Pretty much. This attitude of entitlement isn't unique to the FN. I'm just wondering how much longer Canadians will put up with this crap not matter where it comes from.
Your pre-supposing that one can 'make up' for such things. That is... nonsense.
But, did women freak out and demand privileges beyond males after they started got the right to vote? NO. They just wanted/equal/ rights. And they pretty much got it now.
Here we have FN demanding more and more and more and... with no end in sight. And each demand gets more and more nonsensical. All this even though (beyond) equal rights have been given.
Given all these things, it sound to me like your not reading nor thinking.
Although this may be true, how exactly does this extend to land owners control over what gets transmitted over there land?
In other words, here MTS has got a certain spectrum that it uses. They "own" that spectrum (maybe a "lease" though). This still says _nothing_ about people being able to charge money for the signals that traverse the air over there property.
Unfortunately, yes, they are. Things like this happen when there is such profound under-education and *way* too much time on there hands.
Hell, I remember when one of the tribes in Manitoba sued a rural elementary/middle-school because the schools mascot was a cartoon "indian". They considered it offensive and sued the school to change it. They got ridiculed pretty bad because of well, teams like the Cleveland Indians, etc. Not to mention the fact that it was a/elementary/middle-school/! Especially after it was found out that the tribe suing wasn't even part of the tribe that the cartoon was an image of!
No shit. I for one am extremely tired of having 3%, yes that's right THREE FUCKING PERCENT, of Canada's population have so much influence over the rest of us, indirectly or not. And for NO GOOD REASON.
... it's also about/how/ they are handled. Some might say more-so.
From what I've seen, Apple has been quite responsible with fixing found vulnerabilities: turn around times, etc. More-so than that other guy. So, I can't really complain.
Any related to economics. So, things like an actuary or something related to the stock market (e.g. analysis/prediction) would give high pay. Degrees in Physics and Math could get you there.
There is also several consulting firms that *love* Physics Ph.D.'s. Not sure about Math people on that one though. This one would require *a lot* of travel though.
You're assuming that people will be able to understand that paragraph after having what's considered an primary/secondary education. That isn't a very good assumption. People will get stumped with what a set is and what is meant by elements of a set.
Sure to figure this out they just need to click. But honestly, do you think average joe 6 pack will actually do that?
I'd like to know just how someone would explain what a metric space is to a layman and still have the explanation maintain Mathematical integrity.
The Wikipedia is meant for informational purposes. NOT for presenting introductory material. If an introduction is needed there are tonnes of 1st year texts. If the lay-person wants something dumbed down for them, there is the science section of newspapers.
The problem with Producing OSS is that it is really biased, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so much.
For hosting sites, I'd like to add http://www.berlios.de/. Especially since they're outside the US and as such not subject to the US's insane laws (read: things like the DMCA).
As another recommendation, you have to have something before you ask people to join. And that does NOT mean just some code. You're going to have to have a good amount of documentation so developers will know: what you're doing, what direction you're taking, there ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to your code, etc.
Also, don't be too liberal with who you give commit access to. If you're too loose, then someone coming along could really screw you. Or not contribute at all and just lie about it b/c they have commit access. Or people could complain that Larry got commit access straight away, why do they have to work for it so hard. Among other problems.
I imagine that you have a couple buddies that might be interested in helping out. I'd recommend asking them first, design, document, get a hosting account somewhere and then develop. After something is produced, then start looking for extra help.
You're also going to have to consider how the project is run. Will it be a purely community based one, a benevolent dictatorship, or somewhere in-between? Stuff like that is going to have to be spelled out. Otherwise, you're going to run into problems with people thinking that they have "power" beyond what they actually have or not thinking that they have "power" that they actually do. Either way, that's never good for a project.
""" The survey data isn't really telling us anything we don't know already about linux users. Linux users are technophiles who still cannot accomplish everything without having to resort to a command line. This means that linux ain't ready for the Windoze using masses. """
I'd honestly like to know how you got from A to B on this one i.e. Just b/c the techie's/prefer/ the command line does _not_ mean a GUI doesn't exist or is crap. It just means that they don't typically use it. So what?
