I can only tell you first-hand about the quality of my inner-city urban public high school school. Teachers included a Physics PhD, a Mathematics PhD, a Biology PhD and several MS English. This was one of the top US college-prep high schools, though.
... or lack qualifications that would allow them to be get a raise down the street. [Notwithstanding whether requirements placed on hiring public school teachers are justifiable]
Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.
Oh, I see. They would have little trouble increasing prices.
If you have a large corporation, there's no way a few individuals at the top can possibly monitor the behavior of hundreds or thousands of employees. Should a CEO go to prison because some low-level manager commits fraud? If that were the case, no-one would ever take the risk of forming and running a major business.
Too big to jail? Corporation size could use some downward pressure.
They don't use optical sensors so there's nothing a sticker could block. When the doors close and you're in the way they try to squash you and only if your limbs don't fall off they open up again for a few seconds before slamming closed on you again if you're stupid enough not to move in.
I am unconvinced that camera phones have separate speakers dedicated to the camera functionality. If you disable the loud speaker on the phone, how do you hear it ring?
I don't think "per capita" can be correct. Businesses are taxed as well as living individuals. Incorporated businesses are considered by the law to be people, but I don't believe businesses are included in capita numbers.
Octave doesn't have JIT so that's not too surprising. They use the same (or very similar) language, but nowadays vectorizing your code pays off much more in octave. Matlab has used a JIT compiler for a while now so not bothering to vectorize your code doesn't kill you as much anymore.
KDE may well be a better platform for speculating about vapor-ware features, but I thought the advantage of SVG was scaling to large devices. It's easy to scale down a bitmap to a smaller size. And on a smartphone, bitmaps probably require takes less memory and CPU overhead, too.
I haven't seen anyone bring comparisons to Tivo in this thread yet, but Tivo has done very similar things for years. Recorded shows are encrypted and the operating system (linux) and software are cryptographically validated at boot. Modified software will not boot (without reprogramming the PROM to skip the check--requires soldering). Tivo's cryptographic lockdown of Series2 and Series3 DVR's are a major motivation behind the controversial portions of the GPLv3.
No. You are wrong. The *.c file was released by the original author as "pick one: GPL or BSD". The *.h files it uses were derived from BSD sources and do not contain the "pick either" clause. We're not talking about the *.c file. Somebody removed the BSD license from the *.h files. These are the files we are talking about.
Actually, the "mess" could be completely avoided by not deleting the BSD license from the files. The "mess" is that some linux kernel GPL-zealot is on a holy war deleting BSD licenses.
> How is it clearly the result of someone relicensing BSD code as GPL? > Wouldn't that be meaningless since only the copyright holder can license the work?
The BSD license grants permission to other developers to distribute modified versions under other licenses as long as the BSD license is kept intact. So, no the copyright holder of BSD licensed code doesn't have to relicense the code because they have granted this right to others. (This is not the case for GPL'd code)
Just because the BSD license permits someone to make modifications and distribute the modified version under the GPL, does not mean that the BSD license is not in effect. Any action permitted by the GPL is permitted by the current BSD license. That is why the FSF says the licenses are compatible.
The act of dual licensing original code under BSD+GPL is pointless because the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD and any act permitted by the GPL is also permitted by the BSD. On the other hand, if you derive BSD code and want to release the code under GPL, you must release under a dual license, but both licenses are in full force.
The author of the modification apparently pointlessly stated that his *changes* to the BSD code may be distributed under wither the BSD or GPL licenses. He cannot change the license of the BSD code he inherited. All code covered by the current BSD license can be distributed under the GPL.
Somebody read this statement, misunderstood the details, and started removing BSD licenses from files that originally came from OpenBSD.
I think the confusion stems from misunderstanding what "dual-licensing" means. It means that both licenses are simultaneously in force. It does NOT mean "pick-one". It so happens that the GPL doesn't conflict with the BSD license i.e. the licenses are compatible.
Some projects do distribute with a "pick-one" license, however I've never seen a "pick BSD or GPL". It's pointless, the authors just release under BSD.
