Stan and gang get to Earth and Kai notes that the planet is about do shrink to the size of a pea because of attempts by scientists to discover the size of the Higgs boson.
How much more do we need to know about the causes for cancer or AIDS?
Shouldn't we be looking for the cures instead?
I am firmly convinced that people with this attitude should be killed and eradicated from the face of the earth as soon as possible. Perhaps I should not "feed the troll", but rest assured this shall be the vilest meal this troll will eat, and I've karma to burn.
Trust too, alas, that I'm far too much of a coward to seek out this troll and perform the deed myself. But, this is Slashdot, and rants rein supreme, so I shall rant on.
When someone suggests "Shouldn't we...," what they really mean, is "shouldn't someone other than me but who I shall include in a collective that includes me" perform some deed, presumably for my benefit, because they appear to have the requesite ability.
Gee, with that line of thinking, "Shouldn't that hot girl in the skin tight pants pull them down while I fuck her good and hard?" After all, she has a body made for screwing, and owes it to the rest of us, no?
Well, NO!, she doesn't (and yes, this does sadden me some, but I'll get over it), and neither do we owe our skill to others without our consent.
You, sir (and I use the salutation reluctantly and with the intent of irony), would enslave those who could execute your wishes. The world of free men and women has no need of such slavemasters. Begone! And, whilst I may be coward enough to spare your life, and not rip it from your soul, rest assured that I dream and pray for your violent, and painful demise. Painful certainly, for no doubt this rant will be modded to the oblivion reserved for those who continue to cherish liberty in a world of comfortable enslavement, and the thought of a painful end doth grant solace over the inevitable loss of karma this post will bring.
Your quote was from a different article. This thread was referring to this article. Still the points you raise are worth respondong to.
First, you quoted out of context. Expanding the quote a bit:
This situation has thus always been a little unstable. It came up again in recent times when Christoph Hellwig posted a patch which explicitly made the Linux Security Module functionality available only to modules licensed under the GPL. People were, says Christoph, using the LSM hooks to change the behavior of system calls, and that went further than he thought was appropriate. In a separate posting, Christoph stated:
My argument is that I want this flag as a hint for authors of proprietary security modules that I'm going to sue them if they use hooks called from code I have copyright on. This includes such central parts as vfs_read/vfs_write.
This is, of course, an explicit shot across the bow of anybody who distributes proprietary kernel modules. Linus, then, sent out his current view on binary-only modules:
There is NOTHING in the kernel license that allows modules to be non-GPL'd. The _only_ thing that allows for non-GPL modules is copyright law, and in particular the "derived work" issue. A vendor who distributes non-GPL modules is _not_ protected by the module interface per se, and should feel very confident that they can show in a court of law that the code is not derived.
Starting with Linus' note, he (and you) are correct): it isn't the kernel license per se. that allows non-GPL modules, but the fact that they are not "derived works" of the kernel. Linus has always maintained that modules are not part of the kernel, and therefore not subject to the GPL. He could have argued that they are part of the kernel, and the situation would be different (while copyright law would not allow this, given the non-derivative code shield, the kernel use license could have required agreeing to that fact by anyone who distributes the kernel with non-GPL modues -- the kernel license then would not be GPL, of course).
It becomes a point of semantics: is Linus' traditional position part of the kernel license or not? Some would say yes, others would say no. In any case, as author of the kernel (yes, I'll address other contributors later), he is free to selectively relax restrictions in a the license thereof to the benefit of licensees. This is the same reasoning that lets a late payment be "forgiven" at the discretion of a lender even though it may technically make a loan in default.
What Christoph Hellwig has done, since kernel modules do not have to be GPL, is license HIS module to forbid binding by other non-GPL modules. Given Linus' position, I see this as perfectly acceptable.
However, as others have contributed to the kernel (and not just modules), perhaps their interpretation of Linus' lax enforcement of his license isn't all that pleasing to them: some might not want to see non-GPL kernel modules using their code at all.
While I would think that their creation of a derived work would fall under the terms of the license that covers derived works, the issue is whether this license is just the GPL, or the GPL with Linus' informal note that modules are not derived works and therefore not covered by the GPL. While I am not a lawyer, I'd think that Linus' interpretation of derived work forms part of the complete license, including the text of the GPL. Thus, those who produce derived works of the kernel must redistribute them under terms of the original license: GPL with Linus's definition of derived work. Copyright law may or may not agree but it is the license that matters because it confers greater rights than copyright law alone. Again, IANAL, so take this with a big grain of salt.
