Check out Server Side Includes. They used to be all the rage.
<!--#include virtual="../quote.txt" -->
You don't need to reinvent anything. Just use what used to exist.
(Also, you start doing SSI, and then you want a bit more power, so you switch to PHP, then before you know it, you go all out with PHP and MySQL. Finally, you say, "MySQL sucks, SQLite is much better and easier" (see also the other comment about SQLite).
In the end you realize that nothing matters. We all die alone in the end.
I'm not just looking for static includes, but dynamic, real-time, editable includes built in to a framework that uses a single syntax to describe a full web app. I'm tired of using full programming languages for describing app data — and how it can be edited — when so much of what a web app can do has already been implemented a billion times.
PHP is great for that, but, in my opinion, is 500% more powerful in areas that don't count (low-level language constructs that make it Turing complete, but not ideal for building real-time, editable web apps) and 10% as powerful as it should be in areas that do count (i.e. performing higher level tasks automatically, like structuring data, syncing data between pages, moving data around, rendering data to the page easily, etc.).
Small claims court if it's less than the relevant small claims amount.
Otherwise, a strongly worded letter from a cheap lawyer.
The legal system is often abused. But it sounds like you've got an actual legit issue, which is what the legal system is there for. Why not use it?
If you don't want to pay for a lawyer, you can write your own strongly worded letter. Just be sure to stick to facts, and keep very good records. In your letter, explain the issue briefly but clearly. Explain how you've attempted to resolve the issue. Explain how if the issue is not resolved, you will be forced to take action.
Address it to the hospital CEO, or whoever is in charge. Post it using registered mail.
Your local library may have a subscription to LexisNexis or a similar legal database. This will have form letters and chunks of legal text that you can copy and paste.
HN user patio11 wrote a thing about writing letters on this website that I can't just find. But find it, and read it. It also has helpful advice.
I think the reticence most people have with initially engaging with a lawyer is they're not only not free, but initially not cheap on account of the retainer fee.
Yes, you'll get anything not used back, but the last time I needed a strongly worded letter I had to pay the $1500 retainer and finding a lawyer under $200/hour in my area is extremely difficult. I got my remainder back the following month, but the strongly worded letter cost $400 and tied up $1500 for about five weeks.
The reality is the average person -- if we go off all the studies pointing out the large swathes of the population that can't meet a $500 emergency expense -- may not be in a position to tie up cash, even in markets where a lawyer is considerably cheaper. It's also a cost-benefit equation, and the value of that (regardless of the outcome) is different for everyone -- I'm someone who'll go tooth and nail to get $20 back on principle, but for some people that threshold might have to be $2000+ to care.
Of these, I've eaten horse, whale, shark and eel. Actually, probably I've also eaten bugs.
The shark that I've eaten is perfectly good, and better than many other fish types (taste wise).
Eel was good, but has to be prepared appropriately. Try it Japanese style.
The other two, not worth it. But again, probably something to do with preparation. Perhaps the way the French prepare horse is better than the way the Japanese do?
I don't think I've ever had the opportunity to eat human flesh. I'm surprised you've listed it.
Other animals that taste good include crocodile and kangaroo.
My point being, that taste is very subjective. You'll find people who want to eat those flavors, but don't want to eat the real thing.
You like roo? I like crock and gator (and snake and squirrel, but not armadillo), but never took a liking to the former.
EDIT: My point is simply: for me... nothing really stacks up to cow flesh.
EDIT2: I suspect we don't disagree about the generic "I've eaten everything, at least once, man" conclusions very much. (Although I still find shark to be about a smelly slab of meat as a bear or a badger. Don't even get me going on pure carnivores like fox or coyote).
I'm actually shocked. Have you tasted basashi (raw horse meat) against raw wagyu (Japanese style beef)? IMHO basashi is much better. It has an almost "super-cow" flavour. One thing that's important, though. Most izakayas don't serve enough basashi to justify having it fresh. They freeze it. Not only that, but they serve it still frozen. Basashi needs to come up to temperature. Similar to beef, frozen horse meat sometimes has a tendency break down and pick up a liver flavour. A lot depends on the way it is slaughtered and bled -- most basashi actually comes from Canada and there are very few slaughter houses in Canada. If you go to Kumamoto and go to an izakaya that specialised in Basashi, you should be able to get good fresh, Japanese horse meat. It's amazing (again IMHO).
