Many bad films have good aspects. They just didn't cross the elusive threshold of a good film.
A disaster. More cars and less trains...
Bibliograpy:
- Losing Track by Channel 4 (1984), especially episode 5
- www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/02/beeching-wrong-about-britains-railwaysToday the makeup of UK transport looks very different from the one envisaged by Dr Beeching. Rail passenger figures have almost doubled over the past 10 years; commuter trains are crammed; young people are deserting the car for the train; and Britain's railway bosses are struggling to meet soaring demands for seats. The legacy of Beeching - dug-up lines, sold-off track beds and demolished bridges - has only hindered plans to revitalise the network, revealing the dangers of having a single, inflexible vision when planning infrastructure."The crucial lesson to take from the Beeching anniversary is that you have to be flexible when planning transport infrastructure. Beeching was not," says Colin Divall, professor of rail history at York University. "Yes, many loss-making lines did need closing down, but nowhere near the number earmarked by Beeching, as we can now see with terrible hindsight."
Less evil are BLOBs that come from Reproducible builds.
Too restrictive. People should be able to make money from stuff.
The definition of "commercial" could also be taken in extremely broad senses, making serious reuse risky in many applications.
Notably, many university courses use it, notably MIT OpenCourseWare. Ciro wonders if it is because academics are wary of industry, or if they want to make money from it themselves. This reminds Ciro of a documentary he watched about the origins of one an early web browsers in some American university. And then that university wanted to retain copyright to make money from it. But the PhDs made a separate company nonetheless. And someone from the company rightly said something along the lines of:TODO source.
The goal of universities is to help create companies and to give back to society like that. Not to try and make money from inventions.
The GNU project does not like it either www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CC-BY-NC:
This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money for copies. Thus, we recommend you do not use this license for documentation.In addition, it has a drawback for any sort of work: when a modified version has many authors, in practice getting permission for commercial use from all of them would become infeasible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_NonCommercial_license#Defining_%22Noncommercial%22 also talks about the obvious confusion this generates: nobody can agree what counts as commercial or not!
In September 2009 Creative Commons published a report titled, "Defining 'Noncommercial'". The report featured survey data, analysis, and expert opinions on what "noncommercial" means, how it applied to contemporary media, and how people who share media interpret the term. The report found that in some aspects there was public agreement on the meaning of "noncommercial", but for other aspects, there is wide variation in expectation of what the term means.
Clickbait advertisement
The City of London is an obscene thing. Its existence goes against the will of the greater part of society. All it takes is one glance to see how it is but a bunch of corruption. See e.g.: The Spiders' Web: Britain's Second Empire.
You are nothing but useless leeches in the Internet age.
You must go bankrupt all of you, ASAP.
Research paid with taxpayer money must be made available for free.
Researchers and reviewers all work for peanuts, while academic publishers get money for doing the work that an algorithm could do. OurBigBook.com.
When Ciro learned URLs such as www.nature.com/articles/181662a0 log you in automatically by IP, his mind blew! The level of institutionalization of this theft is off the charts! The institutionalization of theft is also clear from article prices, e.g. 32 dollars for a 5 page article.
Long live the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto by Aaron Swartz (2008).
Key physics papers from the 50's are still copyright encumbered as of 2020, see e.g. Lamb-Retherford experiment. Authors and reviewers got nothing for it. Something is wrong.
Infinite list of other people:
- blog.machinezoo.com/public-domain-theft by Robert Važan:
Scientific journals are perhaps one of the most damaging IP rackets. Scientists are funded by governments to do research and publish papers. Reviews of these papers are done by other publicly funded scientists. Even paper selection and formatting for publication is done by scientists. So what do journals actually do? Nearly nothing.
Closed source on offline products used by millions of people is evil, when you could just have those for free with open source software! Thus Ciro's hatred for Microsoft Windows and MacOS (at least userland, maybe).
How the hell are you supposed to develop an open source implementation of something that has a closed standard?
Not to mention open source test suites, that would be way too much to ask for, those always end up being made by some shady small companies that go bankrupt from time to time, see e.g. .
Open source development model in which developers develop in private, and only release code to the public during releases.
Notable example project: Android Open Source Project.
This development model basically makes reporting bugs and sending patches a waste of time, because many of them will already have been solved, which is why this development model is evil.
We shouldn't have countries.
We should have one big global government, with one global language that everyone can speak, and slightly different local laws, so you can choose where to live based on the laws you approve of the most.
The problem of deletionism is that it removes users' confidence that their precious data will be safe. It's almost like having a database that constantly resets itself. Who will be willing to post on a website that deletes the content they created for free half of the time thus wasting people's precious time?
Just say what you mean to say,
If you've been fired, say you been fired, not "let go".
If someone died, say they died, not "passed away".
Europe has made good regulations to limit the absolute power of immoral companies. Partly because it does not have any companies anymore, but so be it.
But the law that forces every fucking website to show a message "Do you consent to cookies?" is not one of them.
Ciro cannot stand fucking clicking the "I consent" button anymore.
Please stop, for the love of God.
At most, there must be a standardized API that allows your browser to say "I agree or I disagree" automatically to all of them, e.g. an HTTP header.
2021: United Kingdom is considering it post-Brexit: techcrunch.com/2021/09/06/after-years-of-inaction-against-adtech-uks-ico-calls-for-browser-level-controls-to-fix-cookie-fatigue/. Something good might actually come out of Brexit!