In this country, The Kingdom of Sweden, there is a law that says I can read the prime ministers mail. Actually I can read all (poor translation) "proper documents" that are not explicitly made secret (either because they're military secrets or because of "relation to foreign powers" or because of protection of privacy). I don't live in US of A and I don't know if I'd like to...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
1. Patents are property, admittedly for a limited time but still property. Why? Because they can be sold and that makes them, in my book, property. If you disagree with this it would be nice if you'd define "property".
2. For the software business completely and utterly silly things are patented, its laughable... The basic idea is not completely without merit but for the software industry is does much harm. I consider the object of any "industry" to be "making life better for people" (By creating good, cheap products).
IP laws should not be abolished, they should be remedied.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Previous poster set aside the issue of Gods existence, as I believing Atheist I cannot do this: Please prove the existens of the "God" object derived from the "Diety" class. After this please prove that the "God" object have granted you the capability of "ownership"
I claim that there are no "natural rights" (rights granted by nature). There are only rights granted by societies.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
The hard thing is to get the right isotopes of Uranium or Plutonium with high enough purity. That takes major industrial resources and IIRC the current "best methods" are somewhat secret. All western countries could "easily" duplicate the work required. The theory is is most public libraried together with a lot of other "fun" stuff... Fortunately all terrorists seems to be rather inept (at causing mass destruction)...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
I claim that the idea "invention will stop if IP rights are weakend" is a completely unverified assertion, I have not seen any substantial proof whatsoever that this is true. I don't deny that it could be true - but I've not seen any serious study or experiment that verifies this. The reasoning goes "if they get no money for their work they won't do it". I believe that much R&D is duplicated today and much of the rest would be done anyway. Maybe a little slower in some areas, but all the people that does duplicated R&D today, will they just stop or will they go of and do something different??
What I'd like to see:
Shorter IP terms, a few years for patents and a few decades for copyrights.
Less things patentable (software algorithms).
Serious research in the field of IP rights (I know that's hard to do) to try to find better methods of rewasrd.
I'm highly sceptical to 'mandatory licensing', i.e. X per cent of revenues on patented/copyrighted ware goes to patent/copyright holder. This is because such rules would be very hard to get right..
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Because US DoD demanded more than one supplier of "strategic materials" or somesuch (that's the way I heard it anyway). Then they (US DoD) figured that the x86 line wasn't so important anyway and slackend the constraints.. And thats why Intel did the 486SX - About as cheap as Cyrixs and AMDs 386es and about as fast but "superior" (rumor has it that it was the same chip with a pin removed and that the 487 also was the same chip but with another pin removed):-/:-/.... And after that day AMD and Cyrix have been playing catch-up, I'm quite happy to se that they're closer today than they were a few years ago..
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
I would agree completely if it was unambigously stated that I actually own the copies in my computer, but the GPL says nothing about this - only how I may and may not create copies, derived works etc. etc. All other software licenses I've read (not that many:-) say that you don't own the copy and then gives you the right to use it. The GPL doesn't say anything about the ownership of copies (copy != copyright)... Are you allowed to use something (without the permission of the owner) that you don't own if it happens to be on your property??
Again, IANAL
Re: some other post by some AC
It's good that the GPL is ambigous!?
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Claim that you bought a copy that is, if you actually owned the software you'd be allowed to do pretty much everything except copy it, i.e. dissasemble etc... If they did it they would loose much power over their customers.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Where does it say that licenses are restrictive only? The ordinary case (for copyright licenses) is that silence means "no rights"... What law says "you may use a copy (that you don't own) if it resides in your computer"? And is there such a law in all countries?
IANAL, just uncertain...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
"Where does it say that I may use a GPLed program"
Nowhere in the GPL v2 does it say:
"You may use the program"
It only says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;
So it depends on the local law wether or no you may actually use the program... Yes you have the rights to the 'output', but do you actually have the right to create such output? I certainly don't know. If I'd actually own a copy I'd be certain that I could use it freely, but it doesn't say that I own any copies on my disk -- It only deals in how I may modify and/or redistribute it! The normal case is that you don't own the software, you only license it. And the GPL doesn't say anything about owning/licensing the copy.. Again, I don't claim that it would hold in any sane court -- just that the GPL is more ambigous that it needs to be.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Which might make what follows completely useless:
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
As it previously said those activities aren't coverd by the license... Or, in other words - you're free to copy it but have no right to use it... IANAL but I don't consider their fears completely without cause...
