Not all money spent will 'create' jobs. What if the guy starts buying lots of land and hoards it? He can't profit from it (because of the income/profit cap) but he can start collecting it just in case he might need it later (converting it back to money if his fortune has dropped). All that land will be unavailable for others and the price for land in general will go up. Not a good thing for society.
Interesting. Someone who has hit the wealth ceiling would have to spend his money in order to get more. But then, isn't what he buys with that money also counted as wealth? I see the following difficulties here: one would have to keep track of ALL possessions in order to see when someone has hit the ceiling or not, sounds like a lot of bookkeeping and much room for abuse (wealthy people trying to hide their possessions). And the ones most affected by this scheme would do everything in their power to prevent it from ever being put into use.
OK, I wrote my post and thought: can I really be sure that it's a man? "Who cares, what are the odds." So I press Submit, and I look at your username...
If there was no copyright law, GPL would not exists, and RMS would be happy about it
Think about this: if there was no copyright law, it would be as if all software was implicitly licensed with a BSD-style license. I doubt RMS would be really happy with that, because nobody would be forced to share.
Seconded. Though I'd prefer the tag "FIXME" instead of "TODO". TODO is more for things like 'some functionality is still missing here' (button xyz does not do anything yet when pushed) while FIXME indicates 'something is wrong here' (things that might look okay and be overlooked if the tag wasn't there).
Another possibility: On a former personal project of mine, a compiler, I used a small self-written regression test framework. It consisted of a bunch of sourcefiles to be fed to the compiler with comments inside that told the testing framework what compiler diagnostics should be expected for that file. So when I found a bug I could just write a little test file that exposed the problem; after that it would show up in the test summary so I wouldn't forget it existed. Same thing for features yet-to-be-implemented.
This reminds me of a scene from The Matrix Revolutions, where a whole group of people have their gun pointed at the head of someone else. If someone pulls the trigger, everyone will do the same and everyone will die. So you have a similar situation where a bunch of countries threaten each other with being able to wipe each other of the planet with a simple push of a button. So nobody makes a move, right? Wrong.
In the movie, Trinity says "How about this? You give me Neo or we all die, right here, right now". And because of that threat she got what she wanted. Now imagine if there is one country with nuclear weapons that is crazy/obsessed enough to make the same threat: either it gets what it wants from the rest of the world, or it doesn't and the red button is pushed.
Of course, they wouldn't pull such a stunt to get some triviality from the other countries, like money. It must be something really big, something they value so much that they would risk elimination of their own country and potentially the rest of the world in order to get it. One example I could think of, is a nutty religious country that would want to impose their views/values on everyone else. They would risk it because it would be their ultimate road to salvation: if it succeeds, victory! If it fails, well, they still did what their deity wanted and they can expect a glorious afterlife.
(And that's why over-analysing things will make you a pessimist...)
They sent the virus an instruction, and the virus is removing all traces of itself from a machine.
It makes me wonder how they implemented that functionality. Because, in the Windows world an executable cannot delete or modify itself. Files that are open for reading cannot be deleted; this is also the reason for the message "Windows cannot update important system files and services while the system is using them" after running Windows Update.
So how did they do it? Separate the self-destruct module into a different executable, placing it in temp storage or something? But then that executable will remain on disk. Unless they aren't worried about that. "Who cares, the sensitive parts have been securely deleted."
What are the legal implications of GPL software that 'distributes' itself? Assuming that Flame is self-propagating, of course. Because distributing GPL software obviously implies some responsibilities taken care of (like offering the source code). Now who gets the blame when the receiving party didn't get the offer? Can you argue in court that the originator of the software is responsible instead of just the previous link in the infection path?
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean, "If you don't like it, don't buy it"? It will be shovelled down people's throats whether they like it or not when they buy a new PC.
So she has the social skills of a thermonuclear device?
Not all money spent will 'create' jobs. What if the guy starts buying lots of land and hoards it? He can't profit from it (because of the income/profit cap) but he can start collecting it just in case he might need it later (converting it back to money if his fortune has dropped). All that land will be unavailable for others and the price for land in general will go up. Not a good thing for society.
