Wasn't that the other programming language whos users would look down on us Basic programmers? My good friend from school was one of those. Now he's a teacher and I'm a software developer.

Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

OK, jokes aside: Seriously, who cares how a PL is "rated" - whatever that's supposed to mean. How much it's used and how it gets the job done, or, more precisely, how much do I get paid for using it is what counts.
Example: I love Python. I'm measurably more productive in Python. But I do PHP at work. Why? Wordpress and Typo3 are built with PHP. Python only has Plone and that has almost no market here in Germany.

Its that simple.

And to be honest, there are many neat exotic programming languages out there - all of which I would love to have the time to look into, but don't. Pascal definitely isn't on that list.

My advice to anyone today would be to let go of Pascal and however it is "rated" and learn some other flash exotic language - perhaps one of those countless new ones that run on the Java VM (Scala, Closure, etc.), no?

My 2 cents.

Because people don't know anything about it, GM foods are safe? Is that the message?

That's akin to "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"

Not to mention that they are bred only for one reason, to be hunted FOR SPORT! End that madness, now!

Well, yes, but what other purpose do politicians serve?

Future?

(And for wont of mod points... The group in question just simply isn't contemplating what you talk to, promissory estoppel, and all sorts of other problems opening up that particular can of worms would be for someone stupid enough to TRY it.)

Considering that RMS didn't dream these licenses up, but rather Eben Moglen, you might want to contemplate who knows more about this... The law professor that actually teaches on this subject or someone claiming that there is a right of revocation in there that's effectively free of Promissory Estoppel and the like on the subject. Just because there's a law on one side doesn't mean other laws don't cause OTHER, equally bad problems on the subject and effectively preclude the hypothesized notion out of box.

To give something and demand nothing in return? That's just so Un-American!

Well, there is a way. But my lawyer said it's still illegal. And it's still likely that someone would keep me from doing it forcefully.

I'll just wait 'til at least the latter doesn't apply anymore.

No, if you're doing your legal documents right, it does place it into the Public Domain as intended. How? Promissory Estoppel prevents such an act from even being ran up the flagpole on an infringement suit. If you actually DID this, just because you can revoke assignments, etc. doesn't give you carte-blanche to actually DO it the way they're describing there.

Without covenants in place as part of the agreement, yeah. There's a problem. With them, this is really nothing more than the nattering of someone trying to make a vastly bigger deal of things than is really there.

Bingo!

You can't make promises or covenants of this nature with the intent of even remotely considering to revoke them. Your successors are also bound to them. Typically someone will bring up Promissory Estoppel and then raise Bad Faith- and then move to dismiss the case you brought against them...and most typically get it.

Why the bickering about whether it's man made or natural? I honestly don't want to resolve the question on whether someone set my house on fire or whether lightning hit it while it's still burning, first I want it extinguished, then we can find out what caused it!

Wait, there's a left now in US politics? When did that happen?

So Crimson Tide rather than Scorpion?