So, what about those in a crowd that don't pose a threat? Giving indiscriminant "pain" is a bad idea and as a side-effect would make laws being in the general area of protests enough of a reason to get "punished". Anyone else see that this would be a slippery slope? Perhaps a danger to free speech and the right to protest?
An above post pointed out that tear-gas can be lethal for people with respitory illnesses. But, radiation is lethal for everyone (not to mention that there is NO safe level of exposure) and quite hard to avoid if one doesn't know where the point of origin is. Not to mention the fact that batons can target specific people (the dangerous ones) whereas this method can't.
... that when it comes to academic articles (e.g. physics) the only people who know enough math/jargon to get it close to right are the academics. So, the acuracy is of course going to be fairly high.
BUT, when it comes to policitically charged articles (or other non-academic articles), b/c of people's "MY true is reality no matter what the facts say" mentality nowadays, the acuracy plumits.
Basically, this study is nothing but a false positive in favor of wikipedia.
... one of the employees (sales guy) wanted me to make a program to make his job easier. It was to aquire email addresses from web pages so that he could then send sales emails to people. I said it was possible but I'd have to think about it.
At the time I was the general purpose guy, so I kept a list of tasks on "the big board" in my office. I put this one on it, crossed it out and wrote "ethics" beside it.
When the boss came in to add to my list he asked me about the "ethics thing" on the list. I explained to him what the sales guy wanted and that for ethical reasons I couldn't create an email harvester. He just gave me a strange look and walked out.
The funny part is that he went to another co-worker (one of my buddies) and he gave an almost word for word reason why he couldn't do it.
Our boss was somewhat fustrated but didn't persue it further.
So, basically depending on your boss, a simple explination can go a long way.
""" Let us stipulate for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that the first Tasing was justified. """
Personally, I don't really buy that. I don't buy that b/c at the end of the video one of the cops threatens a student with a tasing/if he didn't back up/. Not to mention there obvious mentality throughout the vid.
Based on what I saw in the video, I imagine that for some reason they wanted this guy out of the room, and he didn't go fast enough or insisted that he pack his stuff before he left or something else equally reasonable. They didn't like that so they told him no and when he didn't comply, they forcefully "cuffed" him and when he "got in there face" for abuse of power they tased him. Then again and again...
At least IMO that fits what (and who) I saw in the vid.
I imagine this is the reason why they have psychological tests before you're allowed to be a real cop.
... in continuing education there is such a course.
The program is setup such that each programming language has 4 levels (courses) for it. The first three are the standard "this is the language, do some assignments" type course. The 4th level is for the student to complete a project in that language.
Both the continuing education program and its counter part in the regular program have end projects. In the day program, this project is only taken if one can't find placement in the work option.
I opted for NOT doing the work option as I heard that some students were doing tech support and didn't program at all. When I asked about it, I also asked if I could define my own project, which ended up being accepted. Otherwise, this course was basically used for "slave labour" getting programs needed by the school itself done for free.
So, we have a vote that is logged somewhere that is matched to a ballot. Then we have the server logs that will connect the ballot (with vote) to an IP address. That IP address will be attached to an account at the ISP.
Basically, if you check your vote, your vote can be determined... trivially. Or at least that vote from that house-hold. Which is "good enough" for profiling purposes.
One of the whole points of crypto has just been circumvented. Nice job guys.
First off, the GPL is not an EULA. So, it's presence as one is just plain stupidity.
Secondly, how many people even read the EULA? I know I don't. Just like just about everyone else, the EULA could say "titty titty bang bang" and I/we wouldn't notice.
First and foremost, you do NOT think logically. This you must accept as if you did, math wouldn't be so difficult for you.
Secondly, you must understand that no matter how good you are at math, you must spend hours and hours and... and hours, and then some more time, studying math. Also, please note that studying math does NOT just include reading, and memorizing the definitions. It _mostly_ includes actually doing problems.
Also, reading a math text is different from reading any other non-science book i.e. It is NOT a dime store novel. What you must do is absolutely scrutinize each and every sentence in the book and make sure you understand them. When I was first studying (and this still holds for more advanced books today) it might take me over an hour to go through a page or two.
What I'd recommend, is get a textbook and take the time to read through a section. Then do every problem. When doing a proof, at each step write down possible paths that you can go down to find a solution (or if it's simple enough, just remember them). Then one by one, pick the path that seems most resonable (at first this won't be the right path). Then one by one, pick off the wrong ones until you reach the solution.
This may seem like a massive waste of time, but it's really the only way to learn. Just know that as you get better (i.e. have done lots of problems), you won't have to keep that list, you'll just know what path to take, you'll just see it.
This is somewhat what I did when I went back to university. I had to re-learn highschool math plus try to keep up with the intro calc class and the calc based physics class and... Needless to say, for the first couple months, it was get to the U at 8:00-8:30am and leave at 10:00-11:30pm.
After that I was golden. But, I (and everyone else as well) had to go through pain to get there. The only difference between the people who take math at a U, no matter how good they are, is how much pain do they have to go through. Because _everyone_ has to go through some.
You seem rather certain of this. What makes you think it? B/c from what I've seen, OBSD is at least on the perimeter of many many many companies/intitutions/universities/etc networks. Kinda makes sense given its track record with regards to security.
Or are you only considering users as in desktop users (which is quite narrow minded IMO)? Or are you confusing OBSD with NetBSD?
""" I usually just look at the article history for the revision previous to the one which corrupted the current revision and simply copy the former edit into a new revision. This means that I as an average reader of most topics in just a few seconds can help reduce the noise without being a domain expert of each vandalized topic I notice. """
If you actually do this, then you are certainly NOT the average user. If you were, then there wouldn't be as many problems with the wikipedia as there are.
""" When it comes to "twisting of facts" though, some domain expertise is required in order to correct an article or revert it to a suitable earlier revision. """
This was the one I was talking about.
""" Again, I think it's more beneficial than not to have many eyes on the ball since the aggregated pool of people versed in any specific topic is larger than it would be had the system be closed to a selected few. It's simple economics of labor and production, the same as that driving the open source landscape. """
Not really. I mean, how many people *think* that they have expertise and really don't? For that matter, how many people think they do and have the "confidence" to convince others of that "fact" as well? A whole hell of a lot. And I know acouple. And they even refuse to acknowledge that when I point out glaring errors in there logic. This would be when changing back and forth between actual reality and wrong comes in.
The problem with applying the open source idea to an online encyclopedia is that this is _not_ a "Oh, there's a bug! I'll fix that so that it works as advertised". It's a "I don't _think_ that's the way it is, so I'll change it to _my_ reality." Where that reality is _not_ necessarily the real fact(s). And from what I've read, what facts can be very illusive on the wikipedia.
""" My bet is that the fruits of the labor of many far exceeds that of a few. """
If, *and only if*, the many work _together_. It is obvious that this is _not_ happening as *a lot* of energy goes into fixing what a some of "the many" mess up.
Basically, you're talking about an ideal that is unachievable. In other words, going in this direction like it's actually going to work is rather naive.
""" Looking at the concept (starting with a 1:1 mirror of wikipedia, adding all new articles from wikipedia, mirroring wikipedia changes in imported articles that havent been changed locally) it makes no sense. """
This is true, IF this is the way that they first launch it. If they are smart, they'll snag and fix (a lot of it if not all), then launch.
""" but shutting out the broad mass of eyes that could spot a error and correct it. """
I think you're missing the point. That being that it _is_ the broad mass of eyes that have produced that peice of crap in the first place. I cannot tell you how many articles I've found on wikipedia that are completely full of crap. And since I don't have the time to sit around and watch for when someone comes along and changes it back or to something equally false, the few that actually know something can't make things right.
""" Even worse, seeing the much lower editor/article ratio, i cannot see how he thinks to ever archive some kind of quality census. """
1) The editing ratio is moot if things are correct.
2) Experts of a field can output quality much more readily than non-experts. So, who cares if fewer people are looking at it? The people that _are_ looking at it actually know something.
""" So trying to get people to think its more reliable (and thus view it with less suspicion/ less "thinking") is a bit like cheating the user. """
1) It is/will be more reliable b/c experts will be going through and fixing the errors.
