wagesj45

The Supreme Court isn't really interested in arguments, it seems. They're starting at conclusions and working backwards. In a sane world, you're probably right with the logic. But in a sane world we wouldn't have made it to this point to begin with.

All men are apes, but not all apes are men.

I know it's pandering to my millennial nostalgia, but they're doing it so well.

Both definitely are true. I don't mean to indicate that one view is right. One feeds into the other. This is just he natural outcome when one sex is a sexual selector and one is not. I don't envy either group online dating, but for different reasons.

I remember online dating looking more like this from a male perspective.

I'm gonna be real. I dont think home directory files should handled by something named tmpfiles.

But... but... it was in the documentation! /s

What killed me about the whole thing was how defensive the dev was about the whole thing, basically calling the reporter a moron for running a command without extensive knowledge of the entire system. I don't care how good the documentation is, if open file proceeds to format your hard drive in some circumstances, you done goofed as a dev.

You'll have to forgive me, as I haven't tested this personally on Linux yet, but this webcam is a USB 3 device and doesn't have any special drivers. It should work plug-n-play.

The reason I bring it to your attention is that it has a nice physical lens for focusing, aperture, and zoom; all separate. It's 4k 30 fps and I can confirm that the picture is really nice.

His body has put all its resources toward growing neurons. There's simply not enough left for hair. Good trade off, imo.

Because I don't know why it is closed source. Is it a personal project? A private project? A sensitive project? I don't see a moral imperative for any of those to be free and open to all users.

If I release something free of restrictions to the world as a gift, that is my prerogative. And a third party's actions don't affect my ability to do whatever I want with the original code, nor the users of their product's ability to do what they want with my code. And the idea of "property" here is pretty abstract. What is it you own when you purchase software? Certainly not everything. Probably not nothing. But there is a wide swath in between in which reasonable people can disagree.

If you are an intellectual property abolitionist, I doubt there is much I can say to change your mind.

I'm not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?

I'm going by the vibe of the comments of people here who are generally anti-MIT. That the very nature of allowing someone to use your code in a closed-source project without attribution is bad. Phrasing it as "hiding their copyright infringement", for example, implies that it is copyright infringement per se regardless of the license or the spirit in which it was released.

Not all of us write code simply for monetary gain and some of us have philosophical differences on what you can and should own as far as the public commons goes. And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.