We're talking about code that was originally BSD-licensed, modified by someone else and released under the GPL. The BSD license cannot be removed so the new software is released under the BSD+GPL dual license. Now somebody thinks the addition of the GPL to the code permits them to cut off the BSD license. Sorry.
I seriously doubt any copyright holders would choose to dual license under GPL+BSD when releasing under BSD is sufficient. BSD licensed code can be used in GPL projects, but it becomes BSD+GPL dual-licensed at that point.
Sorry. Guess again. BSD+GPL dual-licensed code is clearly the result of someone other than the original copyright holder receiving BSD licensed code and relicensing a modified version with the GPL attached to it. BSD forbids removal of the license.
There is no point in the original copyright holder BSD+GPL dual licensing anything because releasing the code under a BSD-style license would be sufficient (i.e. BSD-licensed code can be freely mixed with GPL code by third parties).
> Right, but the BSD in fact gives you the permission to do this
You are severely misinformed. Just because you (as a user) receive software that was derived from BSD sources and you aren't given access to the source code it does not follow that the BSD license has been removed. The BSD license does not give a developer permission to *remove* the BSD license. In fact, it explicitly requires that the license cannot be removed.
You're confused because the BSD license can coexist with closed-source licenses. Unlike the GPL, the BSD license does not require that end-users have access to the source code. The BSD license requires that the BSD license remain intact whether it is combined with a closed-source or an open-source license.
Go ahead an read it before posting next time. The BSD is about maximizing the freedom of developers to share code. The GPL is about maximizing the freedom of users to share code. It's a subtle but extremely important distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only tell you first-hand about the quality of my inner-city urban public high school school. Teachers included a Physics PhD, a Mathematics PhD, a Biology PhD and several MS English. This was one of the top US college-prep high schools, though.
... or lack qualifications that would allow them to be get a raise down the street. [Notwithstanding whether requirements placed on hiring public school teachers are justifiable]
> Quoted link in TFS is referring to googlephone, not crunchpad FWIW.
Au contraire, my fine lazy reader.
Why not just ask them to take a shower and pump in some Zyklon B?
Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.
Oh, I see. They would have little trouble increasing prices.
I remember this as well. And here's evidence:
http://www.amazon.com/Assembler-Language-Programming-Compatible-Computers/dp/0471886572/
If you have a large corporation, there's no way a few individuals at the top can possibly monitor the behavior of hundreds or thousands of employees. Should a CEO go to prison because some low-level manager commits fraud? If that were the case, no-one would ever take the risk of forming and running a major business.
Too big to jail? Corporation size could use some downward pressure.
They don't use optical sensors so there's nothing a sticker could block. When the doors close and you're in the way they try to squash you and only if your limbs don't fall off they open up again for a few seconds before slamming closed on you again if you're stupid enough not to move in.
I am unconvinced that camera phones have separate speakers dedicated to the camera functionality. If you disable the loud speaker on the phone, how do you hear it ring?
I don't think "per capita" can be correct. Businesses are taxed as well as living individuals. Incorporated businesses are considered by the law to be people, but I don't believe businesses are included in capita numbers.
Octave doesn't have JIT so that's not too surprising. They use the same (or very similar) language, but nowadays vectorizing your code pays off much more in octave. Matlab has used a JIT compiler for a while now so not bothering to vectorize your code doesn't kill you as much anymore.
I'll keep IDL as my scientific computing corporate overlord during my migration to octave.
| What does that mean?
This question indicates that you should be thoroughly disqualified from voting. QED
At which optimization levels?
Beating on Excel is easy. Do you check your math utility? Or do you just assume your compiler/vendor does everything correctly?
Beating on ExcelDo you check your math utility? Or do you just assume your compiler/vendor does everything correctly?
KDE may well be a better platform for speculating about vapor-ware features, but I thought the advantage of SVG was scaling to large devices. It's easy to scale down a bitmap to a smaller size. And on a smartphone, bitmaps probably require takes less memory and CPU overhead, too.
