It is also standard practice, in any real democracy for someone to have an opinion that doesn't jive with that of the majority. The expression of that dissent is not (and should not be), per se, grounds for any sort of retaliation. It's just a little bit different when you are in a position of power and are being called on to be fair and objective. Do you also think it is undemocratic that judges are not supposed to be holding speeches in court about what an asshole the defendant is?
Yes, you are right. This does not feel like "open source". You know why? Because it is not open source. Nowhere in their announcement do Microsoft claim it is open source. They even explicitly mention that it is not open source.
Nowhere in Microsoft's announcement do they in any way claim that they are releasing anything as open source. But hey, don't let that stop you from attacking Microsoft for not doing something they never claimed to do nor have any obligation to do.
Er, no, that isn't a relevant analogy. The committee's job wasn't to promote MS's standard, it was to judge it. If a company was evaluating a potential expensive purchase, and the team leader candidly said "well let's be frank, this product sucks" before the "official" evaluation was over, people would either laud him for his frankness, or argue with his premise, but they sure as hell wouldn't fire him! They couldn't argue with him, because he said that off the record. On the record, he is still supposed to be objectively evaluating the purchase. You don't think the people who actually want that product to be approved would feel a bit of a "lack of trust" in his ability to come to a balanced decision after that outburst?
Take a look at XFree86/Xorg. Since the fork Xorg has had massive improvements, finally getting X to a modern state. There's no doubt it's improved since the fork, but "modern state" really is pushing it. It's got a long way to go still.
English does not use compound words. "Throwingchair" would actually be written "throwing chair". Thus, the grandparent poster is entirely correct, and is making a joke about the ambiguity of the English phrase.
Try a relevant analogy: You're a project leader at a company, ask to speak candidly, say, "I hate this project and I wish it would just die", are you really expecting to be allowed to continue leading that project?
Either that's not true, or that key ring was contaminated by something much nastier. Even if it had been putting out large amounts of radiation, the meter would most likely have been unable to detect it, due to the low energy of the beta particles emitted by tritium. They wouldn't be able to penetrate the outer shell of the detector.
Half-life has little bearing on this. While it is true that a shorter half-life means larger energy output for the same mass, all that affects is that you need less of the substance to get the same evergy.
What is relevant is that it emits 18 keV betas, which is some of the lowest of any substance, and which also means its penetrating power is nearly non-existent. CRTs accelerate electrons to 18 keV, too.
You may recall that a few micrograms of PO-210 were used to kill that guy in London about a year ago, and this company has proposed putting.75 kg in a rifle that would be subject to damage, destruction and dispersal on the battlefield. Indeed, Po-210 is insanely radiotoxic. But even ignoring that, there's this:
thereby raising the gas to a state of thermal equilibrium corresponding to an internal reservoir pressure of approximately 272.1 atm, temperature of 2173.16 K... That's a pretty impressive explosion stuffed into a can. Into a can which is constantly being subjected to high-energy alpha bombardment, which will weaken any material over time.
Well, hey, maybe it works as a deterrent: I wouldn't fire on somebody carrying one of those guns, because if I hit one of them, it'd likely trigger one huge explosion that spread Po-210 all over both the enemy and myself.
Face it, thereis no way to encapsulate high-powerd radiological substances so nobody can get at them. Indeed. Which is why you encapsulate the lowest of the low-powered ones, like tritium. Like in this battery. Welcome to paying attention.
Hence, with BSD your code is only free to the first two persons... And with GPL, your code is only free to the first and third persons.
Really, the GPL is all seemingly all about how the FSF does not trust programmers, and wants to control them. As a programmer I see no reason to trust the FSF in return.
The FSF has never cared about the freedom of programmers. They want to grant freedom to users - sometimes it seems to the very code itself, no matter how little sense that makes - at the expense of its programmers. The FSF does not trust programmers. And I really don't see why programmers should trust the FSF, either.
Yes, it does. You almost never hear about a "CC-by-blah-blah", you hear about something being "Creative Common licensed". Yeah, sure, if your only source of input is badly written Slashdot summaries.
Meanwhile, if you actually looked for some content that is using the licenses, you would see that they are pretty much always clearly labelled.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice. Did you have a point?
Yes, you are right. This does not feel like "open source". You know why? Because it is not open source. Nowhere in their announcement do Microsoft claim it is open source. They even explicitly mention that it is not open source.
Nowhere in Microsoft's announcement do they in any way claim that they are releasing anything as open source. But hey, don't let that stop you from attacking Microsoft for not doing something they never claimed to do nor have any obligation to do.
Believe me, I know.
English does not use compound words. "Throwingchair" would actually be written "throwing chair". Thus, the grandparent poster is entirely correct, and is making a joke about the ambiguity of the English phrase.
Try a relevant analogy: You're a project leader at a company, ask to speak candidly, say, "I hate this project and I wish it would just die", are you really expecting to be allowed to continue leading that project?
Oh, is that why we had all those online video sites that were just like Youtube except they used "standard video files" before?
No, the real real reason to use Flash players is that they work for the largest range of users. No other solution works as well, nor is as convenient.
Either that's not true, or that key ring was contaminated by something much nastier. Even if it had been putting out large amounts of radiation, the meter would most likely have been unable to detect it, due to the low energy of the beta particles emitted by tritium. They wouldn't be able to penetrate the outer shell of the detector.
Half-life has little bearing on this. While it is true that a shorter half-life means larger energy output for the same mass, all that affects is that you need less of the substance to get the same evergy.
What is relevant is that it emits 18 keV betas, which is some of the lowest of any substance, and which also means its penetrating power is nearly non-existent. CRTs accelerate electrons to 18 keV, too.
Well, hey, maybe it works as a deterrent: I wouldn't fire on somebody carrying one of those guns, because if I hit one of them, it'd likely trigger one huge explosion that spread Po-210 all over both the enemy and myself.
Do you have any idea what a "Faraday cage" even is?
Yes, and that would be a "pun", not "sarcasm".
And what does that have to do with the comment at hand?
Really, the GPL is all seemingly all about how the FSF does not trust programmers, and wants to control them. As a programmer I see no reason to trust the FSF in return.
The FSF has never cared about the freedom of programmers. They want to grant freedom to users - sometimes it seems to the very code itself, no matter how little sense that makes - at the expense of its programmers. The FSF does not trust programmers. And I really don't see why programmers should trust the FSF, either.
Well, some of us still want to try. It would be really be nice to have that option.
If you're responsible for that list, why isn't "public domain" on it? Or at least, it wasn't back when I set up some projects some time ago.
Meanwhile, if you actually looked for some content that is using the licenses, you would see that they are pretty much always clearly labelled.