But, then, this is a change to the GPL, and the license on the use of the text of the GPL (overriding the copyright on the text of the
If you know at 18 great, and i hope that's still the thing for you at 24...
I can not relate to this... I knew I would code when I was 12, had an incling at 9 (studying electronics, and boolean algebra), and knew that I wanted to do something "scientific" at 4.
So, my life has been a refinement of a generic "wanting to do something scientific" to "computers" to "software design" to "embedded software design" to "embedded software design with an emphasis on data communications". With the telecom bust that's shifted a bit toward "embedded video processing", but real-time media processing has a certain data networking "feel" to it, so it isn't far off.
The closest differnce between "skill" and "want" is that I "want" to work closer with embedded, networked, multimedia distribution in a home environment, with entertainment servers, computers, and silent set top boxes. Working in the Consumer Products Division (i.e. set top boxes with Xilleon chips) at ATI brings me very close to this.
Not having the experience of "not knowing" what to do with my life, I can not relate to those that don't.
However, knowing what direction I want to take, and being forced into an environment where I am expected to "find this out" by measuring skills in many different "rounded" areas, but with the hidden requirement to be "acceptably adequate" in all, would lead to spectacular failure on my part -- I'm the type of person who would fail "art" in grade school out of an inability to decide why I should paint something, and what, and in who's style, and how the hell can I possibly paint well enough as a master who's brush strokes and style I am trying to immitate -- I don't need to try this to know I am not good at it. For the same reason, I can not possibly ever dance: I lack the ability to decompose a played musical score to identify the rythem that is supposed to be matched by movement of body parts -- at least I can't do that in real time. I can't read sheet music in real-time, but I can memorize some pieces and play them from memory with a keyboard. In short, I am the archtypical nerd.
Despite these shortcomings, I can earn a half-decent wage designing and implementing complex and difficult software, and debugging same, when written by others -- my skills include strong deductive resoning abilities. Toward a more well-rounded education, my interests include philosophy, politics, and history, to the point where I can carry on an intelligent conversation in these areas (the minutae of the Canadian and American constitutions can lead to fascinating debate), but could not, by any means, pass as an expert, or achieve degree-level competence.
So, while I am unable to do many supposedly simple things, I find trivial, issues which give others great difficulty, and apply this talent to earn a living.
If I had to go through a "find myself phase", I would wind up a bum on the street. Personally, I find "well-rounded" people generally annoying because they do not excel at anything to the level necessary to make a meaningful contribution -- jacks (and janes) of all trades and masters of none, as it were. I work best with people who's skills complement mine and who excel in their disiplines to the degree I excel in mine.
I would think there's no difference between saying "You may not use this kernel module with non-GPL code" and "You may not use this kernel module unless you are a customer of company X".
Oh, but there is a world of difference! And, an error in your logic.
First, the GPL does not address use, except to the extent that use, including redistribution is restricted according to the manner of redustribution: If you do not redistribute, you can use GPL code any way you like. If you do redistribute, you an only use the code, including performing that redistribution if you redistribute under the terms of the GPL. There's a subtle point there: if you do redistribute in violation of the GPL, you lose your right to anyuse, including non-redistributive uses.
As you your second point, the license probably forbids what you are considering: remembering it is not GPL in that case -- it is "GPL but can only be dynamically linked with GPL code or code under this license". This is (a) fine for dynamic linking with similar code, and (b) fine for dynamic linking by the kernel because the kernel makes an exception for non-GPL modules (which, ironically causes the problem in the first place) which this is -- it is using the exception against itself, as it were.
Hmm... interesting. Is this type of behavior allowable under the GPL?
In a word, NO!
...and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. What you miss (and I failed to make clear) is the the Linux kernel is not licensed under the GPL. It is licensed under the GPL with a specific exception for kernel modules.
Now, there is nothing wrong with this, as Linus Torvalds can license his code any way he likes, and contributors have to accept that license for their contributions to be redistributed. Since some contributers prefer a pure GPL position, for political reasons, the means are there for their modules to check, at run-time, if any other non-GPL code has been dynamically linked in, at least that is my understanding. I don't know if this technique can apply to any contributed kernel code, but I see no reason why it couldn't in practice.