""" Almost all of you are men, which makes me feel left out again. """
The primary gender of the user base makes you feel "left out"? You can't be serious.
""" Many of the applications that linux is deployed in, even in the home, are still not the primary workstation type-uses - router, firewall, web server, print server. """
What does this have to do with anything? So what, Linux is not primarily used for lots of things. Does that mean that it/can't/ be used for those lots of things? Obviously not. Especially when you have things like OpenOffice running around. I mean, seriously. The only thing that Linux does/not/ have going for it is games. And event that is starting to change.
""" You download your disks and you still aren't using it at work all that much. """
You may not, but in every job that I've had, I've used it for/every//single//task/; from administrative type tasks to development.
""" There may be more respondents, but the data is still the same. """
But the conclusion is only the same if you ignore other advances e.g. GUI pretty much everything. Just b/c the techies prefer not to use them doesn't mean that they aren't there. And it doesn't mean that the GUI's aren't friendly.
I think that the point is that/nothing/ shows that violent video games are a major contributing factor. At least nothing resembling an actual scientific study. And this one is no different than any other.
As someone has said above, one must move to prove an actual causal link and not just a simple correlation.
Advertising something as BSD does NOT violate the BSD license. But, using the contributors names or company/project name is. So, how exactly is the BSD license "anti-business" again? As far as I'm aware, RedHat doesn't use peoples names in its advertising. For that matter, there's only a handful of people that'd be worth naming. So, if they wanted to use one or more names, they'd only have to get something signed from one or more people NOT/all/ of them as you mistakingly conjecture.
And the little quote you gave is hardly what we're talking about given that they're talking about the MODIFIED BSD license i.e. NO advertising clause. But, if you'd read the modified BSD passage, you would have seen this:
"because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license"
Are you intentionally being misleading or is it just coming off that way b/c you aren't reading what's there?
""" So again I ask: Where's the bias? """
You're assuming that the reader is aware that the definition of free given GNU/FSF is there's alone and NOT generally accepted. This colours things differently. Then again, if you refuse to see that...
Are you sure that people will be able to differentiate between the bias and the truth? B/c I've read a good chunk of that page and ALL commentary is more than just coloured with their... bias. And if I didn't know any better, I'd probably have a hell of a time separating the two.
This is probably going to come off *way* more adversarial than intended. Please take that into account while reading it as I don't have the time to fix it.
I respect the person, but not the view. Though, I wouldn't have a problem with the GPL if this clause was more along the lines of, "must use another OSI approved license" rather than "must use the GPL" i.e. there are less a**hole ways to keep things open source. To me, the GPL wreaks of arrogance.
But, I don't believe that most people that choose the GPL actually understand what it means. I mean, I've seen *a lot* of fud out there. Also, from what I've seen, *a lot* of developers think that open source == GPL. So, they choose it by default. And GNU/FSF aren't exactly speaking up on this issue as these misconceptions work in there favour.
Another problem that I have with the GPL is it creates and was born out of the "us v.s. them" mentality. This doesn't exactly breed a non-adversarial environment.
Again, there/is/ a way for everyone to keep there own personal views and still maintain an open environment. I personally like the idea of non-adversarial licensing; I don't like RMS's ideology shoved down my throat. But, this isn't a perfect world. And although the GPL people technically have the right to do what they do, I don't have to like it nor do I have to feel it is the right thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much. This attitude of entitlement isn't unique to the FN. I'm just wondering how much longer Canadians will put up with this crap not matter where it comes from.
Your pre-supposing that one can 'make up' for such things. That is... nonsense.
/equal/ rights. And they pretty much got it now.
But, did women freak out and demand privileges beyond males after they started got the right to vote? NO. They just wanted
Here we have FN demanding more and more and more and... with no end in sight. And each demand gets more and more nonsensical. All this even though (beyond) equal rights have been given.
