One thing people miss is that the board considered it, and turned it down shortly thereafter. It seems a rational person who believed Musk would understand that the board decides those things in a public company?
It is all very weak sauce. If they lose the case, does it mean the SEC fraudulently misled the public to change the stock price? It seems there would be some sort of line between, "The internet gasped and the price jumped" and "A serious thing was believed to have happened."
With this administration it is hard to tell they over-asked because they thought they would scare him, or if they're just too dumb to realize that it makes their case really weak when people convicted of serious crimes aren't even banned on a first offense.
I expect it to get dismissed fairly early in the process on the basis of being more malicious than serious.
You didn't understand it the last three times it was explained to you, what good would explaining it in more detail do?! You apparently need less detail. Just stick to, "Yer rong!"
No, with a push mower as a teenager I ran over a snake, and it made me unhappy, so I started looking where I was going, and even in tall grass I'd be able to see the snake trying to run away, and avoid it. It also helps in avoiding rocks, sprinkler heads that didn't retract properly, and even just uneven patches of ground. Generally, paying close attention improves the quality of the work, in addition to saving lives.
A computer that doesn't have any systems to avoid a snake that is trying to escape in a non-optimal direction, and so won't even try.
It is not as you say, that everybody knows there is nothing that can be done. Rather, you're a heartless asshole and just assume everybody else is too. Naturally.
I went out raking leaves one Sunday morning, and 3 different neighbors came out to tell me how much nicer raking sounds than a leaf blower, and to thank me for clearing the street.
You want to impress the neighbors with your lawn, get an unpowered push mower.
Anyways, the people with a blown V8 riding mower can't be impressed by a mower, and they know it. You'd need a giant penis truck to impress them, or at least a muscle car worth $8k that you think is fancier than a Tesla.
You're totally liable for any harm it does on your property, but after you get sued you can probably sue the manufacturer to try to get some of that back. Minus legal fees, of course.
If your home insurance covers it, then they would deal with all that, but the lawsuits would still be in your name.
You're confused about the implications of adding the word "must." It isn't true as stated.
In the case of trademark, they "must" take action or risk the right to take action against anybody. In copyright, you'd don't have to. You can still force them to stop doing it later, even if your damages have to be claimed within a reasonable time of having been damaged. And you're not restricted by that in suing somebody else for damages.
A true statement would be, "Trademark holders must defend their IP, but copyright holders don't have to."
I was skeptical at "about seven security problems in several models."
But I'm not skeptical about the part where the nations voting machines are full of security holes, and are under active attack, and are being used anyways.
Do you care whether the kernel developer working with you who sits a few thousand miles away is male, female something in between or completely different, black, white, brown, green-orange polka dotted, gay, bi, straight, fucking his pet goat...?
And if so, WHY?
How the fuck is any of this relevant to their work?
I don't know, but there are some people, you might even know one, who say it is such a big part of their work that they refuse to agree not to exclude people on that basis. That guarantees it is (eventually) part of any related work, because labor laws.
I really really wanted to start flaming about how many spaces to indent code, but then I remembered that I refuse to stop using GNU make.
But then there were some nazis who were trying to say that excluding people based on demographics is fine, because it is no different than a flame war about coding style.
That was when I realized you're probably just saying that because you're a nazi. Life is not too short to fight nazis; it is too short not to! Never forget.
All it asks is that people not drive others away from the project by being hateful. It's not a particularly political stance. And it lists some particular examples -- no doxing, for example. There's nothing political about it to my eyes.
In the phrase "politically correct," the politics is that they're against anybody complaining that something is hateful. You're not supposed to throw shade on their hate, because it might hurt their feelings with needless empathy or compassion.
So as long as you succeed in excluding people, they have nothing to complain about. How convenient that that somehow means there are no oppressed groups!
Here's a simple code of conduct that anyone can follow that only has 3 rules:
1. Don't be an asshole 2. If someone is being an asshole, tell them to stop being an asshole 3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole.
Follow this simple code of conduct and suddenly things get a lot nicer.
That only works if when you start yelling "asshole" at each other, your mommy comes and spanks somebody.
For other situations, you're going to need some process.
The problem is that it can and will be used to push people out of the project for purely power-related reasons.
