Slashdot Mirror
Wormholes Unstable (BBC)
An anonymous reader writes that "The BBC reports on recent theoretical physics research showing that wormholes may not be very useful for space or time travel. Wormholes with smooth or classical spacetimes appear to be unstable and fall apart quickly. Too bad for budding time travelers and space explorers!"
Nice job. Now you look like a massive tool.
Like a big hammer? Or more like a giant screw driver?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
it would be nice if there was an open source alternative to skype that got major backing by some big players... let's hope this is it! (not that skype isn't good, it's great... but competition is even greater)
Oh, and to the point that Skype's firewall piercing is unique or unacceptable -- it isn't. See an analysis of Skype signaling done at Columbia University. Skype appears to use a variant of the STUN/ICE technique currently being worked through in the IETF for use with SIP, too. What isn't acceptable in the corporate environment is the local LAN probing / discovery that Skype does at startup!!!
So I want something that plays well with me, and others.
a sheltered work program for the disabled. light industrial. all the ordinary risks of accident and fire on the shop floor plus 150 clients who may need emergency medical services, advanced life support, at any moment.
After some testing, I found out that they don't work particularly well in wireless mode. In fact, wires as such don't work very well either - string is much better, but must not be slack.
However, the whole testing thing has highlighted another problem - I had to suitably dispose of the can contents before the testing could begin, and now that I've popped, I don't think I can stop. I need a cure for this new addiction!
-- Steve
Darl must be beaming and handing out cigars by now.../p
...but assholes persist forever!
Partially correct, it says that you can distribute the code with the binaries, which would be 3a. You can also go with 3b and/or 3c by including a written offer simply saying "ask us for the code within the next 3 years and we'll give it to you" and attach a note saying "the source code is here" respectively.
Here's not advice:
Exchange your lawer for one that actually knows his trade.
IANAL: but the GPL FAQ clearly states that output generated by a GPL program isn't covered by the GPL, so it's 100% safe to use programs like GCC for compiling your program.
And another thing, pretty much all Open Source licenses only "restrict" you in one way when you distribute your creation. If it's kept in private you are not "restricted".
Thanks to the DMCA, how will we (those of us in the US, or countries willing to extradite) even know if GPL code is in closed source software? We can't reverse engineer to find out!
That question is pretty easy to answer. It is ok to use GPLed code in a beta of your closed source software to 'test stuff' so long as you don't distribute it.
So by the first _public_ beta, that code had better be gone, before that it's all fair play.
You are misinformed on many points. Get a better laywer I think.
The GPL is not holding the GNU/Linux OS itself back, only people who want to hoard the code. If you use the software only in-house then there are some limited exceptions within the GPL, so you again should get a better lawyer.
"no business will ever be able to use it. "
Well IBM and many other companies have been able to get on with it. The GPL divides smart and innovative people from the cut and paste brigade. If you can't make a profit then it is your own stupid fault.
"Its draconian requirements"
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
The GPL however gives you all the rights but one: you do not have the right to remove the rights of others. You can use the code that has been created at much expense only if you do not attempt to make free software unfree.
No one is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you want to buy in code to save time then you have to pay for it. The cost for GPL'd software is that you have to share improvements.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, stop crying about it and get on with your life.
I was going by the GPL FAQ, which I've found to be very helpful but I could be misinterpreting something... Under "If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
Not true at all. The software we release uses source code under about a dozen different licences. None of them make any requirements on derived works. Al of them are compatible with each other. Many of them are negotiable.
The GPL is inconvenient in that it appears to be deliberately designed to be incompatible with other licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing their code. As such there's no way we could possibly use GPL code in our applications. As such, it removes the right to use GPL code with non-GPL code
It's not a community problem... it's a business ethics problem. As long as companies can get away with using open source software in closed source products, they will continue to do so.
Only when the first cases are brought before court, we might see an improvement. Until that moment, this will continue.
>I can not use GPL code with other code that is not
>licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible
>with every other licence I've seen. Every other
>licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely
>one licence - The GPL.
Ok, i'll bite..
1) If another license is less restrictive than GPL that means that you are allowed to change the license for that code (considering that this is basically the restriction GPL enforces). So you can GPL the code, and the license is compatible with GPL.
2) If the license is more restrictive than GPL, and you cannot change it, I agree that you have a problem. But it's a problem with the other license, (at least) as much as it's a problem with GPL, no?
If you could compile a version of your application which contained no GPL code, then you could distribute that all you want - thats yours, and you have the rights to it. You're claiming that somehow you lose rights because you can't distribute GPL code alongside yours, which is false. Do you feel that you lose rights because you can't distribute your application without having paid money to commercial library vendors? It's the same thing. You aren't losing a right because you never had one in the first place./p
Well, here's two:
- Wing Commander: Privateer Remake
- Vegastrike
Is it just me, or does it seem like there are a lot of anonymous coward posts, that seem to be spam, to 1st-level comments on articles? They're starting out at a karma level of zero, but it's still odd.
I've noticed a lot of them... they're obviously spam, because of how offtopic they are... seemingly pulled from highly-moderated comments to other articles.
"I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
We'll see Mac OS X - x86 anytime soon?
Stuff like this keeps coming up. Seems to be part of the Apple rumour cycle. Can we trust the source??? Using the G5 is par to of the advantage in marketing terms, as a far as i can see: think different!
http://www.techsmec.com/index.php/2005/05/23/apple _denies_intel_rumour
Of course, one could argue that Apple wouldn't want this news to be leaked/p
The Register already has an analysis on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/23/apple_inte l/
The conclusions are: Apple already use a lot of non PowerPC chips (iPod, AirPort base stations), so these talks may well have nothing to do with Mac's. Also, it could be a scare tactic to make IBM a bit more eager as a chip supplier.
This could be the same tactic Dell uses with Intel... "We could go with AMD, but about those prices..."
Cheaper because of Intel? I doubt it. Even if Apple does start using x86 - or more likely x86-64 - they would still likely use their own controller chips (Note that Apple uses a single, integrated controller rather than a north/southbridge approach) and custom boards.
It's not impossible that Apple will switch to Intel processors. We already know they keep a copy of the OS up to date on Intel hardware, and even released Darwin x86. The problems come from all the things they would leave behind:
Compatibility - The PowerPC architecture emulates x86 better than the other way 'round. To keep from eliminating all old software with one fell swoop, they would need to emulate PowerPC. This would cause old software to run like death.
VMX - Much of Apple's current power comes from the AltiVec/VMX/Velocity Engine available on the G4 & G5 processors. It is what offers Apple serious performance benefits in certain applications, and makes possible many of the near/realtime capbilities in programs like iPhoto, iMovie, and even Final Cut Pro. Unless Intel tacks on a VMX unit, I don't see Apple switching.
Maybe a dual-processor system: one PowerPC and one Intel? Not likely, I grant you.
Anyone know why this thread and many others are filled with talk to the GPL? IS it a slashdot error, or is someone crap flooding us?
Mod this up you ugly bags of mostly water!
Obviously this was a legitmate first post that fell through the same wormhole in slashcode that these crapflood posts are leaking in from other stories.
XServe RAID already uses an Intel IO chip.
Airport Base Stations use (or at least they used to use) a 486.
iPod probably has (or will have) some sort of ARM chip in it.
The XNU Kernel has the ability to assign certain types of tasks to certain types of CPU. There is no reason why a Mac could not use both a PPC and an x86 in the same box.
Intel make kick-arse network chips.
Who said anything about these going into a Mac? (New product?)
Crapflood. One hell of a way to avoid the lameness filter, eh? Just copy and paste something that's already passed. It could be someone busily copying and pasting from one thread to another, but the task seems well suited for automation.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
I thought this was another post about SCO for a minute...
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a spammer, filling articles with posts from unrelated articles... kinda clever, really... it's a pretty good way to get around the lameness filter, and it's *really* annoying.
Common Phenom. http://viral.lycos.co.uk/attachments/3561/Reading_ Test.jpg
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Ah, yes. These have been popping up all morning.
Here's one showing up in the wormhole article currently: post.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Please, for the love of God, before it's too late...
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Haha you already got to spam replies :-P
I thought I was the only one that noticed all of them (I read at -1 because sometimes there is some good stuff down there)
Oh and mods, did you notice the 'OT' in parent's subject?