It is my understanding that RMS is very upset about this particular exception, but that should come as no surprise. It has led to production of non-free drivers within kernel modules with minimal "free" applications under the misleading notion that the code (all of it) is free. I'm told that NVidia does this with some of their video drivers, and RMS considers that very unfriendly, to the point of NVidia being hostile to the free software community (Disclaimer: I work for ATI, a competitor of NVidia, but these comments are entirely mine and not representative of any position ATI might take).
But, the fact remains, proprietary kernel modules or not, if you distribute binaries of the Linux kernel, even if unmodified (your mods being entirely in kernel modules), the GPL obliges you to either (a) distribute the source, (b) offer the source to anyone who asks (not just the recipient of your binaries) and has received the binaries, or (c) point them to a well-known location where they can be found. Option (c) is only available for non-commercial redistributors.
Contrary to popular belief, this does mean that a pointer to an FTP site you maintain is not sufficient complience unless that's where the binaries came from -- that is you can't ship CDs of binaries with a pointer to an FTP site as the only means of obtaining source, though it is perfectly acceptable to do this as an alternate means.
Now, the GPL strikes me as a little vague when it comes to inter-process communication between cooperating processes as part of a whole. Tom Christiansen's "GPL-freeing" socket wrapper around readline() is an example of it. While it may be legally complient with the GPL (though I am not a lawyer and you should seek specific advice from your legal council), it is generally viewed as deceitful and unfriendly by many.
Yes, this is explicitly permitted by the license on the Linux kernel, but, IIRC, there is also an option honoured by the kernel that allows a module to indicate that it should not be loaded unless all other loaded modules are GPL.
So, legally you are correct, but the practice is viewed with some disdain, particularly when a "toy" GPL application is provided, making it look like the code is free, yet it relies on a kernel module that does the real work.
don't understand why he would make such a serious allegation...
... perhaps precisely because it is a serious allegation and the author is not a lawyer.
Though I agree that stating the facts without an opinion and identifying the supplier would probably be safe, without mentioning why this is done (i.e. the possibility of a GPL violation), the point would probably be lost on many readers.
From the article (and perhaps I am stretching fair use doctrine a bit by copying two whole paragraphs, but I wanted to get context clear):
Without going into a dissertation on GPL, it should be noted the GPL expects companies developing or selling products based on (or containing) embedded Linux make source code to the GPL components used in their products available to their end customers who request it. Therefore, as a consequence of GPL, if you need kernel sources for some specific processor, you ought to be able to buy a device known to be based on that processor, that uses embedded Linux, and then request and obtain source to that processor's kernel from the maker (or supplier) of that device.
Indeed, some device and system manufacturers do make sources to the embedded Linux kernel and other open source software used in their products freely available (by some other means) to their end customers. Unfortunately, however, we have found that many device and system vendors appear to consider themselves "above the law" when it comes to the GPL's source code obligations. For example, the author recently purchased an embedded Linux powered device and, when he asked the vendor's support person how to obtain a copy of the Linux they used, was politely informed that their product uses "a proprietary version of Linux." Additionally, some developers of kernel loadable module code, such as for device drivers, believe that by packaging their code as a loadable module it need not be released under the GPL. Thus, you might not be able to obtain source to some of the Linux code in your system even if you are one of their customers.
Am I the only one who sees this as a serious breach of the GPL and an affront and insult to the free software community?
Also, it gives people a bit more time to decide what they want to study. I think its a good thing, although plenty of people see it as simply immaturity
A bit more time?
How much more bloody time does one need? If you don't know what you want to do by 18, there's something wrong. (Then again, maybe it's just me).
Though, your point about a rounded education is noted. But, that's what high school and, in Quebec, CEGEP are for. Ontario has (or had, they're deprecating it now), a Grade 13 for this, and Quebec has a two year CEGEP program between high school (that ends at grade 11), and University (where an undergrad degree is generally a three year program). In Quebec CEGEP, for example, one out of ever 6 courses a semester is a "humanities" course, and English is du rigeur as well. Perhaps it matches the intent of the U.S. system after all.
