Journal Journal: You Know What I Hate? 1
April 1st.
It's f*ucking EVERYWHERE now, too.
April 1st.
It's f*ucking EVERYWHERE now, too.
Explicit language might modify what would otherwise be there only by an implicit doctrine.
In general, a licensor can modify their own terms. So, if you are using the GPL on software to which you hold the copyright, and you add some sort of exception, it applies. You can't do it to other people's software.
I am still having a little trouble with "we don't need our spies to spy". Maybe we do.
I am also having trouble believing that the kind of encryption we use on the Internet actually stops the U.S. Government from finding out whatever it wishes although IETF and sysadmins might be kidding themselves that it can. Government can get to the end systems. They can subborn your staff. Etc.
MS language is potentially worse than the default. And there is room for litigation to surprise us.
Yes. The last stuff I wrote that I couldn't compile today was in "Promal" or "Paradox". My C and C++ code from 1980 still builds and runs.
All of my web development is on Ruby on Rails. That environment has had a lot of development and I've had to port to new versions. So old code for RoR would not quite run out of the box, but it's close.
Full sentences harder. They verbs.
That why liberal arts and humanities important, otherwise sentences would no verbs.
-
Popular computing languages do not in general have only one Open Source implementation, and do not get abandoned.
Development with a proprietary language is ultimately harmful to your own interests, whether you make proprietary software for a profit or Free software.
The one thing every business needs is control. When you make it possible for another company to block your business, you lose control. Your options become limited. Solving business problems potentially becomes very costly, involving a complete rewrite.
The one thing that should be abundantly clear to everyone by now is that making your business dependent on Microsoft anything is ultimately a losing proposition. They have a long history of deprecating their own products after customers have built products upon them.
All Open Source licenses come with an implicit patent grant, it's an exhaustion doctrine in equitable law.
The problem is not patent holders who contribute to the code, you're protected from them. It's trolls who make no contribution and then sue.
Of course these same trolls sue regarding proprietary code as well.
So, what precisely was the device? Simple enough. Every molecule has an absorption line. It can absorb energy on any other frequency. A technique widely exploited in physics, chemistry and astronomy. People have looked into various ways of using it in medicine for a long time.
The idea was to inject patients with nanoparticles on an absorption line well clear of anything the human body cares about. These particles would be preferentially picked up by cancer cells because they're greedy. Once that's done, you blast the body at the specified frequency. The cancer cells are charbroiled and healthy cells remain intact.
It's an idea that's so obvious I was posting about it here and elsewhere in 1998. The difference is, they had a prototype that seemed to work.
But now there is nothing but the sound of Silence, a suspect list of thousands and a list of things they could be suspected of stretching off to infinity. Most likely, there's a doctor sipping champaign on some island with no extradition treaty. Or a future next-door neighbour to Hans Reiser. Regardless, this will set back cancer research. Money is limited and so is trust. It was, in effect, crowdsource funded and that, too, will feel a blow if theft was involved.
Or it could just be the usual absent-minded scientist discovering he hasn't the skills or awesomeness needed, but has got too much pride to admit it, as has happened in so many science fraud cases.
This open source policy is open for comments.
See how the switch work. It could not have been unintentional:
If ever there was a weapon that would be classified as only a weapon of terror with no practical application beyond fear.
Well, fear and burning people to death so they're no longer a threat. Not very efficient, but effective.
And I guess the "practical applications" of your guns, if they don't involve fear, involve gunning people down, right? Don't bother with scaring them off, just kill them.
Between you and me, it seems like the practical application of creating fear is working just great on you, quick-draw.
Yeah. Like I'd ever be caught DEAD or ALIVE in Arizona. Life is too short for that.
G'day has always been the rendering - since at least Regency times, when t'was spoken aloud as such.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker