Moderated not Funny, but Insightful. I love that.
We gave them feedback in October, and they ignored it.
When the beta was re-revealed in January they hadn't even touched the biggest issue, that the comment system was fundamentally broken (not "it's got bugs" broken, but "the design is completely wrong" broken).
Consequently there was lots of gnashing of teeth that they _still_ didn't understand that this was the core feature, and everyone that had been paying attention gave up on any hope that they would address it.
We don't want you to implement every suggetion. We want you to not break what we have now. The new site is substantially functionally inferior to the current one - particular with regard to the comment system, which as just about everyone has pointed out to you, is the only thing that matters.
and, amazingly, the opinion survey asks nothing about functionality, and doesn't mention comments once. Which, as just about everyone has pointed out, is the only thing that matters on this site.
If nine moves is in the TL;DR range for you, it was a bishop sacrifice to open up the h-file for a queen and knight attack. Poor Bill missed a mate in one, but I suspect most would do the same under those conditions.
So don't be a freeloader on someone elses work and write your own iostream, or use one of the many (including gcc's btw) that do allow you to link without such restriction. But don't think you can take someone's code for nothing, who explicitly said that it's okay to use only freely if you make your code okay to use freely also. Why do you think you have some right to use their work for nothing?
You can use LGPL just as well as BSD for your purposes. You'd only have to contribute back if you modify the LGPL component itself.
As for GPL, correct, you can't use it (if you're talking about linking a GPL library with your own code for instance). But that is the entire point. The code author, that chose GPL for their licence, doesn't want to you to use their code in your proprietary product. As the author of the code that's their choice.
Isn't that reason that the multitude of contributors, with no copyright assignment, makes changing the licence impossible?
Surely Angry Birds is just a modern version of balistic calculations.
If this redesign goes through then I'm going to get a couple of hours a day back in my life, since I won't be checking out the stories here any more.
As others have said, this site is all about the comments. Break that and you've broken the site.
Just in case someone that matters is actually reading these comments, let me add my voice.
I've been reading this site for at least 13 years and as others have said, it's not the stories, it's the comments and community that make it worthwhile. This change will absolutely kill that. I'm pretty sure that if you make this change, I'll move on.
That being said, I wouldn't necessarily mind paying for a software subscription if I got to keep the most recent version that was released during the term of the contract. For expensive software that could be a win for everybody.
There's already a business model for that - maintenance contracts. Typically half the cost of the full application per year (after initial purchase), for which you get support and upgrades. If you stop paying maintenance you still get to keep your current software forever.
DIdn't they claim to have invented a particular (and difficult) aspect of recovering a clean signal from a noisy environment? (the noise being largely additional reflections of the initial signal). I believe the general consensus was that this was patent-worthy and worthy of recompense.
I'm about to move back to Sydney so this would be interesting to me. Can you tell me who it is?