Still, University level Fine Arts and English courses would have killed me -- that's not where my skills lie -- it was bad enough having to memorize various Shakespeare plays in 9th grade English, and putting on "Oliver Twist" as a play in 6th/7th. The CEGEP humanities courses were horrible (though I did enjoy quoting from Mein Kampf to my Propaganda proffessor) and only fourth semester Non-Ideal Thermodynamics with Dr. Westbury kept me sane.
As you pointed out, all freshman year is English Comp and Lit, Basic Sciences, a few fine arts, total fitness and the activiteis, and maybe 1 class in your major each quarter! If they can't pass that, they would prolly have flunked out almost anywere they went!
Well, I certainly couldn't pass that! Only one class in my major, instead of almost all but one? Are American universities that different from Canadian ones? I guess.
Lesse, first year undergraduate Computer Science in 1979-80 at Concordia in Montreal, Canada involved a two semester Advanced Calculus course, Statistics, Linear Algebra, Fortran, CDC 6600 Assembler, "Data Structures" a.k.a. "Pascal" (this was 1979, remember), COBOL, Computer Organization (hardware design and architecture), and an elective, I think. Certainly no English Literature, Fine Arts, and definately no Phys Ed. -- the acadamic courses in that triad would be more of a Liberal Arts education.
FWIW, I graduated Magna Cum Laude, Honours Computer Science in 1982 (missing Summa Cum Laude by 0.2%) and went on to a graduate degree.
Had I had to take Fine Arts courses, I'dve failed them miserably.
Ah! My mistake. I was thinking of beer pints, of which there are 8 to a beer gallon, 282 cubic inches of distilled water at 62F and 30 inches mercury barometric pressure.
The imperial gallon, of course, is that volume of distiled water at 62F and 30 inches mercury that weights 10 pounds avoirdupois, about 276.78 cubic inches.
That makes the beer pint a tad over 19.5 fl. oz., fitting nicely in a 20 fl. oz. glass.
I returned to Canada after spending 5-1/2 years in the U.S. Naturally, I am comfortable with both metric and English measurement systems, but...
Recently, I went into a shop, got a bunch of stuff and went z. Diet Coke I told the shopkeeper, "I forgot my Coke. Charge me and I'll grab it on the way out." As the shopkeeper knew me, this wasn't odd. But, he had no idea what a 20oz Coke was -- and I didn't realize that it was my use of ounces that was confusing him.
In Canada, soft drinks generally come in 2 litre, one litre, 750 milliliter (well, when the bottles were glass, they used to), bottles; smaller plastic bottles, and cans. The cans are nominally 355 ml (10 oz.) and the small plastic bottles 591 or 600 ml. (20 oz.). Now, no one asks for a 355 ml. soft drink -- they ask for "a can of XXX", the "can" being an implied unit of soft drink volume measurement.
As my only experience with 20 oz soft drink bottles was in the U.S., I didn't think in terms of a 591 (nominally 600) ml. bottle, but rather a 20 oz. bottle -- I figured that the shopkeeper would respond, "Oh, you mean a 600 ml. bottle", and I'd reply, "Duh! I'm back in Canada... yeah, that sounds right." But, instead, he was utterly confused and not indicating that his confusion stemmed from my use of an unfamiliar volume measurement (which would have clued me in).
Now the funny thing is I can still get a proper 20oz pint of beer at the pub! -- none of this 500 ml. shit. As someone with a scientific bent, I appreciate the metric (base-10) system, and usually convert easily, but damn it: beer is meant to be dispensed in pints, yards, and barrels! Booze, of course, is sold in "fifths".
Sorry to be so harsh, but as someone who has sent good money to indie artists just because I liked the MP3s I downloaded for free, if the talent is there, the dollars will follow (well, some at least).
The problem is that "what works in practice" is not what the theory covers, but rather some poorly qualified subset of the problem space.
This is compounded by people who's needs might well be satisfied with an imperfect implementation that has an acceptable rate of false positive or false negative failure modes, but who insist on "perfection", and point to the "good enough" implementation as disproof by example of the theoreticians claim that perfection in that context is impossible.
It comes down to two people not talking the same language.
This falls into the "No you can't", based on a sound theoretical basis that compilation throws away data vs. "Yes you can", based on an observation that it may be possible to produce a C++ source program that compiles into something that appears to operate the same way as the original executqble (it may, in fact, be identical), argument.
