BFatts

I heard estimates it was near $2T to fund it properly.

I'm glad that there are better controls in the extension being made to provide for mom&pop shops over big companies.

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?

"And?..." Seriously? If there's panic buying (or prescribing, as did occur) then supplies are diminished if not depleted. WHAT GOOD IS THAT?

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 speech with "shows a lot of promise" but his initial statements basically said "if you can get your hands on it - you should get on it ASAP" which is irresponsible of the POTUS. He's not a medical expert, but he loves knowing things and regurgitating them to sound smart.

He wanted people (in case it panned out to be good) to attach his name to CQ and HCQ. That is selfish.

"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 when that is an unknown (this depleting existing supplies).

That is what "the other side" was saying.

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 critical of Trump) to all refer to the same facts. Seems like a lot of work to coordinate a destructive effort against the president AND keep it up over the last 3.5 years...

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.

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. still, the rates are unknown and the only way to prevent it is with social distancing.

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 licenses.

Open source can MOST DEFINITELY be made totally proprietary.

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 viable as languages as any other out there. There are languages, such as Rust or Go, that people tout their benefits. However, I see no simple way to get an env set up, learn the language, and turn around anything of meaning in the time I could in JavaScript. There are some deficiencies in the platform, surely, but those (as I would expect) get resolved over time.

I could make the same argument about having to get a JRE or a Python interpreter. Each language is going to have its deficiencies and bonuses.

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't compiled. So, pointing it out is just being pedantic - that's all.

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 distinguish autoplay (auto-continuation) from just regular TV streaming over the airwaves or cable?

Thank you for the extensive write up! It sounds like a fun thing to do and I'm looking for classes in my area.

Reminds me of Trillian back in the days of AIM and Yahoo! Messenger.

"Do no evil" - my ass

I feel like I am simulating orgasmic responses!

This is pretty darn sweet - well done!

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 Software", not "Open Source".

So when it comes to who owns the definition, the definitive answer is the OSI. Anything else is just subjective opinions.

You must not work. Because businesses that do REAL BUSINESS and use Open Source are happy that there is the OSD and approved OSI licenses. That way, we can make real, LEGAL decisions. For individual developers, they might have a different idea of what the definition is, but the actual reference to what defines it is at: https://opensource.org/osd

Reading that will clarify what open source is and isn't. Anything else is just "free software" and should hunt down the FSF for licenses and such. RMS has a very different opinion on software that DOES NOT WORK for large corporations.

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.

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 the OSI's eyes (and really anyone who knows what open source actually is) it's NOT OPEN SOURCE anymore.

Please, just read this:

https://opensource.org/osd

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 used when it comes to determining, legally, what open source is - not some wordsmith.

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 have MEANT open source, so it's actually the original open source" is very subjective and not historically accurate.

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 to release their source. Competition goes out the window.

So while RMS has a nice ideal, it doesn't generally apply.

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.

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.

>> Bruce Perens has applied to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. The trademark conditions will be known as the ``Open Source Definition'', essentially the same as the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

Your own reference contains this text, btw.

>> 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 terms... that's all. They don't have any other agenda, period. Stating so shows a complete lack of understanding OSS and the OSI.

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 kind of an expert.

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.