Where in the document does it actually grant you copyright license to the source code or other IP in question? The only language that's close to a grant of license is:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed."
Notice nowhere in the WTFPL is the source code, documentation or any other IP other than the license itself actually mentioned. Compare this to the grant in the MIT license:
"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"
Of course you could argue "well, everyone knows that it's MEANT to grant license to the source code if you put it in a LICENSE file" but in my experience, lawyers encountering the WTFPL have pretty strongly disagreed with that stance.
"TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION" pretty clearly applies to the package accompanied by the license. I looked at the Wikipedia page and this wasn't raised as one of the objections. Do you have a link to some lawyer complaining about that? If the OSI lawyers said it's equivalent to a public domain dedication, that seems useful in countries that don't have a public domain.
One of the objections from the wikipedia article you mention: "Software licenses need to give a clear grant of rights to users to be effective, including the right to redistribute and create derivative works. "Do what the fuck you want to" is not a clear license of any recognized copyright rights; the effect is arguably no license at all."
And again, given the paragraph immediately preceding "TERMS AND CONDITIONS.." one could reasonably argue that the terms apply to the license itself since nothing else is mentioned.
This is essentially the argument I encountered when our company was acquired and we had to do a license audit of all of our dependencies and ended up having to change our codebase to remove a couple (fortunately small) WTFPL projects.
I think screaming at people and all sorts of other stuff (16-hour days?) is just an unfortunate reality of the restaurant business. It's not like your experience is unique. I feel like most of the problems could be resolved with more money - because the real problem is that every day there's some unpredictable crisis and you have to pull the resources to deal with it out of your ass. Service jobs are so hard because clients want cheap, high quality, fast service are there is tons of competition.
One aspect of the difference is that the physical force and violence with white collar crime are indirect / externalized, because the crimes involve manipulation of intangibles.
But even just assigning someone to jaywalking duty is already selective enforcement. Even if the entire police force was on jaywalking duty, you couldn't catch all the jaywalkers in the city.
Yeah, ok, fair enough. First, I was conflating Tokyo with Japan. Second, by normal I meant "culturally accepted" so maybe I shoulda just said that. But you know, normal kinda also means "within 3 sigma" as well as "mean". These data for Tokyo are interesting:
Those data for all of Japan (not Tokyo(!)) put the median commute time somewhere around 44 minutes, the max commute time at 90 minutes, and the average commute time at 57 minutes. That is totally in line with what I reported in my comment.
Did you maybe mean to link to [0]? If you did, then that survey tells us that of the 583 Tokyo respondents:
* 2.9% have a 120+ minute commute.
* 17% have a commute between 90 and 119 minutes.
* 66% have a commute shorter than 70 minutes.
* 20% have a commute between 60 and 69 minutes. This is the most frequent commute bucket. Second is 50->59 (14.9%). Third is 40->49 (13.89%). Fourth is 70->79 (13.03%).
> Really, it's not unusual to meet a salaryman with a 2-hour commute.
If only 3% of a population has a property, that property is actually pretty unusual.
> ...and this one for Japan paints a more vague but differently interesting picture:
From that page:
"About half of the Japanese respondents indicated that they need less than 30 minutes to go to work/school. On the other hand, one fourth of the respondents need more than one hour."
To break it down:
~50% < 30 minutes
~25% >= 30 minutes but <= 60 minutes
~25% > 60 minutes
That doesn't mesh with the official stats for the country.
> But you know, normal kinda also means "within 3 sigma" as well as "mean".
It's a pity that the standard deviation of the reported figures was not reported. I gather that it's hard to determine what is within 3 SD of the mean without that information.
I didn't link to the wrong thing. If you read that article the top cities excluding Nara are all in greater Tokyo.
The max time for Kanagawa is not reported, the average time for Kanagawa is 90 minutes (for men with kids under 6). Your calculations are median / max / average of averages.
+/- 3 sigma = 99.7% of the sample, and we know 3% is > 2 hours (for all of Japan, not Tokyo). There's near the same percentage of LGBT adults in the US (~4%).
All we're arguing over is the use of the word normal. Would you be happier with "uncommon but not an extreme outlier"?
> ...the top cities excluding Nara are all in greater Tokyo.
