Grampy, meds. Meds, Grampy. Don't ask about the lawn, there is an injunction.
It isn't like I left bare sarcasm waiting to trap an unsuspecting reader, I put the/s right there on the part that was a joke, and then made serious comments.
I find it interesting that two different people who are close to this story responded to my comment, and they both attacked the joke, pretended not to see that it was clearly labeled as a joke, and did not in any way respond to the substance of my comment.
You take it a step further and even call me names. To which I reply, "Are you stupid, or just an asshole?"
LOLOLOLOLOL Bruce, Bruce, I haven't ROFLCOPTERed like that in years, thank you man! Thank you. ---{--{@
You're right, I hate C++. As soon as C stops being the best tool, I either jump upwards to Ruby or down to ASM. Never never never switch to C++, it is all knife and no handle.
Also, an astute reader would notice that I said I use uCLibc, so then there must be at least an 85% chance I use QEMU.
And the idea that letting them just bubble out will remove them from the fuel at a fast enough rate makes me LOL.
If the researchers say they think it is worth pursuing, and all you have are laughs, I'm gonna side with them and laugh at you!
If the ideas of the serious professionals involved seem "so utterly ridiculous" then all I learned anything about is that to you, things seem utterly ridiculous.
Nearly all important research has people laughing at it before it is finished. Dismissing things out of hand does not imply that they are without substance.
The problem is that the "they" turn out to be the reporters who told you about it, and they're not actually any sort of authorities on the research, or even involved in it.
When the ITER timeline slipped, it was because of current events and related funding interruptions, not because there was some fundamental problem with the research schedule.
You also seem to be cherry picking the most poorly worded quotes, and then splitting their hairs. All the projects you mentions are prototype reactors, so you're missing some words from the claim. The end goal of the entire research chain is to build a prototype of a commercially viable power station; that is actually what they do not yet have, and haven't yet tried to build. Instead they're building multiple generations of prototypes that are designed to output engineering knowledge and are in fact working reactors.
When somebody says, "In at least 20 years" and you remember it as "in 20 years," you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Especially when the scientists only have a roadmap for phases of research, and they actually keep telling the reporter "we don't know when it will be ready for widespread public use." The reporter responds, "Yeah but I still have to write a number in the story!" "Fine, at least [some bullshit number that was not claimed to be real]."
If you had heard about it, and then followed the news about the projects during that time, you'd have seen all the progress.
As with the linux desktop, if you're not the one running it, you don't see it. If you are running it, you do see it.
If you are following the news about fusion power, you know it is progressing along its originally-planned path. If you aren't following it, all you know is the answer to the basic question, "Are we there yet?" "No, Billy, we're not there yet."
You seem a little bit confused about the technology and the science behind it.
There is no difficulty in using fusion to generate more electricity than you put in. That is actually easy.
The reactors being built aren't designed to do that. They're designed to be useful to the engineers figuring out how to build all the parts to be durable and find out exactly which configurations give the best efficiency.
The reason it would not yet be cost effective isn't about net energy, it is about net money; making it last long enough to turn a profit! There are huge capital costs involved in construction.
Presumably it is not an absolute number that they're targeting, but a proportion based on what they have clients buying.
Maybe there is a shortage, and yet the shortage is not so extreme that companies are willing to trust freelancing websites to find firmware programmers?
You might want to try forming a company and sending brochures directly to potential client companies. Even if it is just you, it sounds more professional to have a company name than to be an individual freelancer. On web programming using a company name gets more responses, and also higher pay!
Since corporations can't file lawsuits pro-se, they're required to hire a lawyer to do it, this seems to be a very weak default assessment.
More logical would be something like, "if I think they would require X and Y in order to have a strong case, and they did indeed file the case, and it isn't a case that would reasonably involve any type of cash settlement, then most likely X and Y are implied."
I would at least want to some reason to believe X and Y are a certain value before believing that they imply an outcome.
He asked your reason. You appealed for him to do research.
You're so smaht you can't see the difference? LOL
If you explained your reasons and he wanted a citation, then it would be reasonable to say, "go and research what I said." But that isn't the case; you made a very very very broad statement, which I already impeached above, and he was asking you for data. Your claim had conclusions, but you didn't make any claims as to if there even is data that supports it. If you don't know if data exists that supports your claim, how do you know that research would uncover it? No, you have to have done the research already! And when you appeal to another to do research about your own claims, you'd need to be willing to make some sort of reference as to what was researchable. Just giving a bare google link with no description of the data is fucking moronic. Dumbfuck.
