN.
How about a big loud sound like a siren? Been working that way for years.
It would be a lot simpler and cost effective just to set off a loud siren like an air raid siren. Thats how they do it now: simple, and everyone can hear it day or night and knows what it means.
No. Wrong. Infeasible. Space is not magic. Same rules apply there as here. A light that big is a myth, just like infinite power from solar sails, space elevators, and Hubble is strong enough to see the Apollo landing craft and satellites in orbit around Mars.
Pure science fiction.
That was the point. All streets are lit (similar to dusk, not bright but not dark) in the cities. No paying for electric lights. Cities would never get dark.
Agreed. This is just science fiction. Regardless of available power, the size of light required on orbit to generate the required intensity simple does not exist. The only way to do this would be to create a large mirror to redirect the suns light to the required spot. However studies done with this idea as a replacement for city street lighting did not make economic sense. So it certainly wouldn't make economic sense for a warning system especially when far cheaper alternative exists (like sound horns).
Lets pick on a point from your earlier post
Nearly ALL medical equipment, especially new anything from MRI machines to drugs are both developed and manufactured in the United States.
There are three major MRI manufacturers in the world. They are Siemens (German), Philips (Dutch) and GE (American). All other manufacturers use one of these three base systems. So your post is clearly wrong about MRIs since less than a third are actually made or even has R&D in the US. Of the top twelve pharmaceutical companies, six are American. Again not even close to ALL.
One way that countries have saved major bucks on health care is to not contribute to the system but depend completely on used and after market sales of devices.
If you think Canada, UK, Germany, France, etc only buy used equipment, then you are sorely misinformed as to the quality of their health care.
How about Canada's tort law. You can only claim actual damages (not imaginary ones). So if you slip and fall, you can claim actual out of pocket expenses, not say $10million for psychological trauma.
So the solution is to mandate that everyone receive their health care though huge insurance company and/or governmental bureaucracies? Yeah, that'll fix it.
In most other countries, the government is responsible for heathcare directly without any insurance companies. Is that what you want (it works for them).
If he has a problem, legitimate or not, all he has to do is tinfoil the inside of his house (then drywall or plaster over it) and he'll make a nice Faraday cage so no EM will ever bother him again.
That's just so wrong I don't know where to start.
The common statement is the US heath care is the best in the world. In reality, yes, if you can afford it you can get care in the US that you cannot reasonably get anywhere else in the world.
However, that level of heath care is only available to maybe 10-15% of the population who can actually afford it. Insurance wont cover it so you have to pay yourself. The vast majority has the same standard of care as everyone else (Canada, Europe, Japan, and others). However about 15% of the US population has absolutely no coverage, relying on the minimum required by law. These people have the heath care equivalent of what is available in the third world.
I'm not in heath care itself but I'm connected to the health care industry.
Are you kidding me?? The Republicans are the absolute WORST in protecting of individual rights. More laws are passed by the GOP/conservatives that erode personal rights than any other.
Republicans are also responsible for the biggest growth to government and the biggest deficit/spending in the history of the US. Look at the Homeland security that was setup under Jackass Bush. A $52 billion annual budget and an admitted $15billion in wasted contacts so far. This is government overhead and a complete waste of money. But do Republicans bitch about that? No, they'll bitch about heath care which will actually help people. Bunch of two faced bastards.
Because they go over budget doesn't mean anything on its own. Perhaps it is underfunded, and they give heath care a low number to make the books look good.
Regardless, the fact is the US spends vastly more per capita on heath care than any other country, while simultaneously having the largest percentage of the population without any coverage. Clearly something is wrong there.
My sole point was in certain industries and services, there HAS to be regulation. If you think that corporations without any form of regulation will just do whats best for everyone then you are a complete idiot. You just have to look at the environmental damage certain mining and oil companies have done to the environment operating in countries without regulations as proof. I am NOT an advocate of bigger government, in fact I think governments are too big now. You didn't seem to actually read what I was saying and just made grandiose assumptions.
And can you please explain your signature? Is your argument: Socialism = bad, Universal Health Care = good, therefore Universal Health Care != Socialism? It is almost like you make an argument against socialism, but then don't ... therefore you are right. What?!?
That isn't anything close to what I said. People seem to equate social programs like health care to socialism. They are not in any way equivalent. I never made any statement as to socialism itself.
You seem to like to take statements completely out of context just so you can get a chance to rant. Maybe you should actually listen to what others have to say and get over your arrogance.