AFIACT, that community just went down the shitter. I don't suppose the community was worth $2 billion to Oculus, anyway.
milk piles of money
Does that sound as ridiculous to anyone else? Does the money come out of the teats in a pile already, is it extruded as a solid, or is it a liquid form that somehow someone piles?
I don't have anything intelligent to say about your post or the Oculus tragedy; I just wanted to highlight a phrase that makes me want to giggle.
That's the claim, but the probable truth is that it's intentional bloat to reduce piracy.
Not only cheaper, also it provides no physical security and can leak the master key. Hooray!
Three counter points:
1. Human evolution is no longer driven by natural selection.
2. More natural is not the same as better.
3. Even with arbitrarily long human life spans, suicide would be an effective mechanism of death.
40X errors can still return an entity. The HTTP spec even says that the server SHOULD return an entity explaining the error. I'm afraid you're the one being a moron.
This can be fixed by requiring insurance in dangerous fields. Then insurance companies have the incentive to encourage corps to improve safety (will lead to lower premiums). Workers compensation is actually an insurance, but it's not run correctly. It doesn't really have a logical risk-to-premium and instead relies on historical results.
Many public works require bonded contractors, which also avoids the "bankruptcy solves everything" problem.
Malpractice isn't why the US pays so much for health care. Please correct your knowledge base.
Yes, I think you need to go on. Find a health care system that's in the private sector and is more cost effective than the public sector. That was the topic at hand.
If you need an American example, public (US Armed Forces) soldiers are more cost-effective than private security contractors.
Replacement batteries aren't usually that expensive. Definitely cheaper than a new laptop.
No one in the history of man has released open source without a license. That doesn't even make sense.
You're so upset to be binding people to conditions of a license, but have no problem binding them to the far more restrictive copyright law. Does this make sense to you?
I think you probably should stop using the term open source until you understand what it means.
If they want to redistribute your created work, then they are extremely vulnerable to your whims.
> If they want to use the whole thing, then fine.
Without a license to redistribute your work, it's copyright infringement.
There's no gift here, because publishing it isn't releasing any of your rights, except the right of first sale. You didn't give them a damned thing except legal liability. It sounds like you either have no understanding of copyright law or you intentionally have your head up your ass.
I've often heard this meme about soldiers refusing to fire on their own countrymen. Is there any example of a professional military refusing such orders?
Is 137 your IQ also?