"Consistency: It's only a virtue if you're not a screwup"

http://demotivators.despair.com/consistencydemotivator.jpg

That's a fantastic way for him to test or disprove this notion that he can see in UV!

the cure for AIDS, coming at you faster than the speed of light!

Except kitchen knives aren't sold on the basis that they're cool.

From wickedlasers.com:

"If you enjoyed wielding the awesome power of the S3 Arctic, then you'll want the S3 Krypton the most visible handheld laser on Earth, in your hands."

then

"The S3 Krypton is too powerful to be used as a laser pointer or a gunsight. Never point it at another person, an animal or a vehicle."

It's unequivocally being sold as fucking toy. This business is disgusting.

NO, it's a damn weapon. If you're out walking the streets with this, the police should be about as suspicious as if you're walking around with a kitchen knife in your pocket.

No that's backwards, the GPL tells you what you can do; it doesn't take away any rights you don't have without it.

The way I see it is, by default, if I give you the source for some software I own the copyright for, you're not allowed to distribute it, or works derived from it, at all. I'm the only person with a right to copy and distribute...the 'copyright'. You can do whatever you like with it on your own (unless I made you sign a EULA where you gave up some of your rights before you use it), but when it comes to distributing it yourself - forget about it.

So say for whatever reason I want to allow other people to distribute my code or works derived from it, I'd have to either relinquish my copyright, or grant them a license to distribute it. I might want to grant them a very permissive license saying "hey, distribute this as you like, I don't care" which is pretty much what the BSD licenses do. On the other hand, if I wanted to guarantee that all the end users have the freedoms espoused by the FSF, I might only grant you a right to distribute it under certain conditions (which is what the GPL says).

If you want it in a nutshell, I think the GPL was created specifically to allow rights holders to grant recipients of their work the right to re-distribute it without allowing them to withold rights from the people they re-distribute it to.

Seen what? A company offering a service then open sourcing it when they decide it doesn't fit in with what they do any more?

Services get obsoleted, if you can't accept that for a given project - then yeah, only use one where agreements that satisfy your needs can be put in place.

As for the apparent oddity in suggesting people get started whilst announcing the closure of the service, I think the first line in TFA clarifies: "With the winding down of Google Labs, Google will discontinue App Inventor as a Google product and will open source the code."

So? If that's a concern just back up all your gmail. If you rolled your own you'd have to do that anyway, and it wouldn't be much more complex.

Yeah, the gnome network manager!

A google search for postgres gui should return http://www.pgadmin.org/ on the first page. It seems largely equivalent to MySQL workbench (which I understand replaces the MySQL Admin gui / query browser?)

Of course it does! I love a good cup of java in the morning, but my assistant keeps making it wrong. I tried explaining how to get it Done Right, but he just doesn't listen.

In the end I had to write out a script for him to follow. So yeah, in my experience, good Java comes from a good Javascript.

Java script means Everyday coffee made acceptably!

Calm down. I expect the guy you're replying to read the original comment as meaning that most police officers would be working in organized crime if it were not for getting through the academy and therefore in this case decided to seize video evidence to serve self interests. A pretty easy misinterpretation. Or perhaps he was extremely confident that the original poster had used just-such fallacious reasoning in order to come to his conclusions before posting the comment.

In any case certainly his obviously-intended-to-be humorous comment is no call for snide remarks.

Assuming idiocy should be the last thing you do. Unless you want to be a dick, in which case knock yourself out, please.

From what I understand paleontologists love balling each other out over this sort of things. Doubly so when humans are involved.

If early modern humans and neanderthals were still closely related enough to mate should they be considered the same speciees? If so then our species has a much larger family tree than thought. If not then why would the offspring of the two different species mating be considered homo sapient and not homo neanderthalensis. Why why why?

Glad there's pepole thinking about this stuff....I sure can't wrap my head around it.

I still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

Do you ever find when someone says Oracle it's hard to tell from the contect if they mean Oracle the corporation or Oracle the flagship database product from that corporation?