rando289

> Using the GPL runs contrary to this goal.

Saying "giving everyone the right to share it" is contrary to the goal of having it be shared widely (aka adopted), is at least a gross oversimplification and at most an absurd statement.

However, RMS sees room for tactically using permissive licenses for the purpose of adoption too, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.en.html

Getting more adoption as part of proprietary software may or may not lead to more overall adoption. Bsd kernel vs linux kernel is a case for gpl leading to more adoption than permissive. GPL says "allow EVERYONE to share it." And in some cases, more people share it this way! Who would have guessed? And it can lead to more people contributing, because they know everyone will have the right to share their work. The fact that permissive code means it could be shared LESS, because it can't be part of software which makes sharing illegal, is kind of across purposes. I mean, if you just care about adoption, a lot of times, you might get more by keeping it completely proprietary and selling the copyright to a big company. Or you might get more by embedding it into worms and phishing emails and running a botnet.

It maxes out my cpu, firefox 39.0+build5-0ubuntu0.14.04.1

> Harmless in itself.

Since we know NSA is reading this, it's telling them that you (and they have a good idea who you are if you are connecting from a residential line) just launched your browser. I'd say that's pretty intrusive.

Sorry. The sample size is not actually "minimal", and it's this is a common criticism where the critic, surprise surprise, never says what a non-minimal sample size is. "NCHS also typically requires at least 30 observations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error.

Here are some key concepts to keep in mind.

The central limit theorem states: regardless of the shape of the parent population, the sampling distribution of the mean approaches a normal distribution as N increases. This means we can generalize what the size of n means to many many things, generally including all sorts of traits in people, and including flipping a coin. So for an intuition, flip a coin 30 times, and 95% of the time, you will be within 5.5 of the mean (15) and it follows the standard bell curve, 99% I will be within 8.22 of the mean, etc. So, if say "there is a greater than 20% chance a coin flips will end up with heads" and you say, "from a statistics point of view, your sample size is too small", I can say, "not true at all", with consideration to my sample size, I'm 99.9999...% likely to be right. And just glimpsing, I'm confident the study did their math right.

There are other very important things to be critical of, and it is certainly reasonable to be skeptical of the study. Much more likely to cause a false result: getting unbiased, representative sample, publishing bias, causation vs correlation, etc, etc.

And when you think about sample size, the accuracy with respect to the population follows 1/sqrt(n). So n=200 is twice as accurate as n=50.

> From a statistics point of view working with such minimal samples is fairly useless.

Not true at all.

"Let's take a look at a comparison of the temperatures (yellow lines) on both sides of the Cascades (Sea Tac and Yakima) with the normal highs (red lines) and low (blue lines) for the past year."

I assume the author means the average over many years for the "normal." The current phrase is like saying "the normal temperate for 1980 did not match the actual temperature for 1980." Or, "1980 was not a normal 1980." Also annoying that the graph has incomplete labels, with the full explanation buried in text.

I'm slightly confused. A PM url is a broken link for everyone else right?

> it's already too late to try and retain them

This directly conflicts with the most upvoted advice to go get a competing offer. I've read this before too. Is a company really going to think "he's talked to another company, we can't trust him to stick around." ?

Trademarks are limited to the area of product they apply to. The purpose of trademarks is "identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services." No one is going to be surprised that those 2 arduinos aren't the same entity, or walk into the bar and wonder why little computers aren't on the menu, so trademark law completely ignores this, and it's extremely common so the bar owner shouldn't feel bad at all.

You can change your name to Barak Obama, and you'll get internet commenters saying things that start with "in all fairness...", but the white house won't be returning your calls.

my god that site is unreadable grey on grey

> you have to remember that you have 100% of the power

It's simply not how humans interact with each other. Every person I ever meet face to face has a significant power over my emotions.

Free as in freedom, not free as in free from nag notices.

Specifically, GPLv3 or AGPLv3 to avoid consumer device lock down.

And when a library has a security update, the software which contains it does not get updated, because it's repackaged by 10,000 different software companies that don't care or don't have the resources, and they sit side by side, and disk usage is way bigger than linux. This is partly fixed by the fact that installing software is such a pita and hard to automate that you don't install much 3rd party software on windows.

First off: You already have google results, this one will probably not be on the first page, and you can easily push it down further.

Secondly: A good employer is interested in your current abilities to fulfil the role they need, and will ignore unrelated information.

I've worried about having anti-commercial anti-proprietary statements on my google results, but I've never had a problem getting job offers from proprietary software companies.

I am all for pacer reform, but I cannot see more than .05% of readers getting past the statues analogy around line 7, where this document has yet to even hint at the argument it is making. Also, lots of unexplained, unreadable, unrelated text at the top. It begins "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR PUBLIC OPINION." Well, please think about what this means. It means, each time you make us read something like that before getting to the point you lose about half of the public, and this document does about 30 times over.

Last month, I noticed their whole cloud domain returned 503 for several hours. Google gce uptime, google has nothing except a page of legalese. Yaaa....

> I don't believe some parts in the story.

Cool story, but I have trouble believing parts of it.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

What is Rosyna? Googled it and came up blank.

I wouldn't call those places where sharing has been very effective. A certain level of knowledge is shared due to it's nature: open source, sometimes remote, sometimes volunteer run. But beyond that, domain experts who do not share their knowledge publicly or very freely are just as common as anywhere else.

I wish there was a D comparison. It seems to have similar goals.

I prefer smex for M-x command matching (which is self described as Ido-style).

No. I think thats very wise and I've heard it recommended by some smart people. I think the OP is overreacting a bit.

Afaik, it's much higher than 90%, more like 98%. Citation needed. And yes, it's horrible. The legal system is all kinds of screwed up.

Ya, and what about the people like me who gave up on that scanning and came here to find the tldr, but instead just found your complaint, and then read this complaint about the complaint!! When will it end?!

I was under the impression it was just one guy. But if he can make a business model out of writing and supporting gpl code and hire employees, then more power too him.

> It took me 30 seconds to think of those

> The revenue collected is minuscule

I think it also took you 30 seconds to assume that. Also, the dev already was doing various ways to get income from businesses, including some which you posted.

Yes, I agree this is an important point that author missed out on. There is a wide belief that there is physical addition which will affect anyone who makes a mistake of using too much of a powerfully addictive substance, then separately there is a mental disease of addition, which doesn't require an addictive substance. The main study this is linked to only addresses abstinence of a single drug. Abstinence != recovery is a very widely held belief.

The author equates "not seeking professional help" with "growing out of it", which I don't think is right. However, he gets a lot right, and links to studies. My personal two biggest problems with 12 step: insistence on believing in a godlike thing and it's dogmatic unchanging nature which ignores science.