While complete decompilation is impossible, if any data has been thrown away, partial translation into a form that is more useful may be possible: when many ask for a "decompiler", they really want that useful translation instead, though may not know it -- knowing only that a complete decompilation would be such a useful translation.
IOW, "You can't always get what you want, but you might just find, you can get what you need."
The real danger here are people (think PHBs) who can't tell the difference between a translation and a complete decompilation, see that the former is possible, think it is the same as the latter, and INSIST, on pain of being fired, that a tool be developed to produce the latter. A little knowledge is a dengerous thing in that context.
So if you are diagnosed with a nightmare neurolgical disease, your best solution is to start to killing people in a pro death penalty state. Then maybe you'll get fried before the symptoms are too bad.
I've often thought this myself. You do realize that the most "dangerous criminal" is the person who perceives he has nothing to lose.
As for industrialization causing disease, this may very well be true, though it would seam all would be equally at risk, and the political dynamics pro/con indistrialization are similar to those pro/con taxation.
But we do appear to agree with regard to people not even owning their own lives anymore: I'm very much in support of legalization of suicide and assisted suicide, at least in the case of people of sound mind (and desiring to end one's life, in and of itself, does not negate this).
This law was put into action by the same well meaning christian folks who say that assisted suicide is wrong, but the death penalty is just great.
So you see, it's these people that are so God fearing that are there to help their fellow man stay nailed to the cross for as long as possible, and make sure that their fellow americans pay for it all.
...and they wonder why I am agnostic and many of my friends are atheist. We might be wrong, and there very well may be a deity (or several), but "fear of God" is nothing more than a means for the church to excercize control.
Actually, when I lived in the U.S. I contributed significantly to various worthwhile causes (I don't like the word "charity" as it is somewhat demeaning) -- It was not unusual for me to give away an average of US$200 a month, and I have donated perfectly running cars (and soon to donate another one).
In Canada, where the tax burden is much worse, it is true that I have little in the way of discretionary income to give to various causes. Sadly, the government does a poor job with what it takes from me.
During my time in the U.S., I have found Americans (though generalizations like this are dangerous, the anectodal observations are, nevertheless useful) among the most generous people in the world: helping the truly and suddenly destitute at the drop of a hat.
Separating people from their honestly and legally earned money, at the point of a gun, ostensibly for some worthwhile cause, remains theft, regardless of the cause: if it is so noble, why depend of force to secure it's support?
How exactly are people who can't walk suppossed to affoard this shit? Sure it's possible, and often times picked up by the government (thank god)
Thank god? Thank god?
How about thanking ME and all the other taxpayers who make it possible for the distress in what would otherwise be an even more difficult life relieved?
How about thanking those, who paid such taxes all there life, and then needing urgent care, didn't get it "back" and died as a result?
I don't particularly mind doing my part to relieve suffering in the world (though, I resent the state gun at my head if I resisted and did mind). But, I get royally pissed off when someone or something else gets the credit.
[shock-rag wire service] Scientists discover that bismuth, a major component of Pepto-Bismol , is RADIOACTIVE and decays into the TOXIC POISON thallium.
While the decay rate is the slowest observed to date and, in fact, sets a record, it is noted that NO MINIMUM SAFE EXPOSURE LEVEL has been established for radiation exposure, and there is NO CURE for thallium posioning.
Seriously, I've sometimes had to call the police with regard to a non-emergency (trespassing, stolen property, vandalism, etc.), and was unable to get the non-emergency number from either the printed telephone directory, web-site, or telephone operator (who, generally advised, "just call 911").
Once I actually got so frustrated that I did call 911, and as soon as the operator got on the line, explained, "This is NOT an immediate emergency, but I need the non-emergency number for the police." The operator understood my plight, and transfered me to the appropriate person to handle the call (i.e., the "not a real emergency but the person dialed 911 so talk to them letting them think they are being taken seriously" operator). I eventually got tranferred to the right department, but even then could not get a non-emergency number for future use.
The reason? The department did not want to get sued for someone dialing the non-emergency number in an emergency and not responding in an urgent enough manner. They'd rather have someone clog up the 911 lines, albeit briefly, and get redirected.