I can't speak to quality. What I had was chilled. I don't know if it was fresh or frozen beforehand. It was nice. But compared to even raw maguro, I don't know if I would have preferred it.
Now - cooked - it's like a steak that you might get in NYC without quite enough fat on it, to melt into the meat.
I have not been to Kumamoto for years (more than a decade?) - I will take you at your word and go do this the next time I go. Thank you.
Great to see Toybox getting some attention. While I'm still not convinced that BSD-0 is the best license, it certainly encourages innovation in the space.
Wait, you're not Robert Landley!
Naming stuff: one of the hard problems of computer science.
Ecigarettes are actually better for you than real ones, and not only that, they basically make it easier to quit using nicotine altogether (according to reports I've seen).
We have on the one hand a known bad thing, cigarettes contain all sorts of nasties, tars, combustion products etc etc
On the other we have propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin, nicotine and food flavours that get vapourised (not burned). These have no proven links to cancer, PG and VG are already used in food and in medicines, some for inhalation. Also stage-smoke. There's no reason to think they are anywhere near as hazardous as smoking, though we haven't got good long-term data yet.
Regulation of ingredients would be good, but smoking cigarettes and vaping is very far apart in expected health outcomes.
Please note: "Happy Birthday" is well out of copyright in a number of countries that aren't the USA. Including Australia, and any other country that applied the rule that copyright expired 50 years after the death of the author. According to Wikipedia, the copyright expires in the EU at the end of next year (70 years after the death of the last author).
The fact that copyright extends for so long is a travesty and is something that we all should be fighting against (along with all the myriad of other injustices around...).
I too thought it was satire at first. I was all like "hmm, that's slightly amusing". And then I realised it was serious and I was all like "wtf is the point?", then "and if it's so amazing, why isn't the main website built using it?".
I'm over Markdown and related formats for the web. We have a great ASCII format for marking up the web, and it's called HTML.
I keep a text file that grows noticeably every day. I write it in Restructured Text (could have been Markdown) for two reasons:
1. My text editor (Vim in this case) renders the text file in colors, and helps me distinguish different elements.
2. If I want, I can export to html.
Markdown and the like grew out of what people were already doing in plain text: dashes and asterisks for bullets, indentation, etc.
I would much rather write plain text, or minimally marked up Markdown or rst, than have to write <tags> for everything, especially for something like my text file that isn't really intended for the web, but can be converted if needed. html is not really meant to be read, but rendered. The various markdowns can be comfortably written, and read as is.
Because it is GPL3, it won't be supported by Google on Android, by Apple probably anywhere, or by Microsoft anywhere.
In other words, it's a lovely idea, but due to a poor choice of license, it won't get any adoption. C.f. Ogg Vorbis, where the license for the specification is public domain, and the license for the libraries are BSD-like.
To quote FSF:
Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against restricted standards, such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which competes against MPEG-4 video). For these projects, widespread use of the code is vital for advancing the cause of free software, and does more good than a copyleft on the project's code would do.[1]
I would suggest that this is a case where widespread use is more important than copyleft.
In the forum thread I linked elsewhere, the author wrote:
"In terms of licenses: GPL is all you get for now. I can always add more liberal licenses later. LGPL for a decoding library, or maybe even MIT? We'll see, I'm not in a hurry."
Wow, starting with an unusable license with the intention to switch to a more practical one later is a weird strategy. I guess that's one way to discourage people from adopting it before it's ready.
(Edit: As I clarified, I meant usable for adoption in other non-GPL projects. But OK, I deserve the downvotes for adding very little, and will think twice before posting such a reply next time)
Starting with a more restrictive one leaves his options open; moving from restrictive to liberal is a lot easier than moving from liberal to restrictive.
Erm, what? If you have ANY contributors other than your core project team going from a restrictive to a more liberal license requires agreement from all of them, as they ALL have copyright somewhere in the project.
The opposite, going from something like MIT or BSD doesn't require ANYONE to be okay with it, the license permits it.
My point was, if he had released his code as MIT/BSD and then wanted to change it to GPL it would be fairly ineffective -- people could still use the old MIT/BSD version in their proprietary products.