Nonsense. Simply having a Code of Conduct does nothing to "push anybody out." You'd need a person or persons in charge of pushing people out, and they would decided it on a case-by-case basis. Having a clearly-delineated policy only enhanced the clarity of any such actions.
You make it sound as if the Code of Conduct is a magical boogeyman that is going to crawl out from under the bed at night and steal your breath. But actually it is only words, and the words don't take any actions. People will do that.
Your concern is actually that the existence of a clear policy will cause the persons such as Linus who are in charge of access to kick you out. That tells me that you already consider your behavior to be objectionable, and just don't want that to be realized as clearly-formed objections.
If a person in power wants to kick another person out for reasons solely related to their own power, why would having a clearly-delineated standard of conduct help them? It seems that they would actually want there to not be such a system, because then they can decide everything ad-hoc without anything appearing amiss.
In 2001 he gave an interview where they asked him where he saw linux in 10 years, and he said he hoped he wasn't even using it in 10 years and people had moved on to whatever the next step forwards was.
I definitely see him as falling short of his predictions.
Git exists because SVN refused to take offline commits seriously until a few months after Linus released Git and everybody started switching. I'm somewhat grateful for that because I need the feature and the work-around was mildly annoying, but it didn't exactly replace sliced bread.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing people miss is that the board considered it, and turned it down shortly thereafter. It seems a rational person who believed Musk would understand that the board decides those things in a public company?
It is all very weak sauce. If they lose the case, does it mean the SEC fraudulently misled the public to change the stock price? It seems there would be some sort of line between, "The internet gasped and the price jumped" and "A serious thing was believed to have happened."
With this administration it is hard to tell they over-asked because they thought they would scare him, or if they're just too dumb to realize that it makes their case really weak when people convicted of serious crimes aren't even banned on a first offense.
I expect it to get dismissed fairly early in the process on the basis of being more malicious than serious.
You didn't understand it the last three times it was explained to you, what good would explaining it in more detail do?! You apparently need less detail. Just stick to, "Yer rong!"
Right, A != A - B for the vast majority of cases where A and B are both amounts of money that peopel bother to keep track of.
Good job, Gold Star!
How dumb do you have to be to have multiple?
A little smarter than someone living in their mom's basement at age 41.
Lets not split hairs.
Well, at least he isn't dumb enough to think that somebody being sued is being charged with something. Durrrr!
No, with a push mower as a teenager I ran over a snake, and it made me unhappy, so I started looking where I was going, and even in tall grass I'd be able to see the snake trying to run away, and avoid it. It also helps in avoiding rocks, sprinkler heads that didn't retract properly, and even just uneven patches of ground. Generally, paying close attention improves the quality of the work, in addition to saving lives.
A computer that doesn't have any systems to avoid a snake that is trying to escape in a non-optimal direction, and so won't even try.
It is not as you say, that everybody knows there is nothing that can be done. Rather, you're a heartless asshole and just assume everybody else is too. Naturally.
I know, object and subject are so hard. So hard.
OTOH, when you have a robot lawnmower why would you run it in the heat of the late afternoon? You could program it to run at 9am or something.
Are people who mow during dinnertime even the same people that care about other animals?
I dunno, in my neighborhood it is different.
I went out raking leaves one Sunday morning, and 3 different neighbors came out to tell me how much nicer raking sounds than a leaf blower, and to thank me for clearing the street.
You want to impress the neighbors with your lawn, get an unpowered push mower.
Anyways, the people with a blown V8 riding mower can't be impressed by a mower, and they know it. You'd need a giant penis truck to impress them, or at least a muscle car worth $8k that you think is fancier than a Tesla.
You're totally liable for any harm it does on your property, but after you get sued you can probably sue the manufacturer to try to get some of that back. Minus legal fees, of course.
If your home insurance covers it, then they would deal with all that, but the lawsuits would still be in your name.
You're confused about the implications of adding the word "must." It isn't true as stated.
In the case of trademark, they "must" take action or risk the right to take action against anybody. In copyright, you'd don't have to. You can still force them to stop doing it later, even if your damages have to be claimed within a reasonable time of having been damaged. And you're not restricted by that in suing somebody else for damages.