2) People (in general) do NOT go through the wikipedia with suspicion but take it as absolute fact. Furthermore, wikipedia is do little if anything to change this perception. So, it isn't really this guy who is/will be cheating the user, but wikipedia. It is this guy that's making moves to _fix the problem_.
I find it funny that I post my opinion about the GPL (which includes pointing out its practical limitations and implications), which isn't exactly a rare one, and I get labeled as a troll. I also find it interesting the way that you're calling me a "lazy SOB" and you don't get marked as a troll. Goes to show just how many GPL zealots there are around here.
""" So dont use GPL code,
you have no inherent right to use the code """
Actually, according to the GPL, I do. Perhaps you should read it. I know I have.
""" Do you have the right to use code from Microsoft...oh wait you dont have that as an option. """
Actually, even though I don't have access to the code of the libs that M$ provides, I do have the option to use the libs (eg directx) without any encumberence from M$ ie I can link to there libs and still choose the license for my code. So, when it comes to/my/ ability to choose the license I want, M$ is more free than the GPL. Interesting, no?
""" You sure piss and moan about a license you clearly would not even use. """
How do you know that I'd never use it? Every time I start a new project, I think about licenses and there implications and which one would be most appropriate ie My license choice is taken quite seriously, unlike most who just choose the GPL right off the hop without consideration.
IMO, a license is like a tool. It gets done what you want it to. IMO, I don't think that I should force other developers to use a license that I choose. They should have the right to do with the code whatever they want, as long as I'm not liable.
The GPL takes this right away from developers that wish to use the lib. Now how free is that?
Personally, when it comes to one of my current projects, I'm thinking of seperating it into several sub-projects. Release the libs under a BSD/MIT style license (considering zlib as well) and the main project itself as GPL. We'll see though. And its not like I can't change it in the future.
""" Why not go write the code yourself """
I do write code myself. And what I write, I publish under non-restrictive licenses. And when it comes to things that I want others to be able to use as well, it will *always* be under a non-restrictive license.
""" (or are you just a lazy SOB) """
Are you trying to pick a fight, or is it just me? Perhaps its that I've struck a nerve by pointing out the non-free-ness of the GPL?
Now if you continue along this overy aggressive school-yard name calling, I will not even reply. If, on the other hand, you wish to engage in a productive discussion, I will too.
Damn straight! That's why I call the GPL the assholes license ie If you use my GPL'd library in your program, then you have to GPL you stuff as well. Sure, this gives some measure of assurence that the code can be fixed by a 3rd party and the "improvments" can be considered for inclusion in the main trunk, but the same is true for the other OSI approved licenses as well; the GPL is not special (see non-compliance below).
Hell, RMS brags about readline forcing open some software packages. So, what measure of assurence do I have if I use a GPL'd library, that if my stuff "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it".
So, it basically screws developers that don't want to deal with this political baggage.
The whole problem with this political movement is that RMS has made it an "us v.s. them" thing. Sorry RMS, but a couple developers writing code in there free time, cannot compete with all those corps.
Another *very* large problem is that there is the mentality in the open-source arena that the GPL is the only license, among other non-sense. And the FSF is doing NOTHING about correcting it, b/c this mentality furthers its own political agenda.
So, we have a bunch of kids running around licensing there code under the GPL with it in there heads that the GPL is the/only/ license. Most of the rest have it in there heads that the GPL does what it can't possibly do, like force people to comply with the GPL.
A good example of non-compliance is the whole Sony (I believe it was Sony) thing awhile back. They used [L]GPL'd code in there software and didn't tell anyone. Sure they got caught, and that was held up and the poster child for how the GPL works. BUT, the problem is that if Sony got caught for this/one/ thing, how many times did they *not* get caught? How many other companies doing the same thing and not getting caught?
It is naive to thing that the GPL works when it clearly does not. Not to mention that if the corps in North America really wanted to effectively kill open-source, they could. All they'd have to do is lobby and grease the right pockets to get the "proper" laws in place.
Of course it's the fault of the workers. I mean, why should anyone get stressed working 12 hr days 6-7 days a week on some death march. Seriously people, just go for a jog. That'll fix everything.