I certainly don't claim that a court of law would judge it this or that way, I simply don't know:-(
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
About three years ago I installed Slackware. Since then everything I've installed has been by compiling the sources. My dist wasn't my own then, just a hacked Slackware, today it is. The minimum you need is kernel + utils (util-linux and GNU file-util and GNU text-util) + shell + make + gcc and some way to get the sources (ftp to prep.ai.mit.edu, tsx-11.mit.edu and metalab.unc.edu).
Warning: It takes a lot of time to stay bleeding-edge this way, but if that turns you on it's the best way to stay more bleeding-edge than anybody else;-)
When I start to trust -mregparm in gcc I might redo it all with my own ABI;-);-)
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
First they manage to make their customers believe that they'll drop MIPS and that their new CPU (Intels Merced) is a flop. Doesn't matter if that really was their intention or not -- a lot of people ended up believing it.
And now they'll probably manage to make their customers believe that they'll drop IRIX next year or so...
No, I don't believe you'll do that -- but your customers might.. Sigh, talk about shooting oneself in the foot..
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
The processor has 'backing registers' and keeps one thread 'sleeping' there. When the running thread wants to access data not in L1 cache the CPU does:
1. Starts to fetch data.
2. Switches to other (sleeping) thread.
Ok?
Like TERAs stuff and the latest PowerPC AS.
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
It's been availible since 1.3.something. SMP is why Linus upped the major version. The misinformation probably comes from the fact that SMP is much better in 2.1/2.2
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Slashdot Mirror
In this country, The Kingdom of Sweden, there is a law that says I can read the prime ministers mail. Actually I can read all (poor translation) "proper documents" that are not explicitly made secret (either because they're military secrets or because of "relation to foreign powers" or because of protection of privacy). I don't live in US of A and I don't know if I'd like to...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Just tested, that was the lowest I could make it (i.e. -99999999999999999999 was changed to -2147483648 after saving "myself").
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
1. A "simple" way to find how my comments are moderated.
/.. In this country I can read all the governments documents (that are not specifically secret) and I find that a very good thing.
2. A "simple" way to find which comments are moderated for a specific article.
3. Tell us what the lowest possible score is, I abhore censorship and would like to see all comments..
Why? So I can trust
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
1. Patents are property, admittedly for a limited time but still property. Why? Because they can be sold and that makes them, in my book, property. If you disagree with this it would be nice if you'd define "property".
2. For the software business completely and utterly silly things are patented, its laughable... The basic idea is not completely without merit but for the software industry is does much harm. I consider the object of any "industry" to be "making life better for people" (By creating good, cheap products).
IP laws should not be abolished, they should be remedied.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Previous poster set aside the issue of Gods existence, as I believing Atheist I cannot do this: Please prove the existens of the "God" object derived from the "Diety" class. After this please prove that the "God" object have granted you the capability of "ownership"
I claim that there are no "natural rights" (rights granted by nature). There are only rights granted by societies.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
The hard thing is to get the right isotopes of Uranium or Plutonium with high enough purity. That takes major industrial resources and IIRC the current "best methods" are somewhat secret. All western countries could "easily" duplicate the work required. The theory is is most public libraried together with a lot of other "fun" stuff... Fortunately all terrorists seems to be rather inept (at causing mass destruction)...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
A highly money generating business model.... Not that this 'invention' benefits mankind :-) :-)
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
I claim that the idea "invention will stop if IP rights are weakend" is a completely unverified assertion, I have not seen any substantial proof whatsoever that this is true. I don't deny that it could be true - but I've not seen any serious study or experiment that verifies this. The reasoning goes "if they get no money for their work they won't do it". I believe that much R&D is duplicated today and much of the rest would be done anyway. Maybe a little slower in some areas, but all the people that does duplicated R&D today, will they just stop or will they go of and do something different??
What I'd like to see:
Shorter IP terms, a few years for patents and a few decades for copyrights.
Less things patentable (software algorithms).
Serious research in the field of IP rights (I know that's hard to do) to try to find better methods of rewasrd.
I'm highly sceptical to 'mandatory licensing', i.e. X per cent of revenues on patented/copyrighted ware goes to patent/copyright holder. This is because such rules would be very hard to get right..
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
More 'content'??
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Stop using that language! You havn't paid any royalties to the creators of English! Thief!
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Because US DoD demanded more than one supplier of "strategic materials" or somesuch (that's the way I heard it anyway). Then they (US DoD) figured that the x86 line wasn't so important anyway and slackend the constraints.. And thats why Intel did the 486SX - About as cheap as Cyrixs and AMDs 386es and about as fast but "superior" (rumor has it that it was the same chip with a pin removed and that the 487 also was the same chip but with another pin removed) :-/ :-/.... And after that day AMD and Cyrix have been playing catch-up, I'm quite happy to se that they're closer today than they were a few years ago..
