I can best that: I filled in that darn form just the other day, and I've filled in the paper version a couple of times in the past, being married to an American and all. And it bothers me to have to break the news to you, but apparently even your fine London-based consul general is wrong. I can understand how the average american citizen is uninformed about this, but the fact that even that consul-general is wrong is worrysome: I had to enter my home telephone number (presumably for the wiretap) and my email address (presumably to spam me or to confiscate), and I never had to fill that in on the paper form - including the paper form that I had to fill in afterall, since the fine people at Atlanta airport were behind the times and couldn't process my digital application.
The only question the digital form did *not* have is "In which city and on what date was your visa issued" which is a rather awkward question for a form that starts with "Only for visitors without a visa".
And, according to the Free Software Foundation the GPL license can be used for hardware, but they do not list the LPGL, modified BSD, or MIT licenses as suitable for non-software. The real question is whether you should trust the FSF in this. I know I don't.
The FSF has an agenda, and it's not "be good to the world and give unbiased information". Their main objective is "spreading the GPL" - which arguably falls in the "do good to the world" category, although I'm not entirely convinced about that. Spreading unbiased information, however, is *not* beneficial to that ulterior goal.
Note that I'm not blaming the FSF in any way; I'm not accusing them of lying. I just don't expect them to give considerations why other licenses might also work, let alone be better suited.
Consider this: Do you really expect a Ford dealer to tell you to go and buy a Mitsubishi, because he thinks it's a better car for you? I know I don't..
This is why when I grew up I got involved a lot with embedded systems. While you don't have the in-built audience that you got with "the scene", embedded shops are screaming out for talented coders who can whip out awesomely efficient code on a known hardware platform. Although the audience is smaller, you will get a bunch of embedded geeks looking at your code and saying "Cool!" when you've done something truly amazing within the limits of the hardware. Then you get to see your code in the marketplace making stuff really work... or in the ultimate example launched into space and doing unexpected but wonderful things on another planet. Now there's a reward that the scene couldn't match:D
Dutch is probably the easiest language for an English speaker to learn My girlfriend is convinced it's merely a matter of slipping in random J's at the right places.
Oh, I wasn't even remotely interested in moving to Amsterdam. I wouldn't want to live in Amsterdam myself, truth be told.
I can imagine where the frustration comes from, but, unfortunately, there's not an awful lot I can do about it. The chances of me being able to move to the US are slim, if not negligible, as things are right now, so it's not as if I have an awful lot of options. And that's without making *any* financial considerations, let alone personal opinion. What my personal stance in all of this is, seems to be the least of all concerns.
Right now, it's either "She moves here" or "nothing happens". I'm obviously not going to accept the last option, so I'm more than willing to take a risk with the first.
Newsflash: Newcomers need to, no matter what language they speak, no matter where they come from. Yes, this has been differently in the past, but my American girlfriend-soon-to-be-wife has got to to learn the language and whole shebang when she comes here (I'm Dutch). And, quite frankly, I think it's a reasonable demand. If I were to come to the US, people would expect me to speak English too. What's not quite reasonable IMHO is the "You need to do most of this naturalisation thing in the country of origin" thing, but she's exempt from that, being American and all. We found it rather difficult to find Dutch language courses in a civilised (ahem) country like the USA, in mundane (cough) areas like SLC - and learning the language is only part of it. How will this be any different in Botswana?
On the brigher side, one of my colleagues is from Guatamala. When he came here, he spoke English, but hardly any Dutch. He spoke it fluently, after just a few months. It's doable.
And before you ask: She moving here isn't a political statement. It's simply the most convenient thing to do, right now, for a lot of reasons - including (But not limited to) immigration laws.
Congratulations, you completely and utterly failed to understand the whole point of a live CD. On a Live CD you don't want to download crap to get things going, it would defy the whole idea behind it.
Did you have to study long and hard to be this blind, or did it come included with the GPL brainwash?