Oh. You meant "The Tokyo Metropolitan Area", rather than Tokyo. Gotcha. :)
> Your calculations are median / max / average of averages.
Mmhmm. Given that that's the only data we have to work with, I don't see the problem with it (other than the violence it should have done to the phrasing in my previous comment). I'd rather have the more detailed data, but alas.
> ...and we know 3% is > 2 hours (for all of Japan, not Tokyo).
How do we know that? The data that my 3% came from was -apparently- from Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba, or Saitama respondents.
> There's near the same percentage of LGBT adults in the US (~4%).
1) If that's L, G, B, and T adults in the US, I don't believe that number for a second. That stat has to suffer from under-reporting.
2) I would absolutely say that a property shared by only 4% of a population is not common.
> All we're arguing over is the use of the word normal. Would you be happier with "uncommon but not an extreme outlier"?
Based on the data, a 120+ minute commute appears to be rather uncommon. I'm uncomfortable about speaking about the nature of the outliers without knowing more about the individual points in the data set. That last bucket is potentially a very large one; who knows what its contents look like? [0]
"Normal" is... not the best term to use when trying to speak precisely.
If I have a system that only fails in a particular way 3% of the time, I could reasonably say "That failure mode is not normal.". On the other hand, if I know that it fails in that particular way 3% of the time, I can reasonably say, "Oh, that's infrequent, but normal behavior of the system.".
See the problem?
[0] I mean, obviously, we could have a few reasonably good guesses at its highest possible upper bound, but other than that...
The LGBT stat came from Wikipedia. For controversial stuff like that in the US, WP is pretty good. I used to think it was 10-15%, 1 in 7 was the number I learned growing up, I guess it's 1 in 25.
For me, "abnormal" generally means "what is wrong with you" (the response given here), whereas "normal" can even include eye-rolling and "oh so you're one of those". The difference between 1 in 33 (3%) and 1 in 666 (0.015%, from the tail end past +3 sigma which accounts for 50% - 99.7% / 2) is really quite palpable.
But again, let's face it: it's not as common as I thought, and it's not as uncommon as you thought.
> My 3% came from this article (which I linked, but which is fine to have ignored):
...really? From my reply:
> From that page:
> "About half of the Japanese respondents indicated that they need less than 30 minutes to go to work/school. On the other hand, one fourth of the respondents need more than one hour."
I read and commented on everything that you linked to. The only time 3% appears in that article is "3% take the motorcycle, while 7% indicated not to commute at all." The bar graph that is titled "International comparison of commuting times (one way, in minutes)" has no Y-axis label or grid lines, and is small and low-resolution so determining what percentage is represented by the 120+ minute bucket is tricky at best.
> For me, "abnormal" generally means "what is wrong with you" (the response given here)...
Folks feel that people who are spending four hours every weekday on the road are doing something strange and aberrant because that's an enormous amount of unpaid time to spend doing something required by work. It doesn't matter how much of a population does it, it's aberrant and -to a degree- self-destructive behavior. [0]
> For controversial stuff like [LGBT "membership"] in the US, WP is pretty good.
Sure. I'm making the argument that the studies are suffering from under-reporting. This is something that you have to ask others to disclose, rather than something you can test for.
> But again, let's face it: it's not as common as I thought, and it's not as uncommon as you thought.
No, the Japanese commute time stats sound about right to me. The numbers for Japan were more like what I expected the US numbers to look like, actually.
[0] As always, remember that if I were assigning blame, I would do so explicitly.
Yeah, me neither... but I don't think blaming commuters like ryandrake for advocating their lifestyle is the answer. Different people have different priorities. You wouldn't sneer at OP for working 60-hour weeks (it's glorified in the valley), but that's what a 40-hour work week with a 4-hour daily commute amounts to. I dunno, maintaining a separation between work and home can be healthy.
Truthfully, I think we're getting to the point where there's a backlash against 60 workweeks. You can see it in the comments that are on HN. Devs are getting disgruntled at the "perpetual college all-nighter" coding culture, even as they feel they're not getting properly compensated by startups. But that's a different comment thread for a different future story.
