BFatts

8 ms·

31.
by BFatts 6y ago
I heard estimates it was near $2T to fund it properly.
32.
by BFatts 6y ago
I'm glad that there are better controls in the extension being made to provide for mom&pop shops over big companies.
33.
by BFatts 7y ago
It's interesting that the chloroquine has possibly been linked to cardiac arrest. Is is chloroquine, or possibly the virus that is causing? Or maybe both in combination?
34.
by BFatts 7y ago
"And?..." Seriously? If there's panic buying (or prescribing, as did occur) then supplies are diminished if not depleted. WHAT GOOD IS THAT?
35.
by BFatts 7y ago
The difference is that Trump likes to promote himself in any way he can. So he hitched his wagon to CQ and HCQ before their true efficacy was known AND promoted it as a miracle cure before that was actually known. He later tempered his spee
36.
by BFatts 7y ago
"the other side" didn't say anything negative about CQ or HCQ - and instead (if you had actually listened to their message) tried to get people to NOT take it themselves, to NOT hoard it, to NOT prescribe it a prophylactic wh
37.
by BFatts 7y ago
Think about how silly that sounds - the MSM would need to coordinate their work, on a grand scale, to repeat the same messages about Trump and his people. They would have to coordinate their "fake news" (i.e. stuff that's cri
38.
by BFatts 7y ago
Trump: "This is their new hoax" - Their refers to Democrats and Hoax refers to the Coronavirus. I'd say that's a pretty damn partisan statement from our Commander in Grief.
39.
by BFatts 7y ago
Yes, and S.Korea was prepped and ready with tests when the pandemic hit (or shortly thereafter). They tested their country so they knew who had it and who didn't so they could focus efforts. Because testing is hard to get in the U.S. s
40.
by BFatts 7y ago
Unfortunately "you can take this code and do what you want with it, but you can't make the code proprietary" is not the Open Source definition AT ALL. This applies to software released under the GNU licenses, or copyleft lice
41.
by BFatts 7y ago
What hate do you refer to, and why do you agree with it? What's wrong with having a rapid development ecosystem within which to build that is fairly simple to install, run, and cycle? JavaScript, and NodeJS by extension, are just as vi
42.
by BFatts 7y ago
The complaint about "bringing in Node" and all the other dependencies is silly. Developers familiar with Node will already have it on their system - notch. Then the dependencies are just part of the ecosystem since this stuff ain&
43.
by BFatts 7y ago
Uh, TV is unending, constantly "scrolling" to new content meant to addict you as well, correct? How does this differ from having the TV on and just consuming what's on it versus Netflix autoplay feature? Is it possible to dis
44.
by BFatts 8y ago
Thank you for the extensive write up! It sounds like a fun thing to do and I'm looking for classes in my area.
45.
by BFatts 8y ago
Reminds me of Trillian back in the days of AIM and Yahoo! Messenger.
46.
by BFatts 8y ago
"Do no evil" - my ass
47.
by BFatts 8y ago
I feel like I am simulating orgasmic responses!
48.
by BFatts 8y ago
This is pretty darn sweet - well done!
49.
by BFatts 8y ago
Yes, they do! They are the ones that put together the OSD ( https://opensource.org/osd ) which they derived from the DGSL. No one else has defined open source, not even Richard M. Stallman. His definition is for "Free So
50.
by BFatts 8y ago
Kudos for recognizing this. We have the OSD: https://opensource.org/osd THAT is the definition of the term "Open Source" for all intents and purposes. Anyone else's is just a subjective opinion.
51.
by BFatts 8y ago
If it doesn't fit the OSD ( https://opensource.org/osd ) it IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. The license has not been reviewed by the OSI, and there isn't any "Approved until shown otherwise" clause to refer to. So, in
52.
by BFatts 8y ago
Please, just read this: https://opensource.org/osd
53.
by BFatts 8y ago
The definitions in a dictionary are for general purposes and not used, necessarily, in legal battles. There are legal definitions for things like Intellectual Property, Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks. These definitions are what will be
54.
by BFatts 8y ago
It might be the original "open source" but it ISN'T open source, per the definition. Open Source was coined for software LONG AFTER the FSF had declared what free software meant. Going back and saying "Well, RMS might ha
55.
by BFatts 8y ago
RMS has an ideal: All software should be free and open. This doesn't work for businesses that need to profit from what they do. Keeping things proprietary, while benefiting from source-available software is impossible if a company has
56.
by BFatts 8y ago
That is true - the OSI didn't coin it. But Bruce Perens of the OSI trademarked Open Source with the definition as the rules to apply it. I think that basically puts to rest the question of who "owns" Open Source.
57.
by BFatts 8y ago
Okay, pedantry... If you want to be specific: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... But it was done coincidentally with the discussions that ultimately led to the OSI and the OSD. &g
58.
by BFatts 8y ago
>> The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me. Nope. You are so very wrong here. The OSI defines open source so that licenses comply with the ter
59.
by BFatts 8y ago
The OSI owns the definition, yes. You are incorrect. See https://opensource.org/osd which is what DEFINES open source. The term has been around for 20 years. Your lack of understanding the history doesn't make you any
60.
by BFatts 8y ago
But the OSD is maintained by the OSI, so an appeal to "authority" is a great way to make this argument. The OSI gets to decide what fits their OSD (which you quote) so it's really a non-issue.

More ›