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Sorry if I was ambigous, I was trying to point out that a KNI binary won't function on a 3DNow! chip. IMO that makes KNI != 3DNow!.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
KNI != 3DNow!. They are very similar but the opcodes are different so they're not compatible.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
As you're allowed to precompute so much of it during the load phase, just compare last yers Oracle with this years Oracle results....
:-) :-)
99-02-12
Sun UE10000 (64 400MHz US, 64 GByte ram)
Oracle8i 8.1.5.2
35,878.1 TPC-D (QphD)
Q5 took 0.7 seconds
Database Load Time: 46 hours 59 minutes
98-06-01
Sun UE10000 (64 336MHz US, 64 GByte ram)
Oracle8 8.0.4.2
5660.5 TPC-D (QphD)
Q5 took 1315.5 seconds
Database Load Time: 27 hours 2 minutes 2 seconds
Does anyone think that Suns tapes this year are slower than last years?....
(Both are 1 TByte db size)
I'll laugh whichever way it goes
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
I would agree completely if it was unambigously stated that I actually own the copies in my computer, but the GPL says nothing about this - only how I may and may not create copies, derived works etc. etc. All other software licenses I've read (not that many :-) say that you don't own the copy and then gives you the right to use it. The GPL doesn't say anything about the ownership of copies (copy != copyright)... Are you allowed to use something (without the permission of the owner) that you don't own if it happens to be on your property??
Again, IANAL
Re: some other post by some AC
It's good that the GPL is ambigous!?
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Claim that you bought a copy that is, if you actually owned the software you'd be allowed to do pretty much everything except copy it, i.e. dissasemble etc... If they did it they would loose much power over their customers.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Where does it say that licenses are restrictive only? The ordinary case (for copyright licenses) is that silence means "no rights"... What law says "you may use a copy (that you don't own) if it resides in your computer"? And is there such a law in all countries?
IANAL, just uncertain...
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
The argument is:
"Where does it say that I may use a GPLed program"
Nowhere in the GPL v2 does it say:
"You may use the program"
It only says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;
So it depends on the local law wether or no you may actually use the program... Yes you have the rights to the 'output', but do you actually have the right to create such output? I certainly don't know. If I'd actually own a copy I'd be certain that I could use it freely, but it doesn't say that I own any copies on my disk -- It only deals in how I may modify and/or redistribute it! The normal case is that you don't own the software, you only license it. And the GPL doesn't say anything about owning/licensing the copy.. Again, I don't claim that it would hold in any sane court -- just that the GPL is more ambigous that it needs to be.
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Section 0 is ambiguous, very ambigous:
:-(
The second part of section 0 first says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Which might make what follows completely useless:
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
As it previously said those activities aren't coverd by the license... Or, in other words - you're free to copy it but have no right to use it... IANAL but I don't consider their fears completely without cause...
I certainly don't claim that a court of law would judge it this or that way, I simply don't know
Erik
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
About three years ago I installed Slackware. Since then everything I've installed has been by compiling the sources. My dist wasn't my own then, just a hacked Slackware, today it is. The minimum you need is kernel + utils (util-linux and GNU file-util and GNU text-util) + shell + make + gcc and some way to get the sources (ftp to prep.ai.mit.edu, tsx-11.mit.edu and metalab.unc.edu).
;-)
;-) ;-)
Warning: It takes a lot of time to stay bleeding-edge this way, but if that turns you on it's the best way to stay more bleeding-edge than anybody else
When I start to trust -mregparm in gcc I might redo it all with my own ABI
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
Which single-chip CPUs have they made? All claims I've read have been about multi (100s or 1000s) chip CPUs.
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
First they manage to make their customers believe that they'll drop MIPS and that their new CPU (Intels Merced) is a flop. Doesn't matter if that really was their intention or not -- a lot of people ended up believing it.
And now they'll probably manage to make their customers believe that they'll drop IRIX next year or so...
No, I don't believe you'll do that -- but your customers might.. Sigh, talk about shooting oneself in the foot..
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
The processor has 'backing registers' and keeps one thread 'sleeping' there. When the running thread wants to access data not in L1 cache the CPU does:
1. Starts to fetch data.
2. Switches to other (sleeping) thread.
Ok?
Like TERAs stuff and the latest PowerPC AS.
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
At once as in two cores or at once as in switches on L1 cache miss?
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
It's been availible since 1.3.something. SMP is why Linus upped the major version. The misinformation probably comes from the fact that SMP is much better in 2.1/2.2
Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?