Right, right, it is the same "grand scale of things" on which everybody was just going to keep using IE because it had so much market share.
If the goal is to be dismissive of people with complaints, that is the exact same goal as wanting people to switch browsers. And it does indeed seem achievable.
Are you sure they even have users? It is just crap like Boost [wretch], Darcs, Git, Incscape, Mercurial, phpMyAdmin [pause for 90s flashbacks], QEMU, Samba [crying], Selenium, Squeak, SWIG [thanks for the code I promise not to look at it], uCLibc [I actually use this one], and WINE.
Probably they don't come out in support of their great Champion because they don't have users and don't care./s
The good news, without Darcs, Git, or Mercurial we'd still have SVN and CVS to choose between.
It all reminds of the Free Internet Chess Server... originally it was GPL. They had all the contributors sign the copyrights over the Free Internet Chess Server organization... and then they closed the source and licensed it out as proprietary software! It continues on today, still closed source, still with the word "free" in the name. If they had registered their corporation as a non-profit, somebody might have been able to sue to get it back! Lawsuits aren't always the worst result, sometimes the worse result is that the behavior couldn't be stopped at all!
I can understand signing copyrights over to the FSF, because of their history. But developers should think twice about signing copyrights over to an organization to "safeguard" when all they have is a name that purports to be about software freedom.
It seems to be (I am not a lawyer) that copying for the purpose of interoperability is Fair Use, and that plugins are a system for allowing and encouraging third-party interoperation. Therefore, it does not automatically follow that there would be a violation there.
Certainly if that lawsuit came up, those details would affect the exact things that the lawyers on each side would need to argue, but it looks like a wash to me; whoever it turns out might have needed a license was only engaging in fair use!
Also, if the user is the one who installed the plugin, how is the company that wrote the plugin system even a party to the case? That seems the bigger hurdle for the GPL authors to sue there. Contributory infringement:
absence of such express language in the copyright statute does not preclude the imposition of liability for copyright infringements on certain parties who have not themselves engaged in the infringing activity.
One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement.
So first you'd have to prove that the user was violating the GPL by installing the GPL software; that seems an impossible row to hoe! And then if you could do that, if you could convince the Court that your claimed facts, if true, would make the user an infringer, then you ask to add the proprietary software vendor, but probably only if they had advertised compatibility. And again, their fair use defense would seem to win. But on what theory is the user creating a new work by installing a plugin? Good luck with that one!
There is no magic-pixie-dust on either side of it. You may or may not be able to do dynamic linking; it may or may not infringe, and it may or may not be fair use. As Bruce Perens says above. But plugins seem to be very clearly OK if they are installed by the user. If the GPL plugin is distributed with the proprietary software, then it is very much more like dynamic linking, and the proprietary developer is also more likely to be a valid party to the case. So that is the real lesson; don't bundle GPL software with proprietary software without getting legal advice first, and maybe also a second opinion.
That sounds like a lot of slanderous statements to me! Accusing people of yelling at you and acting unprofessionally... at a meeting that hasn't been held?! That is offensive both to my sense of civics, and to my understanding of what words mean.
If you attend a meeting and somebody is yelling at you, just leave. Then you can say, "We did meet, but we had to end the meeting early for [reasons]." And it would be honest. But when the meeting didn't happen, you certainly don't get to make accusations like that. Especially when you haven't yet been willing to certify that you've stopped beating your wife!
What a mess. It makes them both look pretty bad at this point, to be honest.
I don't really comprehend that. To me it seems obvious that it makes the people refusing to meet look bad, and it makes the other people look like they tried to avoid this unfortunate result.
Maybe I'm the only person on slashdot who believes in seeking Justice where there are systems in place to achieve it. But I doubt it.
If they're always too busy to meet with people who helped found their group, and who they potentially have ongoing entanglements with, then they're also always too busy to be doing charitable work and should not be squatting on a trademark! If you stop doing business with a trademark, you lose it. It has to be in use.
Remember, charities are owned by the community, they're controlled by their board but they are not owned. That is why they get tax benefits. If they did things to be sued over, by definition they're not providing the good faith oversight that is required of board members.