Interesting. Someone who has hit the wealth ceiling would have to spend his money in order to get more. But then, isn't what he buys with that money also counted as wealth? I see the following difficulties here: one would have to keep track of ALL possessions in order to see when someone has hit the ceiling or not, sounds like a lot of bookkeeping and much room for abuse (wealthy people trying to hide their possessions). And the ones most affected by this scheme would do everything in their power to prevent it from ever being put into use.
What good is a universe of pies if there is no one to eat them?
I'm going with the turd sandwich who hasn't had a chance to mess things up yet.
So you want to give him the opportunity to mess up as well? Tell me more about how that's a good thing...
But chicken tastes like everything!
Version numbers? We can increment them!
Your post was about shit, fertilizer and plant growth.
OK, I wrote my post and thought: can I really be sure that it's a man? "Who cares, what are the odds." So I press Submit, and I look at your username...
Sorry :p
I read your post, and then I saw your signature.
Man, you really are a biologist.
Full power to the death ray!
Maybe you guys can establish a formal collaboration.
If there was no copyright law, GPL would not exists, and RMS would be happy about it
Think about this: if there was no copyright law, it would be as if all software was implicitly licensed with a BSD-style license. I doubt RMS would be really happy with that, because nobody would be forced to share.
Well at least Wikipedia supports UNICODE...
Seconded. Though I'd prefer the tag "FIXME" instead of "TODO". TODO is more for things like 'some functionality is still missing here' (button xyz does not do anything yet when pushed) while FIXME indicates 'something is wrong here' (things that might look okay and be overlooked if the tag wasn't there).
Another possibility:
On a former personal project of mine, a compiler, I used a small self-written regression test framework. It consisted of a bunch of sourcefiles to be fed to the compiler with comments inside that told the testing framework what compiler diagnostics should be expected for that file. So when I found a bug I could just write a little test file that exposed the problem; after that it would show up in the test summary so I wouldn't forget it existed. Same thing for features yet-to-be-implemented.
hunter2
Come on, people! Can't we stop overusing this new meme? It's not funny anymore.
(to any cleverheads wanting to reply with "No": this post is not a headline, so your precious Law does not apply here)
Yup.
This reminds me of a scene from The Matrix Revolutions, where a whole group of people have their gun pointed at the head of someone else. If someone pulls the trigger, everyone will do the same and everyone will die. So you have a similar situation where a bunch of countries threaten each other with being able to wipe each other of the planet with a simple push of a button. So nobody makes a move, right? Wrong.
In the movie, Trinity says "How about this? You give me Neo or we all die, right here, right now". And because of that threat she got what she wanted. Now imagine if there is one country with nuclear weapons that is crazy/obsessed enough to make the same threat: either it gets what it wants from the rest of the world, or it doesn't and the red button is pushed.
Of course, they wouldn't pull such a stunt to get some triviality from the other countries, like money. It must be something really big, something they value so much that they would risk elimination of their own country and potentially the rest of the world in order to get it. One example I could think of, is a nutty religious country that would want to impose their views/values on everyone else. They would risk it because it would be their ultimate road to salvation: if it succeeds, victory! If it fails, well, they still did what their deity wanted and they can expect a glorious afterlife.
(And that's why over-analysing things will make you a pessimist...)
But having to do that would also waste our time. Are you willing to do that?
If you read the article, you'd know the answer!
Maybe there wasn't a driver available yet for being able to read that particular kind of article.
[citation needed]
They sent the virus an instruction, and the virus is removing all traces of itself from a machine.
It makes me wonder how they implemented that functionality. Because, in the Windows world an executable cannot delete or modify itself. Files that are open for reading cannot be deleted; this is also the reason for the message "Windows cannot update important system files and services while the system is using them" after running Windows Update.
So how did they do it? Separate the self-destruct module into a different executable, placing it in temp storage or something? But then that executable will remain on disk. Unless they aren't worried about that. "Who cares, the sensitive parts have been securely deleted."
What are the legal implications of GPL software that 'distributes' itself? Assuming that Flame is self-propagating, of course. Because distributing GPL software obviously implies some responsibilities taken care of (like offering the source code). Now who gets the blame when the receiving party didn't get the offer? Can you argue in court that the originator of the software is responsible instead of just the previous link in the infection path?
Apparently, also obligatory for some people to mod down all posts saying that this is good news for Linux.