Need I remind you that the pf machine has been compromised already before the availability of a compiler even makes a difference? It's not about not putting a crowbar outside the door, it's about not having one in the garage either.
The original statement doesn't make sense. Removing a compiler from a firewall offers no protection. A compiler in itself cannot be used to escape privilege, and while it can be used to build a tool which can, it's not the only way to upload a program to a to-be-further-compromised host. A shellscript can generate a binary - would you suggest removing/bin/sh too?
You forgot to mention the fact that you *still* need the sun jdk to build the package, the fact that this is an 1.4 jdk, and you conveniently snipped the bit of the Description where it says that, really, "using it in a production environment is at your own risk".
But that's all irrelevant - just like the fact that this is a pkgsrc-wip package, which is a more or less independant addition to the package set, and in practice means that you cannot use the quarterly stable branches - the fact still remains:
===> jdk14-1.4.2.8 is not available for NetBSD-3.99.18-x86_64
Or anything else but -i386. Really: I want coffee with my toast!;)
You hear a lot in this country about the sacrifices of our forefathers and Lincoln's "new birth of freedom" and it becomes clear that Americans don't like restrictions.
Curious, then, that you're so very proficient in restricting others then. Travelling into the US is becoming more and more of an impact of privacy. My own government doesn't have my fingerprints, as far as I'm aware, the US has. My government isn't interested in the occupation of my (American) fiancee, but I had to answer several questions regarding that subject before they would even let me in the US. My government doesn't ask telephone records, address where you're intending to stay, financial information and a whole lot of other things from people visiting here, from an *allied* nation which we have visum waiver programs with. Yours does. And this is no incident; I've been visiting the US regularly for the last few years - but it's getting worse and worse each year. Last time I had to give him a list of things I planned to do during my stay. "I'm going to get engaged" wasn't clear enough. And no, he wasn't just asking out of curiousity. At some point, the ever-so-kindly-but-very-intimidating immigration officer wouldn't even let me in until I could give him a sufficient explanation why the address I gave didn't make sense to him (It was a Utah intersection, I was flying through Houston). As if it's my fault they're putting people there who obviously lack the required knowledge to get the job done!
So really, who's restricting here? The US, or the Netherlands, where it *is* obligatory to have a state ID on you at all times (Not that I ever recall having to show it, but that's besides the point)? And sure, the US has every right to do so (And I'm not even judging that), but really: Please cut the crap about not being restrictive - because you are. You just probably never realised it, and that makes it even more dangerous.
For moving power over long distances, DC is king. Which is exactly the reason why many long distance, submerged power lines are being operated on DC.
Back in the days of Edison and Tesla, AC had something going for it. Voltage conversion is easy with AC (You need a bunch of copper wire and a bit of iron, and you're done), but was next to impossible with DC back then. In order to double the power capacity of a line, the DC camp had to install additional cabling, while all the AC camp had to do was install a different transformer and raise the transport voltage on the line.
However, DC:DC conversion is far from impossible anymore, and DC doesn't suffer from several problems AC has over long lines - like parasitic capacities. An AC line forms a capacitor to ground, and this capacitor is being charged and discharged at the mains frequency. DC doesn't suffer from this.
As long as your platform is running Linux/i386? Try running Java on anything that's NOT an intel IA32 or that's NOT running Linux nor Windows. "Good platform support" my arse.
A few simple classes of automatically granted prefixes would do wonders along with a few simple routing rules. For example, to accomodate situations where NAT is used as a workaround to scarcity rather that for security, why not an address in the form of prefix, IPv4 address (of NAT device/firewall), arbitrary Ipv4 address. Addresses in that prefix could automatically be encapsulated into IPv4 to the firewall. The source address would make the right thing happen for the reply.
Doing things like that could create an incentive for the edges to upgrade even if their providers can't be bothered to do so. It would provide value even if individual workstations/PCs were upgraded (OS) for IPv6 support. Intermediate routers wouldn't even know the difference.
What you describe has been available for *ages*. It's called "IPv4 mapped IPv6 adresses", and it basicly boils down to the entire ipv4 range being a subrange of IPv6 (From the top of my head, the 3ffe:: is used for this). Still, it hasn't quite caught on.
FYI: The opposite is available too, in a way. It's called 6-to-4, and enables *everybody* with an IPv4 address to use IPv6. You even get an entire/80 range to play with. No provider support needed.
It would provide value even if individual workstations/PCs were upgraded (OS) for IPv6 support.
The majority of the workstations/PCs doesn't even have to be upgraded. Windows XP natively supports IPv6 (it's merely disabled by default, but a simple 'ipv6 install' on a command line fixes that), Linux has been having support of it for the last few years, so unless you're running an ancient machine that would need updating for several other reasons, consider yourself IPv6 capable. MacOS X has been having IPv6 support since the early OSX days, IIRC. The list goes on and on.
Heck, even Internet Explorer and Firefox can use IPv6. What more client support do you need ?
#1 is unlikely to happen - it's nigh impossible to contact every copyright owner in even a medium sized project and get their approval. #2 is exactly what this so-called infection is about. The GPL has the nasty habit of making sure that every derived work will be GPL too. (what actually makes up a derived work is still up to debate, but according to the FSF it covers about everything. Regarding the so-called GPL-compatibility: I'll come to that.) #3 usually reads "Use something else". Which is a good solution indeed, if available, but you can question whether it serves the greater purpose. If GNU readline would've had a sensible license (like LGPL), there wouldn't have been people working on a replacement library under a less restrictive license. Now they have been, and this time could've been spent better. #4 is just fine, if you weren't interested in distributing it to begin with. For example, when all you wanted to do is use it. However, if this strange clause of TFA actually ends up in the GPLv3, people will be forced to use it. So instead of "Don't distribute it", it suddenly reads "And don't use it either".
Regarding the GPL-compatible licenses: It's not what you think. A GPL-compatible license is not a license which is allowed to use a GPL component; it's a license that a component of a GPL project is allowed to have. It has to be more permissive than the GPL is. In fact, the GPL is incompatible with itself. A nice thought experiment would be this:
Suppose someone takes the GPL (v2, if you want), and replaces all occurences of "GNU" and "FSF" with something different. Try "Microsoft", or something less offensive if you want:). And yes, I know that this will voilate copyright law, but that's not my point. Let's call it the MPL for simplicity's sake.
This newly generated MPL (An exact copy of the GPL, apart from the name there's no reason why the MPL is evil where the GPL isn't) is mutually incompatible with the GPL. An MPL-licensed module will never be allowed to be used together with something GPL-ish, unless explicit permission is given. And vice versa, ofcourse. The GPL demands that the resulting work would be licensed under the GPL, the MPL demands that it'll be released under the MPL. In other words: A deadlock.
There's quite a few people who think that the GPLv2 is needlessly restrictive. The GPLv3, from what I've seen, is even worse in this department. I think I'll pass.
In the past, I've successfully made myself a "KDE lite" by getting rid of the biggest resource hog: the desktop and the window manager. OpenBox (At least: version 2, I assume version 3 is just the same) honours the same windowmanager hints, and can (could?) offer a system tray as well.
In a nutshell:
* Make a.xinitrc (or an.xsession, I usually have a symlink from the first to the second), which starts openbox at the end * Start docker (The OpenBox system tray replacement), kicker, klipper, and whatever other kde components you want to launch.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anybody bother to RTFA?
I can best that: I filled in that darn form just the other day, and I've filled in the paper version a couple of times in the past, being married to an American and all. And it bothers me to have to break the news to you, but apparently even your fine London-based consul general is wrong. I can understand how the average american citizen is uninformed about this, but the fact that even that consul-general is wrong is worrysome: I had to enter my home telephone number (presumably for the wiretap) and my email address (presumably to spam me or to confiscate), and I never had to fill that in on the paper form - including the paper form that I had to fill in afterall, since the fine people at Atlanta airport were behind the times and couldn't process my digital application.