Given all these things, it sound to me like your not reading nor thinking.
Although this may be true, how exactly does this extend to land owners control over what gets transmitted over there land?
In other words, here MTS has got a certain spectrum that it uses. They "own" that spectrum (maybe a "lease" though). This still says _nothing_ about people being able to charge money for the signals that traverse the air over there property.
"""
/elementary/middle-school/! Especially after it was found out that the tribe suing wasn't even part of the tribe that the cartoon was an image of!
I mean, are they serious?
"""
Unfortunately, yes, they are. Things like this happen when there is such profound under-education and *way* too much time on there hands.
Hell, I remember when one of the tribes in Manitoba sued a rural elementary/middle-school because the schools mascot was a cartoon "indian". They considered it offensive and sued the school to change it. They got ridiculed pretty bad because of well, teams like the Cleveland Indians, etc. Not to mention the fact that it was a
*sigh*
Any precedence in Canada? Because citing US law is rather moot with them being in Canada and all.
No shit. I for one am extremely tired of having 3%, yes that's right THREE FUCKING PERCENT, of Canada's population have so much influence over the rest of us, indirectly or not. And for NO GOOD REASON.
These people should be embarrassed.
I said nothing about Apple's complete track record... nothing. I'm talking about lately, /lately/.
... it's also about /how/ they are handled. Some might say more-so.
From what I've seen, Apple has been quite responsible with fixing found vulnerabilities: turn around times, etc. More-so than that other guy. So, I can't really complain.
Wikipedia has articles on both.
One of them was called Boston Consulting Group. Mckinsey apparently hires Physicists as well.
Any related to economics. So, things like an actuary or something related to the stock market (e.g. analysis/prediction) would give high pay. Degrees in Physics and Math could get you there.
:)
There is also several consulting firms that *love* Physics Ph.D.'s. Not sure about Math people on that one though. This one would require *a lot* of travel though.
Hope that helps
Please see my reply to ceoyoyo and iabervon.
Good for you, you know what a metric space is. So, what does that have to do with what I posted?
You've missed my point entirely. Please re-read my post.
You're assuming that people will be able to understand that paragraph after having what's considered an primary/secondary education. That isn't a very good assumption. People will get stumped with what a set is and what is meant by elements of a set.
Sure to figure this out they just need to click. But honestly, do you think average joe 6 pack will actually do that?
I'd like to know just how someone would explain what a metric space is to a layman and still have the explanation maintain Mathematical integrity.
The Wikipedia is meant for informational purposes. NOT for presenting introductory material. If an introduction is needed there are tonnes of 1st year texts. If the lay-person wants something dumbed down for them, there is the science section of newspapers.
The problem with Producing OSS is that it is really biased, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so much.
For hosting sites, I'd like to add http://www.berlios.de/. Especially since they're outside the US and as such not subject to the US's insane laws (read: things like the DMCA).
As another recommendation, you have to have something before you ask people to join. And that does NOT mean just some code. You're going to have to have a good amount of documentation so developers will know: what you're doing, what direction you're taking, there ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to your code, etc.
Also, don't be too liberal with who you give commit access to. If you're too loose, then someone coming along could really screw you. Or not contribute at all and just lie about it b/c they have commit access. Or people could complain that Larry got commit access straight away, why do they have to work for it so hard. Among other problems.
I imagine that you have a couple buddies that might be interested in helping out. I'd recommend asking them first, design, document, get a hosting account somewhere and then develop. After something is produced, then start looking for extra help.
You're also going to have to consider how the project is run. Will it be a purely community based one, a benevolent dictatorship, or somewhere in-between? Stuff like that is going to have to be spelled out. Otherwise, you're going to run into problems with people thinking that they have "power" beyond what they actually have or not thinking that they have "power" that they actually do. Either way, that's never good for a project.
At any rate, that's my 2 cents.
Did you run across EduForge?
http://eduforge.org/
Something in there might meet your needs.
"""
/prefer/ the command line does _not_ mean a GUI doesn't exist or is crap. It just means that they don't typically use it. So what?