I'm curious, why would slashdot users, who are careful about what we click to the point of often not even clicking on the story, click on a link to a place whose domain name implies it is unserious content?
Having not read it, and only seen your appeal to read it, I've now become suspicious of you.
You do, though. Actually, the limits of what is your mind and what is somebody else's mind were explored rather extensively even in ancient Greece! This is not a new or controversial concept. Your claim of knowledge is a claim of what is inside your own mind only.
So, you're saying I'm a "moron" for asking you to state your claims using words?
In your view, smaht people just make lots of assumptions?
I mean that's what you're saying; "You could have just made lots of assumptions to fix my unclear words!"
And yet, if I think that only morons would make that many assumptions, then it wouldn't matter how clear it is which assumption you're demanding to have made.
And no, burning things for home heating is not automatically presumed by the word "household use." The largest household use is electricity, which is counted separately. If you want to talk about residential fuel oil, talk about residential fuel oil. In fact the most likely assumption from just saying "household use" would that you mean all household uses, and are simply double-counting. That mistake is going to be way more common that the mistake where a person has correct information but doesn't know what it is in order to use words that actually describe it.
So the answer is yes, I am an "idiot," for values of "idiot" that mean, "the opposite of whatever you were doing when you couldn't understand the word `household'." If we simply look at your own definition above, "A house hold[sic] is a family of 3, average of all households in Germany, or 2.5" then from that we know that were blathering nonsense when you used "households" as an unqualified energy use category. Your genius-level definition seems to actually just mean their exhaled breaths, and not cooking, until you add on extra words talking about cooking.
If you didn't know that defining terms was important, it seems unlikely that you ever in your life read anything on the subject of energy policy and understood what was said. Without narrowly defined terms, it would all be very misleading.
Slashdot Mirror
Once. After the update.
Derpa derpa derpa derp! I didn't ask you to reply, dumb ass.
Grampy, meds. Meds, Grampy. Don't ask about the lawn, there is an injunction.
It isn't like I left bare sarcasm waiting to trap an unsuspecting reader, I put the /s right there on the part that was a joke, and then made serious comments.
I find it interesting that two different people who are close to this story responded to my comment, and they both attacked the joke, pretended not to see that it was clearly labeled as a joke, and did not in any way respond to the substance of my comment.
You take it a step further and even call me names. To which I reply, "Are you stupid, or just an asshole?"
LOLOLOLOLOL Bruce, Bruce, I haven't ROFLCOPTERed like that in years, thank you man! Thank you. ---{--{@
You're right, I hate C++. As soon as C stops being the best tool, I either jump upwards to Ruby or down to ASM. Never never never switch to C++, it is all knife and no handle.
Also, an astute reader would notice that I said I use uCLibc, so then there must be at least an 85% chance I use QEMU.
And the idea that letting them just bubble out will remove them from the fuel at a fast enough rate makes me LOL.
If the researchers say they think it is worth pursuing, and all you have are laughs, I'm gonna side with them and laugh at you!
If the ideas of the serious professionals involved seem "so utterly ridiculous" then all I learned anything about is that to you, things seem utterly ridiculous.
Nearly all important research has people laughing at it before it is finished. Dismissing things out of hand does not imply that they are without substance.
Why did you hide a link to wikimedia behind a google redirect?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/... is the file.
The problem is that the "they" turn out to be the reporters who told you about it, and they're not actually any sort of authorities on the research, or even involved in it.
When the ITER timeline slipped, it was because of current events and related funding interruptions, not because there was some fundamental problem with the research schedule.
You also seem to be cherry picking the most poorly worded quotes, and then splitting their hairs. All the projects you mentions are prototype reactors, so you're missing some words from the claim. The end goal of the entire research chain is to build a prototype of a commercially viable power station; that is actually what they do not yet have, and haven't yet tried to build. Instead they're building multiple generations of prototypes that are designed to output engineering knowledge and are in fact working reactors.
When somebody says, "In at least 20 years" and you remember it as "in 20 years," you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Especially when the scientists only have a roadmap for phases of research, and they actually keep telling the reporter "we don't know when it will be ready for widespread public use." The reporter responds, "Yeah but I still have to write a number in the story!" "Fine, at least [some bullshit number that was not claimed to be real]."
have you ever tried to write an essay on a phone? You can do it, but it's painful
Is this still true if you're sitting down and using a portable keyboard?