The only question the digital form did *not* have is "In which city and on what date was your visa issued" which is a rather awkward question for a form that starts with "Only for visitors without a visa".
Not to mention the fact that it's missing the function keys. (Thought I'd login this time)
Eh, you *did* know that X.Org started as a not-so-friendly fork of XFree86, partly because XFree86 got stale due to internal problems, right?
Right!?
It's in /lost+found.
And, according to the Free Software Foundation the GPL license can be used for hardware, but they do not list the LPGL, modified BSD, or MIT licenses as suitable for non-software.
The real question is whether you should trust the FSF in this. I know I don't.
The FSF has an agenda, and it's not "be good to the world and give unbiased information". Their main objective is "spreading the GPL" - which arguably falls in the "do good to the world" category, although I'm not entirely convinced about that. Spreading unbiased information, however, is *not* beneficial to that ulterior goal.
Note that I'm not blaming the FSF in any way; I'm not accusing them of lying. I just don't expect them to give considerations why other licenses might also work, let alone be better suited.
Consider this: Do you really expect a Ford dealer to tell you to go and buy a Mitsubishi, because he thinks it's a better car for you? I know I don't..
Summary of Ion features[...]
You forgot the most important one:
* Comes with a nutjob maintainer and a ridiculous license.
Amen to that, brother.
Dutch is probably the easiest language for an English speaker to learn
My girlfriend is convinced it's merely a matter of slipping in random J's at the right places.
Oh, I wasn't even remotely interested in moving to Amsterdam. I wouldn't want to live in Amsterdam myself, truth be told.
I can imagine where the frustration comes from, but, unfortunately, there's not an awful lot I can do about it. The chances of me being able to move to the US are slim, if not negligible, as things are right now, so it's not as if I have an awful lot of options. And that's without making *any* financial considerations, let alone personal opinion. What my personal stance in all of this is, seems to be the least of all concerns.
Right now, it's either "She moves here" or "nothing happens". I'm obviously not going to accept the last option, so I'm more than willing to take a risk with the first.
Newsflash: Newcomers need to, no matter what language they speak, no matter where they come from. Yes, this has been differently in the past, but my American girlfriend-soon-to-be-wife has got to to learn the language and whole shebang when she comes here (I'm Dutch). And, quite frankly, I think it's a reasonable demand. If I were to come to the US, people would expect me to speak English too. What's not quite reasonable IMHO is the "You need to do most of this naturalisation thing in the country of origin" thing, but she's exempt from that, being American and all. We found it rather difficult to find Dutch language courses in a civilised (ahem) country like the USA, in mundane (cough) areas like SLC - and learning the language is only part of it. How will this be any different in Botswana?
On the brigher side, one of my colleagues is from Guatamala. When he came here, he spoke English, but hardly any Dutch. He spoke it fluently, after just a few months. It's doable.
And before you ask: She moving here isn't a political statement. It's simply the most convenient thing to do, right now, for a lot of reasons - including (But not limited to) immigration laws.
Congratulations, you completely and utterly failed to understand the whole point of a live CD. On a Live CD you don't want to download crap to get things going, it would defy the whole idea behind it.
Did you have to study long and hard to be this blind, or did it come included with the GPL brainwash?
Need I remind you that the pf machine has been compromised already before the availability of a compiler even makes a difference? It's not about not putting a crowbar outside the door, it's about not having one in the garage either.
/bin/sh too?
The original statement doesn't make sense. Removing a compiler from a firewall offers no protection. A compiler in itself cannot be used to escape privilege, and while it can be used to build a tool which can, it's not the only way to upload a program to a to-be-further-compromised host. A shellscript can generate a binary - would you suggest removing
You forgot to mention the fact that you *still* need the sun jdk to build the package, the fact that this is an 1.4 jdk, and you conveniently snipped the bit of the Description where it says that, really, "using it in a production environment is at your own risk".