/can't/ be used for those lots of things? Obviously not. Especially when you have things like OpenOffice running around. I mean, seriously. The only thing that Linux does /not/ have going for it is games. And event that is starting to change.
/every/ /single/ /task/; from administrative type tasks to development.
The survey data isn't really telling us anything we don't know already about linux users. Linux users are technophiles who still cannot accomplish everything without having to resort to a command line. This means that linux ain't ready for the Windoze using masses.
"""
I'd honestly like to know how you got from A to B on this one i.e. Just b/c the techie's
"""
Almost all of you are men, which makes me feel left out again.
"""
The primary gender of the user base makes you feel "left out"? You can't be serious.
"""
Many of the applications that linux is deployed in, even in the home, are still not the primary workstation type-uses - router, firewall, web server, print server.
"""
What does this have to do with anything? So what, Linux is not primarily used for lots of things. Does that mean that it
"""
You download your disks and you still aren't using it at work all that much.
"""
You may not, but in every job that I've had, I've used it for
"""
There may be more respondents, but the data is still the same.
"""
But the conclusion is only the same if you ignore other advances e.g. GUI pretty much everything. Just b/c the techies prefer not to use them doesn't mean that they aren't there. And it doesn't mean that the GUI's aren't friendly.
I think that the point is that /nothing/ shows that violent video games are a major contributing factor. At least nothing resembling an actual scientific study. And this one is no different than any other.
As someone has said above, one must move to prove an actual causal link and not just a simple correlation.
Advertising something as BSD does NOT violate the BSD license. But, using the contributors names or company/project name is. So, how exactly is the BSD license "anti-business" again? As far as I'm aware, RedHat doesn't use peoples names in its advertising. For that matter, there's only a handful of people that'd be worth naming. So, if they wanted to use one or more names, they'd only have to get something signed from one or more people NOT /all/ of them as you mistakingly conjecture.
And the little quote you gave is hardly what we're talking about given that they're talking about the MODIFIED BSD license i.e. NO advertising clause. But, if you'd read the modified BSD passage, you would have seen this:
"because confusion could easily occur and lead to use of the flawed original BSD license"
Are you intentionally being misleading or is it just coming off that way b/c you aren't reading what's there?
"""
So again I ask: Where's the bias?
"""
You're assuming that the reader is aware that the definition of free given GNU/FSF is there's alone and NOT generally accepted. This colours things differently. Then again, if you refuse to see that...
You don't see any b/c you already know the issues. You aren't reading it with the proper state of mind.
But, if you want an example, just look at the reason why they don't like the original BSD license.
Are you sure that people will be able to differentiate between the bias and the truth? B/c I've read a good chunk of that page and ALL commentary is more than just coloured with their... bias. And if I didn't know any better, I'd probably have a hell of a time separating the two.
Not in the way he was implying.
This is probably going to come off *way* more adversarial than intended. Please take that into account while reading it as I don't have the time to fix it.
/is/ a way for everyone to keep there own personal views and still maintain an open environment. I personally like the idea of non-adversarial licensing; I don't like RMS's ideology shoved down my throat. But, this isn't a perfect world. And although the GPL people technically have the right to do what they do, I don't have to like it nor do I have to feel it is the right thing to do.
I respect the person, but not the view. Though, I wouldn't have a problem with the GPL if this clause was more along the lines of, "must use another OSI approved license" rather than "must use the GPL" i.e. there are less a**hole ways to keep things open source. To me, the GPL wreaks of arrogance.
But, I don't believe that most people that choose the GPL actually understand what it means. I mean, I've seen *a lot* of fud out there. Also, from what I've seen, *a lot* of developers think that open source == GPL. So, they choose it by default. And GNU/FSF aren't exactly speaking up on this issue as these misconceptions work in there favour.
Another problem that I have with the GPL is it creates and was born out of the "us v.s. them" mentality. This doesn't exactly breed a non-adversarial environment.
Again, there