When I worked for Bill Atkinson's sister, Dr. Kathy Atkinson, at UCR in high school, I was involved in a DMSO leak. Dr. A. was a microbiologist, but botanists worked upstairs. I guess DMSO is used a lot in botany, and they let an experiment boil over and DMSO got into the HVAC air return and then into the whole building. Smelled like garlic, and I turned bright pink. We had to evacuate. I also tasted garlic for a day or so. Nowadays you have to be 18 to get a job in a UC Lab.
You could get DMSO and ketamine at the vet supply store back then in the 80s. I heard of people ingesting acid via DMSO in that time frame, but it could have been an urban legend. It was a horse area and DMSO was used with horses to get stuff deep into their legs or something like that.
When you combine two words into a fundamentally novel phrase, you are not expressing an opinion, you are contributing to the global (or in this case, anglophone) dictionary.
So if you were to write that you are not in the habit of stealing from children, you might have your own idiosyncratic definition of "steal" or "child"?
Well, I certainly can't argue with that, um... logic.
Meanwhile, if anyone is entitled to the distinction of having "coined" the "fundamentally novel" phrase, it's a guy named Robert Steele who publicized the term "open source intelligence" in 1990 and organized the First International Symposium on Open Source Solutions in 1992.
Be that as it may, it's a generic phrase, as evinced by its prior usage in other fields like intelligence and journalism. Lacking a trademark, OSI has zero authority to word-police everyone else. No amount of plugging their ears and chanting lalalala will change the fact that OSI does not own exclusive rights to the phrase "open source." Not with respect to software, not with respect to anything else.
The author of the project in this article is perfectly within their rights to use the term, and the rest of us know very well what they mean by it.
"Steal" and "child" likewise lack any trademark protection.
So, suppose I accuse you of stealing from children, then when you protest, I
reply that the meaning I give those 2 words might not be the meaning most people have, but that is fine because no one owns the exclusive rights to those 2 words.
Right around this time I got to go to the bookstore at UCSD and buy a Sun desktop machine. I also bought a shrink-wrapped compiler, a shrink-wrapped Sybase, and a shrink-wrapped Netscape Enterprise Server.
I built a lot of server side javascript web apps in Netscape enterprise server, and a built a windows shell in javascript with netscape (I had to get a code signing certificate to remove the chrome in Netscape). Over 300 public workstations in the libraries ended up running that funky javascript shell (replacing all the green and amber screen terminals).
Writing the server side apps and hacking together that shell is basically what taught me programming. That plus I had to migrate a bunch of perl 4 code to perl 5.
How much was the student discount back then? I vaguely remember SGI coming to my University and having a complete system for like $2000 back in the day (1996 or 1997). IIRC a Pentium Pro based system would have been similarly priced.
Not in particular, but it's pretty common for permissively licensed projects to complain about companies complying with their license instead of what they imagine the license to be, then relicensing to a proprietary or copyleft license (e.g. Elasticsearch for a high-profile case but there are many others). This lead to some people disliking permissive licenses.
Personally I dislike them because they don't preserve end-user freedom, I prefer the MPL. But if someone wants to donate their work to for-profit companies that's their choice.
'Pushover licence' is a licence which may grant freedom, but doesn't care to protect it. One may modify software under a pushover licence and release their modifications as non-free software. Another, more common name is 'permissive licence'.
Years ago on hackernews I saw a link about probability describing a statistical technique that one could use to answer a question about if a specific type of event was becoming more common or not. Maybe related to the birthday paradox? The gist that I remember is that sometimes a rare event will seem to be happening more often, when in reality there is some cognitive bias that makes it non-intuitive to make that decision without running the numbers. I think it was a blog post that went through a few different examples, and maybe only one of them was actually happening more often.
I had an early job with an ISP that was similar, had modems in people's garages all over the county since this was when calling local could get expensive. The ISP was in the back of a computer store though. Once an ISP customer came into the store. I was just answering phones in the back room, but they sent me to the floor to talk to the customer. I was wearing sandals, and the sales manager fired me on the spot for being on his floor with sandals. The person who I really reported to tried to hire me back when he found out that sales manager had sent me home and fired me.
This is a legacy of old apache configurations, the common mime type configuration files used .html to send the straight file, and .shtml to turn on the server side processing instructions. Server side includes could be static files or executable scripts that generated text on STDOUT. If you were using a lot of server side includes, it was cleaner just to turn on server side parsing for the whole site.