A true statement would be, "Trademark holders must defend their IP, but copyright holders don't have to."
You'll laugh! You'll Cry! You'll Kiss Three Bucks Goodbye!!!
In the 80s the local university would put on a free screening of Hardware Wars every year.
The main flaw with today's system is NO audit trail exists (which is probably what the political bosses want).
In some states that is true. In my State, there is an audit trail.
I was skeptical at "about seven security problems in several models."
But I'm not skeptical about the part where the nations voting machines are full of security holes, and are under active attack, and are being used anyways.
Basically sensitive snow flakes should be hugged, given a warm cup of tea and told their failure is really just excellence.
I'll keep that in mind next time the snowflakes whine that the Code of Conduct is melting their perfection.
If the existence of idiots somehow prevents you from reasonable discussions, you're probably facing a different problem than you think.
For people like you who believe that Merit comes to rest on the Contributor themselves, I would hope you find your fork at /dev/null
Keep your argument-from-authoritay away from my kernel, please.
Also, GPL. "rescind" away, in the end you only lose your right to try to enforce your copyright.
Do you care whether the kernel developer working with you who sits a few thousand miles away is male, female something in between or completely different, black, white, brown, green-orange polka dotted, gay, bi, straight, fucking his pet goat...?
And if so, WHY?
How the fuck is any of this relevant to their work?
I don't know, but there are some people, you might even know one, who say it is such a big part of their work that they refuse to agree not to exclude people on that basis. That guarantees it is (eventually) part of any related work, because labor laws.
I really really wanted to start flaming about how many spaces to indent code, but then I remembered that I refuse to stop using GNU make.
But then there were some nazis who were trying to say that excluding people based on demographics is fine, because it is no different than a flame war about coding style.
That was when I realized you're probably just saying that because you're a nazi. Life is not too short to fight nazis; it is too short not to! Never forget.
Is there honestly anything in the document that is a political agenda?
The Linux Code of Conduct
All it asks is that people not drive others away from the project by being hateful. It's not a particularly political stance. And it lists some particular examples -- no doxing, for example. There's nothing political about it to my eyes.
In the phrase "politically correct," the politics is that they're against anybody complaining that something is hateful. You're not supposed to throw shade on their hate, because it might hurt their feelings with needless empathy or compassion.
So as long as you succeed in excluding people, they have nothing to complain about. How convenient that that somehow means there are no oppressed groups!
Here's a simple code of conduct that anyone can follow that only has 3 rules:
1. Don't be an asshole 2. If someone is being an asshole, tell them to stop being an asshole 3. If someone tells you to stop being an asshole, stop being an asshole.
Follow this simple code of conduct and suddenly things get a lot nicer.
That only works if when you start yelling "asshole" at each other, your mommy comes and spanks somebody.
For other situations, you're going to need some process.
The problem is that it can and will be used to push people out of the project for purely power-related reasons.
Nonsense. Simply having a Code of Conduct does nothing to "push anybody out." You'd need a person or persons in charge of pushing people out, and they would decided it on a case-by-case basis. Having a clearly-delineated policy only enhanced the clarity of any such actions.
You make it sound as if the Code of Conduct is a magical boogeyman that is going to crawl out from under the bed at night and steal your breath. But actually it is only words, and the words don't take any actions. People will do that.
Your concern is actually that the existence of a clear policy will cause the persons such as Linus who are in charge of access to kick you out. That tells me that you already consider your behavior to be objectionable, and just don't want that to be realized as clearly-formed objections.
If a person in power wants to kick another person out for reasons solely related to their own power, why would having a clearly-delineated standard of conduct help them? It seems that they would actually want there to not be such a system, because then they can decide everything ad-hoc without anything appearing amiss.
In 2001 he gave an interview where they asked him where he saw linux in 10 years, and he said he hoped he wasn't even using it in 10 years and people had moved on to whatever the next step forwards was.
I definitely see him as falling short of his predictions.
Git exists because SVN refused to take offline commits seriously until a few months after Linus released Git and everybody started switching. I'm somewhat grateful for that because I need the feature and the work-around was mildly annoying, but it didn't exactly replace sliced bread.