I know my linux desktop will be around as long as I am, but I'm not convinced about the general rule.
If you had heard about it, and then followed the news about the projects during that time, you'd have seen all the progress.
As with the linux desktop, if you're not the one running it, you don't see it. If you are running it, you do see it.
If you are following the news about fusion power, you know it is progressing along its originally-planned path. If you aren't following it, all you know is the answer to the basic question, "Are we there yet?" "No, Billy, we're not there yet."
You seem a little bit confused about the technology and the science behind it.
There is no difficulty in using fusion to generate more electricity than you put in. That is actually easy.
The reactors being built aren't designed to do that. They're designed to be useful to the engineers figuring out how to build all the parts to be durable and find out exactly which configurations give the best efficiency.
The reason it would not yet be cost effective isn't about net energy, it is about net money; making it last long enough to turn a profit! There are huge capital costs involved in construction.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/...
You're not that far off for todays prices, you just didn't adjust your memory for inflation!
It turns out it is twice as expensive now than 30 years ago, and not ten times more expensive than 20 years ago.
Presumably it is not an absolute number that they're targeting, but a proportion based on what they have clients buying.
Maybe there is a shortage, and yet the shortage is not so extreme that companies are willing to trust freelancing websites to find firmware programmers?
You might want to try forming a company and sending brochures directly to potential client companies. Even if it is just you, it sounds more professional to have a company name than to be an individual freelancer. On web programming using a company name gets more responses, and also higher pay!
It seems SFLC has a VERY weak case unless ...
Since corporations can't file lawsuits pro-se, they're required to hire a lawyer to do it, this seems to be a very weak default assessment.
More logical would be something like, "if I think they would require X and Y in order to have a strong case, and they did indeed file the case, and it isn't a case that would reasonably involve any type of cash settlement, then most likely X and Y are implied."
I would at least want to some reason to believe X and Y are a certain value before believing that they imply an outcome.
He asked your reason. You appealed for him to do research.
You're so smaht you can't see the difference? LOL
If you explained your reasons and he wanted a citation, then it would be reasonable to say, "go and research what I said." But that isn't the case; you made a very very very broad statement, which I already impeached above, and he was asking you for data. Your claim had conclusions, but you didn't make any claims as to if there even is data that supports it. If you don't know if data exists that supports your claim, how do you know that research would uncover it? No, you have to have done the research already! And when you appeal to another to do research about your own claims, you'd need to be willing to make some sort of reference as to what was researchable. Just giving a bare google link with no description of the data is fucking moronic. Dumbfuck.
Right, right, it is the same "grand scale of things" on which everybody was just going to keep using IE because it had so much market share.
If the goal is to be dismissive of people with complaints, that is the exact same goal as wanting people to switch browsers. And it does indeed seem achievable.
I think
As clear as air, in that you didn't give any reasons and so there is nothing to see in your opinion.
Are you sure they even have users? It is just crap like Boost [wretch], Darcs, Git, Incscape, Mercurial, phpMyAdmin [pause for 90s flashbacks], QEMU, Samba [crying], Selenium, Squeak, SWIG [thanks for the code I promise not to look at it], uCLibc [I actually use this one], and WINE.
Probably they don't come out in support of their great Champion because they don't have users and don't care. /s
The good news, without Darcs, Git, or Mercurial we'd still have SVN and CVS to choose between.
It all reminds of the Free Internet Chess Server... originally it was GPL. They had all the contributors sign the copyrights over the Free Internet Chess Server organization... and then they closed the source and licensed it out as proprietary software! It continues on today, still closed source, still with the word "free" in the name. If they had registered their corporation as a non-profit, somebody might have been able to sue to get it back! Lawsuits aren't always the worst result, sometimes the worse result is that the behavior couldn't be stopped at all!
I can understand signing copyrights over to the FSF, because of their history. But developers should think twice about signing copyrights over to an organization to "safeguard" when all they have is a name that purports to be about software freedom.
It seems to be (I am not a lawyer) that copying for the purpose of interoperability is Fair Use, and that plugins are a system for allowing and encouraging third-party interoperation. Therefore, it does not automatically follow that there would be a violation there.
Certainly if that lawsuit came up, those details would affect the exact things that the lawyers on each side would need to argue, but it looks like a wash to me; whoever it turns out might have needed a license was only engaging in fair use!