;)
But that's all irrelevant - just like the fact that this is a pkgsrc-wip package, which is a more or less independant addition to the package set, and in practice means that you cannot use the quarterly stable branches - the fact still remains:
===> jdk14-1.4.2.8 is not available for NetBSD-3.99.18-x86_64
Or anything else but -i386. Really: I want coffee with my toast!
NetBSD and OpenBSD can also run Java through ports
But only if you run i386, and only if you don't mind installing almost half of a SuSE installation.
You hear a lot in this country about the sacrifices of our forefathers and Lincoln's "new birth of freedom" and it becomes clear that Americans don't like restrictions.
Curious, then, that you're so very proficient in restricting others then. Travelling into the US is becoming more and more of an impact of privacy. My own government doesn't have my fingerprints, as far as I'm aware, the US has. My government isn't interested in the occupation of my (American) fiancee, but I had to answer several questions regarding that subject before they would even let me in the US. My government doesn't ask telephone records, address where you're intending to stay, financial information and a whole lot of other things from people visiting here, from an *allied* nation which we have visum waiver programs with. Yours does. And this is no incident; I've been visiting the US regularly for the last few years - but it's getting worse and worse each year. Last time I had to give him a list of things I planned to do during my stay. "I'm going to get engaged" wasn't clear enough. And no, he wasn't just asking out of curiousity. At some point, the ever-so-kindly-but-very-intimidating immigration officer wouldn't even let me in until I could give him a sufficient explanation why the address I gave didn't make sense to him (It was a Utah intersection, I was flying through Houston). As if it's my fault they're putting people there who obviously lack the required knowledge to get the job done!
So really, who's restricting here? The US, or the Netherlands, where it *is* obligatory to have a state ID on you at all times (Not that I ever recall having to show it, but that's besides the point)? And sure, the US has every right to do so (And I'm not even judging that), but really: Please cut the crap about not being restrictive - because you are. You just probably never realised it, and that makes it even more dangerous.
Thank you.
For moving power over long distances, AC is king
Bzzt.
For moving power over long distances, DC is king. Which is exactly the reason why many long distance, submerged power lines are being operated on DC.
Back in the days of Edison and Tesla, AC had something going for it. Voltage conversion is easy with AC (You need a bunch of copper wire and a bit of iron, and you're done), but was next to impossible with DC back then. In order to double the power capacity of a line, the DC camp had to install additional cabling, while all the AC camp had to do was install a different transformer and raise the transport voltage on the line.
However, DC:DC conversion is far from impossible anymore, and DC doesn't suffer from several problems AC has over long lines - like parasitic capacities. An AC line forms a capacitor to ground, and this capacitor is being charged and discharged at the mains frequency. DC doesn't suffer from this.
As long as your platform is running Linux/i386? Try running Java on anything that's NOT an intel IA32 or that's NOT running Linux nor Windows. "Good platform support" my arse.
It's what we're used to
Speak for yourself, please. There is no we, especially not in these matters.
Complacency is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
You misspelled 'stubbornness'
A few simple classes of automatically granted prefixes would do wonders along with a few simple routing rules. For example, to accomodate situations where NAT is used as a workaround to scarcity rather that for security, why not an address in the form of prefix, IPv4 address (of NAT device/firewall), arbitrary Ipv4 address. Addresses in that prefix could automatically be encapsulated into IPv4 to the firewall. The source address would make the right thing happen for the reply.
/80 range to play with. No provider support needed.
Doing things like that could create an incentive for the edges to upgrade even if their providers can't be bothered to do so. It would provide value even if individual workstations/PCs were upgraded (OS) for IPv6 support. Intermediate routers wouldn't even know the difference.