One of the things about Fischer that people have said that is others are only competent imitators. That Fischer had an understanding that went beyond hard work. This is true with any field.
Of course hard work can never be replaced, but if someone has a natural talent and works as hard as someone that isn't a prodigy for a decade, guess who's going to be far far better. Naturally the one with the natural talent for that field.
I really believe that these authors of the "study" are just trying to even things out in a pathetic attempt to tell people that "You can do anything you want to!" This is of course ridiculous.
I know that I'll never write a best selling novel because I suck with the written word. And even after a decade of study, I'll only be a competent imitator; there's just no substitute for natural talent. But, I can write good code, so there's a chance that I can write a useful piece of software. I'll stay with what I'm good at.
We must all know our limitations. It's BS like this that forwards the delusions of the youth of today that they have no limitations, and are all "the best" and can do *anything*, etc.
The course was taught by "the new guy" who was a *NIX person (of course he got to teach the M$ classes and not the *NIX classes which would have made sense).
Anyway, one class he was showing us how to use objects, etc with what he had made prior to class... it didn't work. He made some comment like, "This worked 10 mins ago in my office." and tried to figure out what was wrong. A few french curses later and we got, "THAT IT! Class is over." And he walked out.
After working against access during the course I found that his reaction was appropriate. In fact, a class-mate that I worked with and I found out that access decides almost randomly when an object exists or not. In the end, we figured out that it had some relationship to the running context (which it shouldn't have), but I digress.
Since then I have purged all access knowledge from my mind. I think I'm the better for it. Or at least my sanity.
So, my advice would be to figure out how the system works, and convert it to a different DB. Maybe PostgreSQL? It's not like management will be able to figure it out.
I've only worked in small companies and in my experience, they tend to be flexible with new hires. The only caveat is that you have a buddy on the "inside" that can vouch for you. Then you're golden.
I got a buddy a job at one and am now pimping him to replace me after I leave my current position.
The liscense I've chosen (GPL) is pretty close to the idea that "you're free to do whatever you want with this except deny that freedom to others". If they want to choose another liscense, it can only directly or indirectly restrict someone's freedom. Directly if they want to add additional restrictions ("this software is for non-commercial use only"; "some code written by X, if you redistribute you must include this notice), indirectly if they want to allow others to have the freedom to deny freedoms. Perhaps there are minor points they would like to change, but I don't currently know of any way to deal with this tidily. If someone wants to do something strange they should talk to me.
The problem is that you're denying the next developer freedom and calling that your freedom. More precisely, you're saying you want people to have as much freedom as possible, but doing that by denying freedom. This is a contradiction and one that is called hypocrisy.
If they want to privately make changes for their own use, that's allowed. I have the power to keep public distribution free, so I invoke it.
Yes, by keeping your source tree open. Please let me know how you are not being an a**hole by forcing people to do the same. After all, if they choose the close there copy that does not mean that you have to close yours. Basically, your tree remains open as long as you want. Why force that on others?
For that matter, why isn't a BSD license plus the "all modifications must be sent upstream" not appropriate. For that matter, why do you need to deny other developers there right to choose there own license? What does that matter for your source tree?
> Having someone edit out the original author's names
> and put their own in on a piece of contributed code
> isn't plagiarism?
Could you let the rest of us know why this isn't
possible under the GPL but possible under MIT/BSD/etc
style licenses, please.
> When you release something to the community with the intent > for it to be free, is it selfish to want it to remain free?
How about, is it selfish to require other developers to use the license that you choose, NOT one that they choose.
It's all fine and good if you want to be notified of improvments, but requiring others to use your choosen license is just plain belligerent.
Also, what someone else does with your code else-where does nothing to the free nature of the code that you still possess. Or do you as well believe that getting your picture taken will steal your soul?
You can't secure against someone that has hold of the machine that you're working on. The only way to be able to manage it, is to buy your own computer. Anything else is delusion.
Slashdot Mirror
So, what about those in a crowd that don't pose a threat? Giving indiscriminant "pain" is a bad idea and as a side-effect would make laws being in the general area of protests enough of a reason to get "punished". Anyone else see that this would be a slippery slope? Perhaps a danger to free speech and the right to protest?
