paxcoder

As I understand, the blastocyst is a state of a human being in the early stage of its development, having in turn developed from the morula, and the zygote (the first cell).

If you want to argue semantics of the words or the phrase, we can do that. If you want me to use a dictionary to justify my use of the words "human" and/or "being", I'll do that. If you want textbook (medical) definitions, you can have it right away at https://goo.gl/ZFDcbg. And if you'd like more scientific literature backing, consult https://goo.gl/zXpbAu. If you are willing to cede that the nomenclature fits, but would like to now rank human beings by worth in relation to stage of development, I would like to provide arguments for why you shouldn't do that. Finally, if you have reconsidered everything, I would invite you to the Way, the Truth and the Life, as scary as that might sound. Peace be with you and yours.

What I referred to is the death of a human early in its development (blastocyst) resulting from the steps necessary to derive embryonic stem cells (as opposed to those necessary for adult stem cell derivation like here and elsewhere)

Please specify which ones and exactly how.

Well, it looks like we can advance science without pretending killing human beings is ok, after all.

Undefined behavior has a purpose: Not specifying implementation details makes it easier to write new implementations and for a wider variety of platforms. "De facto standards" take away this freedom, so ideally you'd want to reject reliance on UD, but I see your (second) point about that not always being practical. I guess "be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others". Just make sure that your foundations are strong (pun) or the whole house will be an EcmaScript.

It's crowdsourcing, and for-profit crowdsourcing is pretty much exploitative by definition.

To write portable code, I wouldn't study de-facto definitions of de-jure undefined behavior, except to see if I could cover every possible one and only if all alternatives were inferior.

non-embryonic

Ignore, pretend, you'll still be wrong. I'll call it like I see it.

Copyleft is those user-protecting restrictions. I'll refrain from repeating myself.

By your "fewer restrictions" logic, permissive licenses would be the ones most copyleft. Again, the purpose of copyleft is proliferating "freedom-respecting" software, not amassing - open source. Code that is open, but you can't utilize freely because of a locked-down device or a patent - "misses the point". Preceding references emerged organically and... whoa.

Most GPLv2 bias which isn't caused by Linux' licensing is due to the kind of FUD you've perpetuated in this thread, not any actual issue with GPLv3.

It is incomplete: https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/search?ut...

People have taken their time to draw you a picture of a solution you could have come up with yourself. They are not talking about opt-in security, you are the only one. GPLv3 does not hinder security. You are furthering FUD.

I explicitly said a superior copyleft license. That is, I stated the value I presuppose, and in this context GPLv3's superiority to GPLv3 is clear. What's "extreme" is denying users control of their own devices, not the reverse.

Let me guess: It's not a complete standard library?

I want to react to the signature FUD: GPLv3 is clearly a superior copyleft license to GPLv2 despite Linus' latently permissive opinion on the anti-TiVoization clause.

I (and I'm sure others) would appreciate references to the minimal set of things necessary to absorb to easily participate in the PLT discussion.

This is the opposite of that.

Revolting. I protest against suicide, the "assistance", the approval, and the very idea that it could somehow be eu (good).

Where does is the money coming from? I'd like to know what business model the company you work for employs.

It might be considered poor form not to spell the problem out, however I honestly think it is crystal clear

But what's interesting is that I was being upvoted until I've rephrased the comment. It used to be "That's an unfortunate comparison you've made". In the same time it sounded more moderate and more personal. I've edited it because moderation came at the cost of authenticity/honesty, and I thought addressing the comment risked automatic rejection of the underlying message on the OC's part. I did think that the actual sentiment could sound worse to others, but it would be hypocritical of me not to have gone with it. The underlying message is precisely "don't conform on account of genuineness".

Hope this cleared something up after all

I know what you're referring to, but then again, that's a matter of formatting, not encoding.

That comparison makes no sense.

Any recommendations? Maybe start a flowchart for collaborative editing? Please link me.

Tell me this Sterling guy got most other things wrong to even out being this spot on way back in 1994.

This won't solve the problem of having to learn three different technologies, but whatever might mitigate the pain that we call JavaScript (quirks) is welcome.

People who specialize in webdev learn things by heart so perhaps they forget how bad they are.

Cam you recommend some easy* literature to understand the things you're referring to? I'm interested in particular in things more flexible and easier to understand than the monad. *as in not written by and for mathematicians

Recommend an essay that enumerates the techniques? Or if you don't know of any, ping me when you write a blog post? :) Thanks in advance.

I meant shouldn't be the norm. Screw these uneditable, permanent forums.

So you bet your time. It's how I got my job too, but that should be the norm (unless there are guarantees). Companies should cover the expenses of finding employees, instead of crowdsourcing the unemployed.

That's a different point. What you were doing was defending the personality flaw.

Going "OT" was due to the title. I thought it was that post where Torvalds obstinately defends his rudeness. Basically the man's lack of style almost prevented his point from being communicated. So even digging for points which I did and do* only went so far.

*Mind you, I've found sifting through noise to have diminishing returns. People often use cuss words instead of arguments. Strong points do not need strong language.

I'll be curteous and elaborate: The double standard is allowing Torvalds to bash, but disallowing "bashing" his bashing.

I refrained from guessing the cause of this before, but I believe it is you being a fan of Torvalds' and/or being sympathetic to his unwilingness to moderate own behavior.

Please address my point about definitions or explicitly introduce a new point if you really want to argue the other thing further.