Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How much are they worth? (Score 1) 156

by 7-Vodka (#46314425) Attached to: Riecoin: A Cryptocurrency With a Scientific Proof of Work
Except in the case of bitcoin, the intrinsic value is zero.

Nobody wants a bitcoin for it's own sake, everyone wants bitcoin because of what you can buy with it.

Real things have intrinsic values. Money has intrinsic value. Currencies don't. Bitcoin is a currency. Dollar is a currency. All paper moneys are currencies.

Comment: Re:Precisely (Score 1) 1098

by 7-Vodka (#46064939) Attached to: FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

Stop having a tantrum because you don't agree with what license people pick for their software. Yes, it sucks for you that because these libraries are GPL you can actually see them, want to use them, but feel conflicted because you don't want to abide by their copyright.

Boo fucking hoo. Cry me a river.
If those APIs were proprietary and closed, you wouldn't even know about them. The saying ignorance is bliss was invented for people like you.

Comment: Re:Precisely (Score 1) 1098

by 7-Vodka (#46064921) Attached to: FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

This is exactly the problem with the GPL. Its advocates want everything to be free, and are giddy about the possibility of bringing suit against people who so much as linked to a GPL'd library and forcing their work to be GPL.

I bet you there aren't many GPL suits. Nobody wants to force someone's work to be GPL, how often has this even happened? They just want you to stop violating their copyright. Can you do that?

It's viral, and not in a good way.

Hah, did microsoft pay you to write this?

I'm not about to defend the practices of certain large corporations. But in education and medicine, institutional rules over IP forbid many people I know of from even linking to a GPL'd library. For us, if it's GPL'd then it is off limits.

That's because the institutions know their intentions don't fit with abiding by the GPL. Maybe it's their intentions that are the problem, and not somebody else who spends their time writing cool GPL software.

Also, having a friendly non-adversarial relationship with industry is useful and will result in much broader use of your software.

So? is that your goal? A lot of people could give a flying fuck about what you consider 'industry' or broad use. They like their software like their women, quality over quantity and STDs.

For most FOSS projects

Stop right there. There is no such thing as Free Open Source. These are mutually exclusive terms.

, exposure and reaching a critical mass of contributors is crucial. The BSD is inherently helpful in this case. The GPL just scares people off, because it asserts control over code you haven't even written just because you decided to use something that happened to have a GPL license.

Mate, you spew nonsense faster than a cow farts. If I write a piece of GPL code, in no way does it "assert control over code I haven't written." You're on the wrong side of the bullshit line and we're going to have to stuff some hot grits down your panties.

So, no, Stallman, I disagree and furthermore I condemn your argument as unproductive, wrong, and unhelpful. You might have ground to stand on if LLVM were closed source but it's open - in fact, it's under a more permissive license than the GPL.

Finally! Yes the BSD license is more permissive. You managed to make a sentence without fraud, fabrication or lies. I'm proud of you.

Comment: Re:Sorry man, but not everyone agrees with you (Score 1) 1098

by 7-Vodka (#46064863) Attached to: FSF's Richard Stallman Calls LLVM a 'Terrible Setback'

Some developers like the whole BSD thing, which gives more freedom to the person who uses and implements the software, rather than the original developer.

Actually, with the GPL as the software user, you are free to do anything you like with it. As long as you distribute the source when required. Implying the software user is restricted is dishonest.

+ - Ask Slashdot: How can I convince my boss of the benefits of division of labour?

Submitted by 7-Vodka
7-Vodka (195504) writes "I work as an engineer for a multinational company. For two years my group was divided in half to focus on separate products. My group exploited division of labour by subdividing into smaller functional teams. This greatly improved our quality of work, output and morale. Meanwhile the other group flattened out, making everyone jack-of-all-trades and interchangeable. Now the other group is going to swallow us whole and intend to dismember our functional teams. How can I best analyze the situation to explain why having formal specialization was so beneficial to us?
Obviously, there's a limited time window to make my case. Do I need a crash course in economics and management?"

Comment: What's wrong with you people. (Score 1) 383

by 7-Vodka (#45962101) Attached to: Federal Court Kills Net Neutrality, Says FCC Lacks Authority.

What on earth is wrong with you people. You're usually so rational.

  1. You all complain that some places don't have choice of ISPs because of government granted monopolies
  2. You refuse to look at the solution to the root cause, that is to get rid of government power to grant monopolies
  3. You want instead, for the fucking people who bring you the NSA, fiat dollar, deficit spending, income tax and crimes against humanity to have more power over the internet?
  4. Where has this problem even manifested? ISPs aren't stupid, usually when they block or slow traffic it's a calculated decision to please MORE customers or at the request of the government.

Don't you realize that the only power the government has is force? Don't you realize that everytime you grant them power they sell it to the highest bidder and fuck you with it? You are the 'target' and 'adversary'. YOU.

Don't you realize that there is no such thing as a 'government'? It's an abstract, fictional entity that masks the foul psychopaths that rule over you.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...