An above post pointed out that tear-gas can be lethal for people with respitory illnesses. But, radiation is lethal for everyone (not to mention that there is NO safe level of exposure) and quite hard to avoid if one doesn't know where the point of origin is. Not to mention the fact that batons can target specific people (the dangerous ones) whereas this method can't.
Too many problems.
... that when it comes to academic articles (e.g. physics) the only people who know enough math/jargon to get it close to right are the academics. So, the acuracy is of course going to be fairly high.
BUT, when it comes to policitically charged articles (or other non-academic articles), b/c of people's "MY true is reality no matter what the facts say" mentality nowadays, the acuracy plumits.
Basically, this study is nothing but a false positive in favor of wikipedia.
... one of the employees (sales guy) wanted me to make a program to make his job easier. It was to aquire email addresses from web pages so that he could then send sales emails to people. I said it was possible but I'd have to think about it.
At the time I was the general purpose guy, so I kept a list of tasks on "the big board" in my office. I put this one on it, crossed it out and wrote "ethics" beside it.
When the boss came in to add to my list he asked me about the "ethics thing" on the list. I explained to him what the sales guy wanted and that for ethical reasons I couldn't create an email harvester. He just gave me a strange look and walked out.
The funny part is that he went to another co-worker (one of my buddies) and he gave an almost word for word reason why he couldn't do it.
Our boss was somewhat fustrated but didn't persue it further.
So, basically depending on your boss, a simple explination can go a long way.
"""
/if he didn't back up/. Not to mention there obvious mentality throughout the vid.
Let us stipulate for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that the first Tasing was justified.
"""
Personally, I don't really buy that. I don't buy that b/c at the end of the video one of the cops threatens a student with a tasing
Based on what I saw in the video, I imagine that for some reason they wanted this guy out of the room, and he didn't go fast enough or insisted that he pack his stuff before he left or something else equally reasonable. They didn't like that so they told him no and when he didn't comply, they forcefully "cuffed" him and when he "got in there face" for abuse of power they tased him. Then again and again...
At least IMO that fits what (and who) I saw in the vid.
I imagine this is the reason why they have psychological tests before you're allowed to be a real cop.
... in continuing education there is such a course.
The program is setup such that each programming language has 4 levels (courses) for it. The first three are the standard "this is the language, do some assignments" type course. The 4th level is for the student to complete a project in that language.
Both the continuing education program and its counter part in the regular program have end projects. In the day program, this project is only taken if one can't find placement in the work option.
I opted for NOT doing the work option as I heard that some students were doing tech support and didn't program at all. When I asked about it, I also asked if I could define my own project, which ended up being accepted. Otherwise, this course was basically used for "slave labour" getting programs needed by the school itself done for free.
So, we have a vote that is logged somewhere that is matched to a ballot. Then we have the server logs that will connect the ballot (with vote) to an IP address. That IP address will be attached to an account at the ISP.
Basically, if you check your vote, your vote can be determined... trivially. Or at least that vote from that house-hold. Which is "good enough" for profiling purposes.
One of the whole points of crypto has just been circumvented. Nice job guys.
First off, the GPL is not an EULA. So, it's presence as one is just plain stupidity.
Secondly, how many people even read the EULA? I know I don't. Just like just about everyone else, the EULA could say "titty titty bang bang" and I/we wouldn't notice.
So, who really cares?
Actually, all Joss said was that there is no sequel in the works RIGHT NOW.
Please note that this does NOT mean that there is never be one.
First and foremost, you do NOT think logically. This you must accept as if you did, math wouldn't be so difficult for you.
... and hours, and then some more time, studying math. Also, please note that studying math does NOT just include reading, and memorizing the definitions. It _mostly_ includes actually doing problems.
;)
Secondly, you must understand that no matter how good you are at math, you must spend hours and hours and
Also, reading a math text is different from reading any other non-science book i.e. It is NOT a dime store novel. What you must do is absolutely scrutinize each and every sentence in the book and make sure you understand them. When I was first studying (and this still holds for more advanced books today) it might take me over an hour to go through a page or two.