Also, if the user is the one who installed the plugin, how is the company that wrote the plugin system even a party to the case? That seems the bigger hurdle for the GPL authors to sue there. Contributory infringement:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
So first you'd have to prove that the user was violating the GPL by installing the GPL software; that seems an impossible row to hoe! And then if you could do that, if you could convince the Court that your claimed facts, if true, would make the user an infringer, then you ask to add the proprietary software vendor, but probably only if they had advertised compatibility. And again, their fair use defense would seem to win. But on what theory is the user creating a new work by installing a plugin? Good luck with that one!
There is no magic-pixie-dust on either side of it. You may or may not be able to do dynamic linking; it may or may not infringe, and it may or may not be fair use. As Bruce Perens says above. But plugins seem to be very clearly OK if they are installed by the user. If the GPL plugin is distributed with the proprietary software, then it is very much more like dynamic linking, and the proprietary developer is also more likely to be a valid party to the case. So that is the real lesson; don't bundle GPL software with proprietary software without getting legal advice first, and maybe also a second opinion.
That sounds like a lot of slanderous statements to me! Accusing people of yelling at you and acting unprofessionally... at a meeting that hasn't been held?! That is offensive both to my sense of civics, and to my understanding of what words mean.
If you attend a meeting and somebody is yelling at you, just leave. Then you can say, "We did meet, but we had to end the meeting early for [reasons]." And it would be honest. But when the meeting didn't happen, you certainly don't get to make accusations like that. Especially when you haven't yet been willing to certify that you've stopped beating your wife!
What a mess. It makes them both look pretty bad at this point, to be honest.
I don't really comprehend that. To me it seems obvious that it makes the people refusing to meet look bad, and it makes the other people look like they tried to avoid this unfortunate result.
Maybe I'm the only person on slashdot who believes in seeking Justice where there are systems in place to achieve it. But I doubt it.
If they're always too busy to meet with people who helped found their group, and who they potentially have ongoing entanglements with, then they're also always too busy to be doing charitable work and should not be squatting on a trademark! If you stop doing business with a trademark, you lose it. It has to be in use.
Remember, charities are owned by the community, they're controlled by their board but they are not owned. That is why they get tax benefits. If they did things to be sued over, by definition they're not providing the good faith oversight that is required of board members.
I'm curious, why would slashdot users, who are careful about what we click to the point of often not even clicking on the story, click on a link to a place whose domain name implies it is unserious content?
Having not read it, and only seen your appeal to read it, I've now become suspicious of you.
You do, though. Actually, the limits of what is your mind and what is somebody else's mind were explored rather extensively even in ancient Greece! This is not a new or controversial concept. Your claim of knowledge is a claim of what is inside your own mind only.
You sound unhappy with my content. Now, wouldn't it make more sense for you to take anti-depressants? Me, I'm pretty happy with what I wrote.
I didn't demand research be done.
And yet prior:
Sure. Here you go ... [google.com]
and then
If you can't find the information there you are too stupid to understand it anyway.
And if you can't comprehend that you were demanding unspecified research, I'll just answer by quoting you further:
weak and ignorant
So, you're saying I'm a "moron" for asking you to state your claims using words?
In your view, smaht people just make lots of assumptions?
I mean that's what you're saying; "You could have just made lots of assumptions to fix my unclear words!"
And yet, if I think that only morons would make that many assumptions, then it wouldn't matter how clear it is which assumption you're demanding to have made.
And no, burning things for home heating is not automatically presumed by the word "household use." The largest household use is electricity, which is counted separately. If you want to talk about residential fuel oil, talk about residential fuel oil. In fact the most likely assumption from just saying "household use" would that you mean all household uses, and are simply double-counting. That mistake is going to be way more common that the mistake where a person has correct information but doesn't know what it is in order to use words that actually describe it.
So the answer is yes, I am an "idiot," for values of "idiot" that mean, "the opposite of whatever you were doing when you couldn't understand the word `household'." If we simply look at your own definition above, "A house hold[sic] is a family of 3, average of all households in Germany, or 2.5" then from that we know that were blathering nonsense when you used "households" as an unqualified energy use category. Your genius-level definition seems to actually just mean their exhaled breaths, and not cooking, until you add on extra words talking about cooking.
If you didn't know that defining terms was important, it seems unlikely that you ever in your life read anything on the subject of energy policy and understood what was said. Without narrowly defined terms, it would all be very misleading.