otterley

3 ms·

1.
by otterley 5d ago
I can deny it. It was OK, but not amazing. I had to make pretty frequent repair calls on their gear--much more frequently than the less-technologically-amazing-but-solid-as-a-rock Dell and Compaq gear. IBM, Digital, and HP (yes, that HP,
2.
by otterley 5d ago
If the language were centered around donations (charitable gifts) instead of revenue and the implicit expectations that go with it, then I might take a different view.
3.
by otterley 5d ago
> A market implies that people are allowed to compete on price. That's a pretty narrow definition. Markets can also compete on features.
4.
by otterley 5d ago
> Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him. > In no-copyright world,
5.
by otterley 5d ago
That's a different business model from trying to sell the software itself. Plenty of consultants make a living doing integration work. They don't claim to be in the business of selling FOSS software, though. Another model is selli
6.
by otterley 5d ago
> You used to have to buy a physical copy in the store to install it. That is not true. They also made it available to download over the internet free of charge (and, as others said, they licensed it to ISPs to distribute to their custom
7.
by otterley 5d ago
I'm an attorney who specialized in copyright law, and I don't even know what you're trying to say.
8.
by otterley 5d ago
It's not about the definition of ownership, either. The author of FOSS software retains ownership, unless they explicitly convey it to someone else. It's about how software is licensed --the terms and conditions under which someo
9.
by otterley 5d ago
I know what it means. The problem is that people are expecting to be paid after they've already released it to the public for free.
10.
by otterley 5d ago
That suggests there's never been a viable market for commercial software at all, which is obviously wrong.
11.
by otterley 5d ago
> if your software wasn't offered for free, nobody would use it because someone else would offer their alternative for free. That suggests there's never been a viable market for commercial software at all, which is obviously wr
12.
by otterley 5d ago
I assume you mean "sell it before you open source it." If you found one willing buyer while it was still closed source, odds are there are others. Why deprive yourself of additional income? Open sourcing does happen from closed so
13.
by otterley 5d ago
First, a self-correction: Netscape did not produce open source products until it open-sourced Navigator 5.0 in 1998. Until then, Navigator was freeware: free to download and run, but not open source.[1] I shouldn't have mentioned them,
14.
by otterley 5d ago
If you want people to pay you for your software, stop writing it for free. Conversely, if you write it for free, don't expect people to pay you for it. Otherwise you are no better than someone at an intersection with a bottle of Windex
15.
by otterley 6d ago
> That you have far fewer exercisable rights or guarantees at the border. That’s true, but also not what we’re debating. We are debating whether, on inspection, having a new-appearing phone when you first encounter CBP will give rise to
16.
by otterley 6d ago
This seems strongly aligned with the Amazon doc-writing and decision making process. I found it to be unusually effective as a business process, and took it with me when I left to my current role. Making thoroughly informed decisions and it
17.
by otterley 6d ago
> If he had given them a blank phone, it wouldn't matter whether he had _just_ wiped it or had arrived with a wiped one, they would treat him all the same. Whether someone’s activity meets the elements of a destruction of evidence c
18.
by otterley 6d ago
The law distinguishes between not bringing evidence to a law enforcement encounter and destroying it in the middle of one. Please, ask an attorney and educate yourself before you continue.
19.
by otterley 7d ago
> That sounds like the human condition and or capitalism, advancements in cars, weapons, toys, etc… Indeed it is! That's why we set up rules of the game/road/etc. that we expect participants to adhere to, and impose sancti
20.
by otterley 7d ago
Plagiarism, fictional data, and unreproducible results have been a problem for a some time, and LLMs are now increasingly standing in authors’ shoes. In a system that rewards production over all else, people are naturally going to be incent
21.
by otterley 7d ago
The question isn’t whether something is merely possible. You could get struck by a moving ambulance tomorrow. It’s about how likely something is.
22.
by otterley 7d ago
Validating someone’s association with an institution by name seems like a reasonable thing to do. Perhaps it wasn’t done in the past, but times and circumstances have changed. Trust in authorship is lower than ever, and for good reason.
23.
by otterley 7d ago
Clear from what? Cite examples where this has happened, please.
24.
by otterley 8d ago
That doesn't support the proposition that carrying a new or previously-cleaned phone across the border is cause for suspicion. In that case, the defendant wiped the phone after he was encountered by CBP.
25.
by otterley 8d ago
Do you have any references to this?
26.
by otterley 8d ago
Not everything. From the case itself: "To be sure, nonroutine searches, which are “more invasive searches, like strip searches, require reasonable suspicion.” Id. But we have held that “the label ‘non-routine’ should generally be reser
27.
by otterley 8d ago
What do you do for a living?
28.
by otterley 8d ago
False. A substantial percentage of ridiculous precedents resulted from the Government prevailing in a case—and DAs are not the best paid lawyers by far.
29.
by otterley 8d ago
> 2. Whenever a service retries but has to give up, the error it sends to its callers should never be retried. There has to be some agreement that that HTTP code will never be retried. This prevents the multiplicative factor of retry on
30.
by otterley 8d ago
429 (and sometimes 503) errors returned by servers might well be a symptom of intentional load shedding. Perhaps it's just not explicitly called out as a server behavior that induces client retries.

More ›