What I'd recommend, is get a textbook and take the time to read through a section. Then do every problem. When doing a proof, at each step write down possible paths that you can go down to find a solution (or if it's simple enough, just remember them). Then one by one, pick the path that seems most resonable (at first this won't be the right path). Then one by one, pick off the wrong ones until you reach the solution.
This may seem like a massive waste of time, but it's really the only way to learn. Just know that as you get better (i.e. have done lots of problems), you won't have to keep that list, you'll just know what path to take, you'll just see it.
This is somewhat what I did when I went back to university. I had to re-learn highschool math plus try to keep up with the intro calc class and the calc based physics class and... Needless to say, for the first couple months, it was get to the U at 8:00-8:30am and leave at 10:00-11:30pm.
After that I was golden. But, I (and everyone else as well) had to go through pain to get there. The only difference between the people who take math at a U, no matter how good they are, is how much pain do they have to go through. Because _everyone_ has to go through some.
Good luck and have fun... eventually
"""
it's dying, of course
"""
You seem rather certain of this. What makes you think it? B/c from what I've seen, OBSD is at least on the perimeter of many many many companies/intitutions/universities/etc networks. Kinda makes sense given its track record with regards to security.
Or are you only considering users as in desktop users (which is quite narrow minded IMO)? Or are you confusing OBSD with NetBSD?
"""
I usually just look at the article history for the revision previous to the one which corrupted the current revision and simply copy the former edit into a new revision. This means that I as an average reader of most topics in just a few seconds can help reduce the noise without being a domain expert of each vandalized topic I notice.
"""
If you actually do this, then you are certainly NOT the average user. If you were, then there wouldn't be as many problems with the wikipedia as there are.
"""
When it comes to "twisting of facts" though, some domain expertise is required in order to correct an article or revert it to a suitable earlier revision.
"""
This was the one I was talking about.
"""
Again, I think it's more beneficial than not to have many eyes on the ball since the aggregated pool of people versed in any specific topic is larger than it would be had the system be closed to a selected few. It's simple economics of labor and production, the same as that driving the open source landscape.
"""
Not really. I mean, how many people *think* that they have expertise and really don't? For that matter, how many people think they do and have the "confidence" to convince others of that "fact" as well? A whole hell of a lot. And I know acouple. And they even refuse to acknowledge that when I point out glaring errors in there logic. This would be when changing back and forth between actual reality and wrong comes in.
The problem with applying the open source idea to an online encyclopedia is that this is _not_ a "Oh, there's a bug! I'll fix that so that it works as advertised". It's a "I don't _think_ that's the way it is, so I'll change it to _my_ reality." Where that reality is _not_ necessarily the real fact(s). And from what I've read, what facts can be very illusive on the wikipedia.
"""
My bet is that the fruits of the labor of many far exceeds that of a few.
"""
If, *and only if*, the many work _together_. It is obvious that this is _not_ happening as *a lot* of energy goes into fixing what a some of "the many" mess up.
Basically, you're talking about an ideal that is unachievable. In other words, going in this direction like it's actually going to work is rather naive.
"""
Looking at the concept (starting with a 1:1 mirror of wikipedia, adding all new articles from wikipedia, mirroring wikipedia changes in imported articles that havent been changed locally) it makes no sense.
"""
This is true, IF this is the way that they first launch it. If they are smart, they'll snag and fix (a lot of it if not all), then launch.
"""
but shutting out the broad mass of eyes that could spot a error and correct it.
"""
I think you're missing the point. That being that it _is_ the broad mass of eyes that have produced that peice of crap in the first place. I cannot tell you how many articles I've found on wikipedia that are completely full of crap. And since I don't have the time to sit around and watch for when someone comes along and changes it back or to something equally false, the few that actually know something can't make things right.
"""
Even worse, seeing the much lower editor/article ratio, i cannot see how he thinks to ever archive some kind of quality census.
"""
1) The editing ratio is moot if things are correct.
2) Experts of a field can output quality much more readily than non-experts. So, who cares if fewer people are looking at it? The people that _are_ looking at it actually know something.