If you want to use it commercially without publishing source, just buy a licence from the author. Buying licences isn't exactly uncommon. Or are OS X/iOS/Windows also unusable for you?
> Also commercial "standards" by one party are worthless
Very true, but I can't see how that applies to this project? First, the existence of this repository doesn't preclude proper standardization. Second, the reference implementation is freely licensed, not commercial.
I think it has more to do with maintain control initially.
It is a lot easier to restrict now and liberalise later once more thought has been given to the options, than it is to draw things back in later if you decide you want more control for any reason.
Not really propriety software - as you & bildung said, it's not a problem if you can just buy a license. I meant anyone working on FLOSS software that isn't GPL compatible, which is probably most FLOSS software. MIT, BSD, etc are very popular these days. And image formats are generally intended to be widely-adopted standards used across different applications.
Most "FLOSS" software is GPL. Almost all is GPL compatible.
But even the FSF recommend sometimes using don't-care-about-user-freedom licenses for strategic reasons, for example driving adoption of a new free codec...
Firefox is GPLv3 compatible. It's quite likely that it will support this format - although, if it's the only major browser doing so, it will not be adopted by most web publishers.
I would be very surprised if Firefox added support. They have been very reluctant to include any additional image formats that weren't developed by Mozilla employees. See for example WebP and Jpeg2000.
Their reasons being things like added security risk, lack of demand, lack of support in other browsers, patent risk etc, which all apply just as much to this format.
The Mozilla Public License is GPLv3 compatible. Firefox also contains code that is under different licenses that is not GPLv3 compatible, and thus firefox is not GPLv3 compatible
That's only the implementation, not the image format itself. Unless I am mistaking, you can't apply a software license like GPL to an image format, just patent it.
You're correct. There is no copyright for ideas, and licenses are just a way to "relax" your copyright. Unless it's patented you are free to make your own implementation of the format without any restrictions.
So, the free world can use this library and the proprietary world will have to develop their own if they want to use the format. Proprietary software developers get to piggy back off of tons of free software, and then when someone decides that they don't want to enable that for their particular program/library, people complain about it. It makes no sense.
A while ago I wanted to include a library in some GPLv3 software, but I couldn't because that library was GPL2-only with no "or any later version" clause. And both versions of the GPL are not compatible unless the GPL2 software has this "or any later version" clause.
So even if you stay strictly within the free software universe, even only within in GPL universe, a strong-copyleft license is a bad choice for a library.
I think license depends on your goal. If your goal is to create a web image format.. you need all the browsers to agree to include you. All browsers will not add a GPLv3 image type. Therefore it is dead before it launched.
No, that's backwards. Microsoft and Apple and Google prevent the usage of the GPL/LGPL. Don't blame the GPL for the bad behavior of large corporations that are using their immense power to try to stop copyleft.
You can't link proprietary software with GPL libraries, only with LGPL libraries.
For but Apple it's not even a licensing concern. Apple doesn't have a problem with the GPLv2, but doesn't touch the GPLv3 because of the patent clauses that it contains. The bash in OS X is a version from 2007 because that's the last GPLv2 version of bash. But Apple has no problem including git because that's also GPLv2 and not v3.
I don't think I've seen an Australian university library that wasn't open to anyone to walk in and browse the shelves. When I was in the UK I found it incredibly odd that most of the university libraries required ID, and made it quite difficult to visit.
Please have a look at David A. Wheeler’s page on Trusting trust [1], including his 2009 PhD dissertation [2], where he clearly demonstrates that it is possible to have trusted (not in the MS sense...) computers (I think).
You may also be interested in 'Countering "Trusting Trust"' on Schneier's website [3], which discusses a 2006 paper, also by Wheeler.
David Wheelers work is very interesting, but it does not solve all the fundamental trust issues in computing.
It allows us to check if our compilers, linkers etc are maliciously modifying the programs being handled in a way not represented by their source code. It does not help us to determine if the firmware or CPU microcode, for example, have backdoors.
You don't need to reinvent anything. Just use what used to exist.
(Also, you start doing SSI, and then you want a bit more power, so you switch to PHP, then before you know it, you go all out with PHP and MySQL. Finally, you say, "MySQL sucks, SQLite is much better and easier" (see also the other comment about SQLite).
In the end you realize that nothing matters. We all die alone in the end.