What you describe has been available for *ages*. It's called "IPv4 mapped IPv6 adresses", and it basicly boils down to the entire ipv4 range being a subrange of IPv6 (From the top of my head, the 3ffe:: is used for this). Still, it hasn't quite caught on.
FYI: The opposite is available too, in a way. It's called 6-to-4, and enables *everybody* with an IPv4 address to use IPv6. You even get an entire
It would provide value even if individual workstations/PCs were upgraded (OS) for IPv6 support.
The majority of the workstations/PCs doesn't even have to be upgraded. Windows XP natively supports IPv6 (it's merely disabled by default, but a simple 'ipv6 install' on a command line fixes that), Linux has been having support of it for the last few years, so unless you're running an ancient machine that would need updating for several other reasons, consider yourself IPv6 capable. MacOS X has been having IPv6 support since the early OSX days, IIRC. The list goes on and on.
Heck, even Internet Explorer and Firefox can use IPv6. What more client support do you need ?
Commodore had this CDTV thing a few eons ago - but maybe that looked too much like a plain CD player. Either way, it flopped big time.
Do you think that when RMS wrote emacs his number-1 goal was to make it popular?
No, his goal was to boost CPU and memory sales. Everybody knows that!
The GPLv2 doesn't cover use; it covers distribution. If all you want to do is use it, the GPLv2 has no power to force your code open.
Read TFA. The whole idea was that the v3 version would be forcing you to publish the code of the modified GPL stuff you use for your website.
#1 is unlikely to happen - it's nigh impossible to contact every copyright owner in even a medium sized project and get their approval.
:). And yes, I know that this will voilate copyright law, but that's not my point. Let's call it the MPL for simplicity's sake.
#2 is exactly what this so-called infection is about. The GPL has the nasty habit of making sure that every derived work will be GPL too. (what actually makes up a derived work is still up to debate, but according to the FSF it covers about everything. Regarding the so-called GPL-compatibility: I'll come to that.)
#3 usually reads "Use something else". Which is a good solution indeed, if available, but you can question whether it serves the greater purpose. If GNU readline would've had a sensible license (like LGPL), there wouldn't have been people working on a replacement library under a less restrictive license. Now they have been, and this time could've been spent better.
#4 is just fine, if you weren't interested in distributing it to begin with. For example, when all you wanted to do is use it. However, if this strange clause of TFA actually ends up in the GPLv3, people will be forced to use it. So instead of "Don't distribute it", it suddenly reads "And don't use it either".
Regarding the GPL-compatible licenses: It's not what you think. A GPL-compatible license is not a license which is allowed to use a GPL component; it's a license that a component of a GPL project is allowed to have. It has to be more permissive than the GPL is. In fact, the GPL is incompatible with itself. A nice thought experiment would be this:
Suppose someone takes the GPL (v2, if you want), and replaces all occurences of "GNU" and "FSF" with something different. Try "Microsoft", or something less offensive if you want
This newly generated MPL (An exact copy of the GPL, apart from the name there's no reason why the MPL is evil where the GPL isn't) is mutually incompatible with the GPL. An MPL-licensed module will never be allowed to be used together with something GPL-ish, unless explicit permission is given. And vice versa, ofcourse. The GPL demands that the resulting work would be licensed under the GPL, the MPL demands that it'll be released under the MPL. In other words: A deadlock.
There's quite a few people who think that the GPLv2 is needlessly restrictive. The GPLv3, from what I've seen, is even worse in this department. I think I'll pass.
In the past, I've successfully made myself a "KDE lite" by getting rid of the biggest resource hog: the desktop and the window manager. OpenBox (At least: version 2, I assume version 3 is just the same) honours the same windowmanager hints, and can (could?) offer a system tray as well.
.xinitrc (or an .xsession, I usually have a symlink from the first to the second), which starts openbox at the end
In a nutshell:
* Make a
* Start docker (The OpenBox system tray replacement), kicker, klipper, and whatever other kde components you want to launch.
Tadaa. Done. KDE-lite.