"""
So trying to get people to think its more reliable (and thus view it with less suspicion/ less "thinking") is a bit like cheating the user.
"""
1) It is/will be more reliable b/c experts will be going through and fixing the errors.
2) People (in general) do NOT go through the wikipedia with suspicion but take it as absolute fact. Furthermore, wikipedia is do little if anything to change this perception. So, it isn't really this guy who is/will be cheating the user, but wikipedia. It is this guy that's making moves to _fix the problem_.
"""
/I/ can be arrogant? Where does this guy get off?
even the form of the project name and the term "core". This
later became a kind of standard template for starting up an open source
project.
"""
Wow... and my wife says that
I find it funny that I post my opinion about the GPL (which includes pointing out its practical limitations and implications), which isn't exactly a rare one, and I get labeled as a troll. I also find it interesting the way that you're calling me a "lazy SOB" and you don't get marked as a troll. Goes to show just how many GPL zealots there are around here.
/my/ ability to choose the license I want, M$ is more free than the GPL. Interesting, no?
"""
So dont use GPL code,
you have no inherent right to use the code
"""
Actually, according to the GPL, I do. Perhaps you should read it. I know I have.
"""
Do you have the right to use code from Microsoft...oh wait you dont have that as an option.
"""
Actually, even though I don't have access to the code of the libs that M$ provides, I do have the option to use the libs (eg directx) without any encumberence from M$ ie I can link to there libs and still choose the license for my code. So, when it comes to
"""
You sure piss and moan about a license you clearly would not even use.
"""
How do you know that I'd never use it? Every time I start a new project, I think about licenses and there implications and which one would be most appropriate ie My license choice is taken quite seriously, unlike most who just choose the GPL right off the hop without consideration.
IMO, a license is like a tool. It gets done what you want it to. IMO, I don't think that I should force other developers to use a license that I choose. They should have the right to do with the code whatever they want, as long as I'm not liable.
The GPL takes this right away from developers that wish to use the lib. Now how free is that?
Personally, when it comes to one of my current projects, I'm thinking of seperating it into several sub-projects. Release the libs under a BSD/MIT style license (considering zlib as well) and the main project itself as GPL. We'll see though. And its not like I can't change it in the future.
"""
Why not go write the code yourself
"""
I do write code myself. And what I write, I publish under non-restrictive licenses. And when it comes to things that I want others to be able to use as well, it will *always* be under a non-restrictive license.
"""
(or are you just a lazy SOB)
"""
Are you trying to pick a fight, or is it just me? Perhaps its that I've struck a nerve by pointing out the non-free-ness of the GPL?
Now if you continue along this overy aggressive school-yard name calling, I will not even reply. If, on the other hand, you wish to engage in a productive discussion, I will too.
Damn straight! That's why I call the GPL the assholes license ie If you use my GPL'd library in your program, then you have to GPL you stuff as well. Sure, this gives some measure of assurence that the code can be fixed by a 3rd party and the "improvments" can be considered for inclusion in the main trunk, but the same is true for the other OSI approved licenses as well; the GPL is not special (see non-compliance below).
/only/ license. Most of the rest have it in there heads that the GPL does what it can't possibly do, like force people to comply with the GPL.
/one/ thing, how many times did they *not* get caught? How many other companies doing the same thing and not getting caught?
Hell, RMS brags about readline forcing open some software packages. So, what measure of assurence do I have if I use a GPL'd library, that if my stuff "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it".
So, it basically screws developers that don't want to deal with this political baggage.
The whole problem with this political movement is that RMS has made it an "us v.s. them" thing. Sorry RMS, but a couple developers writing code in there free time, cannot compete with all those corps.
Another *very* large problem is that there is the mentality in the open-source arena that the GPL is the only license, among other non-sense. And the FSF is doing NOTHING about correcting it, b/c this mentality furthers its own political agenda.