It's not 5/7ths, you're awake for 16 hours: 8 work, 8 leisure. This means on 5 out of 7 days, half of your leisure time is gone. So if you burn 4 commuting then you've given up 20 hours out of 40 + 2 * 16 on the weekends = 72, which is 28% vs. your 71%.
Personally I would never do it, but like, different strokes.
Also, define richly. Assume monthly savings of $2000/month on housing, call it $500 / week, that's $25 an hour. Plenty of people make less than that, so again it's just priorities.
Alright, so I missed the "half of". But you missed that there are 9 8-hour blocks of leisure in a week, not 7. So it's half of 5/9, or simply 5/18. Which doesn't sound that bad compared to 2.5/18 which is what a 1-hour commute gets you.
> But you missed that there are 9 8-hour blocks of leisure in a week, not 7.
Unless his partner is unemployed or a "housewife", there are childrearing and housekeeping tasks that are certain to occupy the "work" time on the weekends. Until the kid gets is own job and (if you live in a place with poor-to-nonexistent public transit) can be trusted with a car, having a kid is work.
> So it's half of 5/9, or simply 5/18. Which doesn't sound that bad compared to 2.5/18 which is what a 1-hour commute gets you.
No, it still sounds bad. A two-hour commute kills half of your leisure time every work day. A one-hour commute kills a quarter of the same. In both cases, that's a lot of time to lose.
I also agree that you have a point about the arbitrary distinction. Presumably you agree that accidental / criminal / insane / unnecessary shootings are a problem. What do you propose as a solution?
The four things I can think of are:
1) tighter registration and controls, GPS tracking
2) better training and education for gun owners, mandatory, free
3) arming more citizens so they can take out mass shooters
4) better training in non-lethal methods for police
First you really need to go back to the issue of bad will on the gun control side, I mean, when both Obama and Hillary publicly call for outright confiscations ("Australian style gun 'buy-backs'") that shouldn't be open to question.
Then perhaps a return to the issue of dog control. More specifically:
In practice, registration accomplishes nothing good.
What controls?
GPS tracking ... how??? Especially for the 350+ million legacy guns in our hands? And what would it accomplish? At most it would snare criminals stupid enough to legally buy guns before they have a disqualifying record, wouldn't address the other problems.
2) Mandatory is non-negotiable given the bad will, unless you make it a required middle or high school thing for everybody. As for free, the other side's vapors about Eddie Eagle, shutting down of high school rifle ranges (even in Arlington, Virginia, home of the US military! ), and so on suggests that's non-negotiable on their side. But I most certainly support it, did my part of it in JROTC (the members of the rifle team helped the teachers run the winter safety and marksmanship unit).
3) Now you're on to something. But it's not going to happen in 5 of the 15 most populated states (California, New York, New Jersey. Massachusetts and Maryland), and we think the bigger problem is the proliferation of the Orwellian named "gun free zones". With the exception of the shooting of the Arizona congresswoman, all the modern ones have happened in such. And of course the likely stoppings of mass shootings by armed citizens have by definition happened outside these zones.
4) Really doesn't exist. At least if you're talking guns or edged weapons, I would not ask any police officer to use anything less than lethal force from a gun once combat begins. Google Tueller Drill for some sobering videos.
Perhaps better would be real and much more certain sanctions for truly abusive police; going back to the Tueller Drill, in what circumstance is in necessary to shoot a man in a wheelchair if you think he might have an edged weapon? (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bf5_1348711197&comments=1) If it was just incompetence in allowing yourself to get cornered as the police allege, that should be worth condign including being expelled from ever having a job in law enforcement. Whereas these police officers should all have been publicly executed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting including every member of the coverup.
But in the current BlackLivesMatter environment which lumps murderous thugs like Michael Brown together with virtuous tax evaders like Eric Garner, I don't see that happening.
Echoing the Eric Garner case, I've been told by police officers that anytime things go hand to hand a tragic outcome is very possible. In fact, we don't talk about "non-lethal" methods at all, just "less-lethal".
Anyone suggesting "GPS tracking" with any degree of seriousness doesn't demonstrate the ability to form rational thought: discussion should not continue.
> Mandatory ... free
Anything less than free is exactly a poll tax. This is also a great way to backdoor a registry of individuals, since, you generally need to track which people have completed the feel-good training.
