rando289

Nice post,

> that managers could review offline

web pages can be viewed offline

> "Conducive to" is the same as "required for".

No it's not.

I gave a citation, and it's is about 100x more authoritative than the random internet comment which this story is based on. I think people are dumb is why I got 3 downvotes and ignored while the other gets front page hacker news status.

It has nothing to do with it, although it may have been part of their plan to spread this rumor to the programming community, which would really make it be part of their calculus. how big corporations pick names is actually quite interesting: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/title-tk/

righteousness and integrity != law abiding

Your complaint about the complaint adds neither... ya, it's hypocritical. Posts are not out of bounds simply because they are meta.

Exactly

This. Yet again, I learn to check the comments first or get trolled. I wonder if journalism schools have a class called "Professional trolling."

> may actually increase the chance of obesity

Also, diet soda may decrease the chance of obesity by up to 100%! And may may may.

Over time comparisons should be inflation adjusted, and optionally adjusted by total population or gdb.

Encryption is pretty darn cheap in cpu cost. And they have botnets to do it for them.

Not knowing much about it, I'd guess that companies are valued generally not on their assets, but their potential for future profits. Assets like cash are just a small piece of what will determine their future profit. Unless they don't have much prospect for future profit, then the cash would become a bigger deal.

I'd bet against it. Those kind of specs are almost never reliably achieved. Besides, "DisplayPort version 1.3, which was expected to be finalized in Q2 2014, will increase overall transmission bandwidth to 32.4 Gbit/s" wikipedia

I believe the spirit of the license was not changed. The spirit was spelled out by fsf and rms very well in things like the free software definition, and faqs about the purpose of the license etc. Not disallowing tivoization was an oversight in the legal code which needed to be corrected for the spirit to remain what it had been. Linus thinks the spirit was in the exact legal code. That is more like "the letter of the license", not the spirit.

> I also don't want a future where all you can buy are locked-down devices, but is the GPL really the right venue to fight that battle?

Is it legal for software to defraud people, to act explicitly for ransom/extortion, or purposely kill people by stopping their medical devices? No. If it was, and it was happening a lot, I bet a copyright license that had something to say about that would be popular. Consumer owned devices which attempt to force people to use specific software for no technical reason, just so they can make more profit from the user, should be illegal outside of any copyright license. Until that happens, then yes gpl is one of the right venues.

> Isn't it better that they release locked-down hardware but contribute their code changes, so that if someone wants to make competing open hardware they can start with all the same driver & feature support in Linux?

Ya, right now it's that way, especially since they don't do a good job of locking things down and you can circumvent it on most phones. But it's not at all certain it will stay that way.

I think his view that the most important part of the license is that it makes the software better is shortsighted. If linux gets used in 95% of all capable hardware everywhere, but it's all on locked down hardware by a few companies, what is the point of being open source? Effectively, it's proprietary software which is co-owned by a group of corporations, and the open source is primarily a training program for future employees and phds. Users being able to choose what software they want to run on their devices does matter. Well, he did say it was a fine license (if you care about that). Also, I don't think he gives enough credit to fsf, as almost all other free/open source licenses automatically and always allow later versions, but gpl doesn't. Creative commons is one big example.

Is it me or is it kinda strange/sad to see this post followed immediately by a bunch of goofy avatars, advertising, silly forum rank titles, etc.

It always seemed like such a regression to me when browsers disabled entire page caches and only ever show the freshest content. Before, if a page served 404, I could easily see my local cached version from my previous visit. Now, I'm shit out of luck.

Evidence as in a source which is more authoritative than "random anonymous internet commenter" which says that companies use irregular scheduling to deter lawsuits & take power away from managers to discriminate.

> I'm not saying writing secure software in C is inherently impossible, but I'm not aware of it having ever been accomplished

Kinda proves my point.

It can be whatever you want to call it. Terrible in comparison to a fantasy land of candy and rainbows. OP is saying "as a community we should say no to funding C security software". It's about as insightful as saying anyone who uses a car is dumb.

C security software is being massively funded and is very successfully the basis for trillions of business, eg. the linux & windows & mac kernel. But, according to #1 voted random psuedonymous internet commenter, this is obviously a terrible idea.

As far as I can tell, don't work for those companies.

IANAL, but this makes a lot of sense. Lawyer's motivations are really really important.

Internet law: Your good post will be ruthlessly torn apart. Agreement is drivel. The best you can hope for is a slightly different point which happens to agree.

Btw, I agree with you, and I think this phenomenon is dumb.

I've heard that a solid light is better because a drunk driver will be attracted to the blinking light, and naturally turn that way, hitting you instead of passing you. And since this blinks faster as they approach, it seems that it would have this effect even more.

Yes. You are being naive. You could reproduce rote aspects of the experiment. Not even all of them, you don't know how to calibrate some expensive lab equipment, its not the paper's job to explain that. And lots of things like conclusions and analysis take expertise. It's not about "being", its about having expertise. Papers say because foo, we conclude bar. If you have almost no idea what foo is, you just can't write that. It's not the paper's job to give you an introduction to physics or anything.

tldr: Yes.

They can sing it now now, but copyright holders have 100 year to indefinite monopoly and can to charge any price for licenses. The system has been corrupted.

No recognition for the Church of Emacs?!

Yes, for people who understand licensing stuff. For the many people who don't, they could say that 3rd party components of CoreOS are under various open source licenses, but the code they produce is Apache 2.0.

Nice. Fun to take a glimpse into the code. Random line:

    	TC	IBNKCALL	# FOR SATURN INTERFACE AND FDAI DISPLAY