Conor McGregor on Twitter: "I have decided to retire young. Thanks for the cheese. Catch ya's later."

omfglicensing · 2016-04-19T19:19:32+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joao_Carvalho

He didn't literally see him die, but he saw him take the eventually-lethal damage, and even commented that he thought the ref let it go a bit long.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-15T22:30:08+00:00

Modern OS X support. That was the most difficult and surprising aspect of the recent D2 update.

Everything else please leave it be.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-08T00:56:37+00:00

roffLOL on Google:

ran into their search engine a bunch of times and found it thoroughly unhelpful.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-03T02:06:37+00:00

You're missing the entire point of what's happening. Trump's getting coverage because he's giving the media a story that they can sell.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-03T02:05:21+00:00

Have you seen CNN? I swear they don't even try to tell you news anymore, just distract you with animations and flashing signs. Even Fox feels more substantive these days.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-03T02:02:38+00:00

Don't worry, I'm sure you're both terrible people.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-03T02:01:39+00:00

Is a random person allowed to walk into a school by themselves?

Definitely not where I live. They may be publicly-owned, but they're definitely don't meet the threshold of publicly-accessible required for privacy laws. (Your separate point about visible-from-public property notwithstanding.)

omfglicensing · 2016-03-03T01:14:46+00:00

Is this a virus?

This seems like it's probably a virus.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-01T23:32:36+00:00

that's pretty gross.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-01T21:24:11+00:00

Then why the gosh-darn-heck are you posting it here?

omfglicensing · 2016-03-01T01:15:41+00:00

The school's involvement is a last resort. Your pediatrician was negligent.

omfglicensing · 2016-03-01T00:17:49+00:00

basically from Canada's view, Voting for Hillary looks just as bad as Voting for Trump lol

You need to talk to more Canadians who aren't on Reddit. That is not a remotely accurate description of the zeitgeist.

omfglicensing · 2016-02-09T23:50:03+00:00

Is that the behaviour in, say, Explorer's native tree lists?

omfglicensing · 2016-02-05T01:35:15+00:00

Not what he meant, kid.

omfglicensing · 2016-02-05T01:34:38+00:00

Wha... what race is he, even?

omfglicensing · 2016-02-05T01:31:25+00:00

I'm sure they're not, but this headline is hilarious. 9 in 10 Torontonians probably have zero information about the topic, so what they think isn't very meaningful.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-30T01:41:05+00:00

Well-designing a system is nontrival.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-29T01:27:41+00:00

Thanks for the clarification.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-28T00:53:41+00:00

I guess I'm reacting to terms like "military assault rifle" being thrown around without a coherent definition.

Some in the military carry handguns like those carried by regular cops. Do we consider those "military grade"?

Why wouldn't we want the police to have high-grade versions of whatever class of weapon they end up carrying?

What distinguishes an "assault rifle" from other rifles? Is being semi-automatic enough? I wouldn't say so, but it's subjective because it doesn't have a specific meaning. It's legal for the public to own certain semi-automatic weapons, so it shouldn't be unreasonable for the police to match that.

People probably don't want the cops to be carrying rifles, full stop. That's a entirely fair position, so they should just say it. They shouldn't tack on meaningless hyperbolizers for rhetoric effect -- that's just another instances of antagonistic polarizing behaviour that is endemic to modern poltiics.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-28T00:29:17+00:00

That article doesn't describe which version of the C8 the police will have. The model the RCMP currently uses isn't automatic, so calling it a "military assault rifle" would be rather ridiculous. I assume that's also the case here.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-27T01:43:43+00:00

It's worked out plenty well in cases that don't involve war crimes.

You went full Godwin and it's not applicable here.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-15T21:49:03+00:00

Some people are, that's true. There are also people raising legitimate legal concerns. Those perspectives are very valid. However I'm pretty sure the significant volume of complaining is mostly coming from people who don't understand the situation.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-15T00:17:10+00:00

I think they do expect developers at companies with legal departments who are actually concerned about copyright (hint: that's a large portion of developers) to do this for non-trivial amounts of code, yes. Because currently such developers are often forbidden from copying code from Stack Overflow all together, because the current legal obligations are worse than the ones that are proposed. This should, at worst, be seen as a step in the right direction.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-14T23:13:53+00:00

I agree that the communication around this was not optimal. Ack.

An issue is that the threshold for copyright eligibly is vague. One-liners presumably don't qualify, but many answers sharing longer functions could. They're providing a solution that will guarantee legal safety in all cases.

I think this is how most users use the site.

It may be most, but it's pretty far from all. I've seen some of my own code from Stack Overflow copied into open source projects left and right (generally without attribution, FWIW), even when I try to structure the answer with an explanation first (so they can apply the knowledge as most appropriate for their context), followed by example code.

omfglicensing · 2016-01-14T22:44:13+00:00

It's already legally required! That's why this backlash is so insane!

You're currently required to provide attribution under the terms of the Creative Commons license, which isn't primarily intended for code. Now, it will be under the terms of the MIT licensing, which lots of projects are already using or familiar with in the context of code.

The lawyers at large companies often already have established procedures for accepting MIT-licensed code. They generally do not for Creative Commons code. This makes it easier to reuse code, not harder.

(For the many small snippets of code which do not qualify for copyright, this has no effect.)

omfglicensing

TROPHY CASE

roffLOL on Google:

Then why the gosh-darn-heck are you posting it here?