I haven't seen anyone bring comparisons to Tivo in this thread yet, but Tivo has done very similar things for years. Recorded shows are encrypted and the operating system (linux) and software are cryptographically validated at boot. Modified software will not boot (without reprogramming the PROM to skip the check--requires soldering). Tivo's cryptographic lockdown of Series2 and Series3 DVR's are a major motivation behind the controversial portions of the GPLv3.
No. You are wrong. The *.c file was released by the original author as "pick one: GPL or BSD". The *.h files it uses were derived from BSD sources and do not contain the "pick either" clause. We're not talking about the *.c file. Somebody removed the BSD license from the *.h files. These are the files we are talking about.
Actually, the "mess" could be completely avoided by not deleting the BSD license from the files. The "mess" is that some linux kernel GPL-zealot is on a holy war deleting BSD licenses.
> How is it clearly the result of someone relicensing BSD code as GPL?
> Wouldn't that be meaningless since only the copyright holder can license the work?
The BSD license grants permission to other developers to distribute modified versions under other licenses as long as the BSD license is kept intact. So, no the copyright holder of BSD licensed code doesn't have to relicense the code because they have granted this right to others. (This is not the case for GPL'd code)
Just because the BSD license permits someone to make modifications and distribute the modified version under the GPL, does not mean that the BSD license is not in effect. Any action permitted by the GPL is permitted by the current BSD license. That is why the FSF says the licenses are compatible.
The act of dual licensing original code under BSD+GPL is pointless because the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD and any act permitted by the GPL is also permitted by the BSD. On the other hand, if you derive BSD code and want to release the code under GPL, you must release under a dual license, but both licenses are in full force.
The author of the modification apparently pointlessly stated that his *changes* to the BSD code may be distributed under wither the BSD or GPL licenses. He cannot change the license of the BSD code he inherited. All code covered by the current BSD license can be distributed under the GPL.
Somebody read this statement, misunderstood the details, and started removing BSD licenses from files that originally came from OpenBSD.
Enter Theo.
I think the confusion stems from misunderstanding what "dual-licensing" means. It means that both licenses are simultaneously in force. It does NOT mean "pick-one". It so happens that the GPL doesn't conflict with the BSD license i.e. the licenses are compatible.
Some projects do distribute with a "pick-one" license, however I've never seen a "pick BSD or GPL". It's pointless, the authors just release under BSD.
We're talking about code that was originally BSD-licensed, modified by someone else and released under the GPL. The BSD license cannot be removed so the new software is released under the BSD+GPL dual license. Now somebody thinks the addition of the GPL to the code permits them to cut off the BSD license. Sorry.
I seriously doubt any copyright holders would choose to dual license under GPL+BSD when releasing under BSD is sufficient. BSD licensed code can be used in GPL projects, but it becomes BSD+GPL dual-licensed at that point.
Sorry. Guess again. BSD+GPL dual-licensed code is clearly the result of someone other than the original copyright holder receiving BSD licensed code and relicensing a modified version with the GPL attached to it. BSD forbids removal of the license.
There is no point in the original copyright holder BSD+GPL dual licensing anything because releasing the code under a BSD-style license would be sufficient (i.e. BSD-licensed code can be freely mixed with GPL code by third parties).
> Right, but the BSD in fact gives you the permission to do this
You are severely misinformed. Just because you (as a user) receive software that was derived from BSD sources and you aren't given access to the source code it does not follow that the BSD license has been removed. The BSD license does not give a developer permission to *remove* the BSD license. In fact, it explicitly requires that the license cannot be removed.
You're confused because the BSD license can coexist with closed-source licenses. Unlike the GPL, the BSD license does not require that end-users have access to the source code. The BSD license requires that the BSD license remain intact whether it is combined with a closed-source or an open-source license.
Go ahead an read it before posting next time. The BSD is about maximizing the freedom of developers to share code. The GPL is about maximizing the freedom of users to share code. It's a subtle but extremely important distinction.