So, we have a bunch of kids running around licensing there code under the GPL with it in there heads that the GPL is the
A good example of non-compliance is the whole Sony (I believe it was Sony) thing awhile back. They used [L]GPL'd code in there software and didn't tell anyone. Sure they got caught, and that was held up and the poster child for how the GPL works. BUT, the problem is that if Sony got caught for this
It is naive to thing that the GPL works when it clearly does not. Not to mention that if the corps in North America really wanted to effectively kill open-source, they could. All they'd have to do is lobby and grease the right pockets to get the "proper" laws in place.
Of course it's the fault of the workers. I mean, why should anyone get stressed working 12 hr days 6-7 days a week on some death march. Seriously people, just go for a jog. That'll fix everything.
One of the things about Fischer that people have said that is others are only competent imitators. That Fischer had an understanding that went beyond hard work. This is true with any field.
Of course hard work can never be replaced, but if someone has a natural talent and works as hard as someone that isn't a prodigy for a decade, guess who's going to be far far better. Naturally the one with the natural talent for that field.
I really believe that these authors of the "study" are just trying to even things out in a pathetic attempt to tell people that "You can do anything you want to!" This is of course ridiculous.
I know that I'll never write a best selling novel because I suck with the written word. And even after a decade of study, I'll only be a competent imitator; there's just no substitute for natural talent. But, I can write good code, so there's a chance that I can write a useful piece of software. I'll stay with what I'm good at.
We must all know our limitations. It's BS like this that forwards the delusions of the youth of today that they have no limitations, and are all "the best" and can do *anything*, etc.
... I was forced to learn access.
The course was taught by "the new guy" who was a *NIX person (of course he got to teach the M$ classes and not the *NIX classes which would have made sense).
Anyway, one class he was showing us how to use objects, etc with what he had made prior to class... it didn't work. He made some comment like, "This worked 10 mins ago in my office." and tried to figure out what was wrong. A few french curses later and we got, "THAT IT! Class is over." And he walked out.
After working against access during the course I found that his reaction was appropriate. In fact, a class-mate that I worked with and I found out that access decides almost randomly when an object exists or not. In the end, we figured out that it had some relationship to the running context (which it shouldn't have), but I digress.
Since then I have purged all access knowledge from my mind. I think I'm the better for it. Or at least my sanity.
So, my advice would be to figure out how the system works, and convert it to a different DB. Maybe PostgreSQL? It's not like management will be able to figure it out.
Couldn't bashing someone else be considered childish? Just saying is all.
I've only worked in small companies and in my experience, they tend to be flexible with new hires. The only caveat is that you have a buddy on the "inside" that can vouch for you. Then you're golden.
I got a buddy a job at one and am now pimping him to replace me after I leave my current position.
The problem is that you're denying the next developer freedom and calling that your freedom. More precisely, you're saying you want people to have as much freedom as possible, but doing that by denying freedom. This is a contradiction and one that is called hypocrisy.
If they want to privately make changes for their own use, that's allowed. I have the power to keep public distribution free, so I invoke it.
Yes, by keeping your source tree open. Please let me know how you are not being an a**hole by forcing people to do the same. After all, if they choose the close there copy that does not mean that you have to close yours. Basically, your tree remains open as long as you want. Why force that on others?
For that matter, why isn't a BSD license plus the "all modifications must be sent upstream" not appropriate. For that matter, why do you need to deny other developers there right to choose there own license? What does that matter for your source tree?
My point exactly :)
And I certainly agree with that final statment as well (been bitten by it myself).
> Having someone edit out the original author's names > and put their own in on a piece of contributed code > isn't plagiarism? Could you let the rest of us know why this isn't possible under the GPL but possible under MIT/BSD/etc style licenses, please.
> Becomes part of the commons -- and stays there.
*cough*sony*cough*
> When you release something to the community with the intent
> for it to be free, is it selfish to want it to remain free?
How about, is it selfish to require other developers to use the
license that you choose, NOT one that they choose.
It's all fine and good if you want to be notified of improvments,
but requiring others to use your choosen license is just plain
belligerent.
Also, what someone else does with your code else-where does
nothing to the free nature of the code that you still possess. Or
do you as well believe that getting your picture taken will steal
your soul?
You can't secure against someone that has hold of the machine that you're working on. The only way to be able to manage it, is to buy your own computer. Anything else is delusion.