Slashdot Mirror
Stan and gang get to Earth and Kai notes that the planet is about do shrink to the size of a pea because of attempts by scientists to discover the size of the Higgs boson.
Shouldn't we be looking for the cures instead?
I am firmly convinced that people with this attitude should be killed and eradicated from the face of the earth as soon as possible. Perhaps I should not "feed the troll", but rest assured this shall be the vilest meal this troll will eat, and I've karma to burn.
Trust too, alas, that I'm far too much of a coward to seek out this troll and perform the deed myself. But, this is Slashdot, and rants rein supreme, so I shall rant on.
When someone suggests "Shouldn't we...," what they really mean, is "shouldn't someone other than me but who I shall include in a collective that includes me" perform some deed, presumably for my benefit, because they appear to have the requesite ability.
Gee, with that line of thinking, "Shouldn't that hot girl in the skin tight pants pull them down while I fuck her good and hard?" After all, she has a body made for screwing, and owes it to the rest of us, no?
Well, NO!, she doesn't (and yes, this does sadden me some, but I'll get over it), and neither do we owe our skill to others without our consent.
You, sir (and I use the salutation reluctantly and with the intent of irony), would enslave those who could execute your wishes. The world of free men and women has no need of such slavemasters. Begone! And, whilst I may be coward enough to spare your life, and not rip it from your soul, rest assured that I dream and pray for your violent, and painful demise. Painful certainly, for no doubt this rant will be modded to the oblivion reserved for those who continue to cherish liberty in a world of comfortable enslavement, and the thought of a painful end doth grant solace over the inevitable loss of karma this post will bring.
First, you quoted out of context. Expanding the quote a bit:
This situation has thus always been a little unstable. It came up again in recent times when Christoph Hellwig posted a patch which explicitly made the Linux Security Module functionality available only to modules licensed under the GPL. People were, says Christoph, using the LSM hooks to change the behavior of system calls, and that went further than he thought was appropriate. In a separate posting, Christoph stated:
My argument is that I want this flag as a hint for authors of proprietary security modules that I'm going to sue them if they use hooks called from code I have copyright on. This includes such central parts as vfs_read/vfs_write. This is, of course, an explicit shot across the bow of anybody who distributes proprietary kernel modules. Linus, then, sent out his current view on binary-only modules:
There is NOTHING in the kernel license that allows modules to be non-GPL'd. The _only_ thing that allows for non-GPL modules is copyright law, and in particular the "derived work" issue. A vendor who distributes non-GPL modules is _not_ protected by the module interface per se, and should feel very confident that they can show in a court of law that the code is not derived.
Starting with Linus' note, he (and you) are correct): it isn't the kernel license per se. that allows non-GPL modules, but the fact that they are not "derived works" of the kernel. Linus has always maintained that modules are not part of the kernel, and therefore not subject to the GPL. He could have argued that they are part of the kernel, and the situation would be different (while copyright law would not allow this, given the non-derivative code shield, the kernel use license could have required agreeing to that fact by anyone who distributes the kernel with non-GPL modues -- the kernel license then would not be GPL, of course).
It becomes a point of semantics: is Linus' traditional position part of the kernel license or not? Some would say yes, others would say no. In any case, as author of the kernel (yes, I'll address other contributors later), he is free to selectively relax restrictions in a the license thereof to the benefit of licensees. This is the same reasoning that lets a late payment be "forgiven" at the discretion of a lender even though it may technically make a loan in default.
What Christoph Hellwig has done, since kernel modules do not have to be GPL, is license HIS module to forbid binding by other non-GPL modules. Given Linus' position, I see this as perfectly acceptable.
However, as others have contributed to the kernel (and not just modules), perhaps their interpretation of Linus' lax enforcement of his license isn't all that pleasing to them: some might not want to see non-GPL kernel modules using their code at all.
While I would think that their creation of a derived work would fall under the terms of the license that covers derived works, the issue is whether this license is just the GPL, or the GPL with Linus' informal note that modules are not derived works and therefore not covered by the GPL. While I am not a lawyer, I'd think that Linus' interpretation of derived work forms part of the complete license, including the text of the GPL. Thus, those who produce derived works of the kernel must redistribute them under terms of the original license: GPL with Linus's definition of derived work. Copyright law may or may not agree but it is the license that matters because it confers greater rights than copyright law alone. Again, IANAL, so take this with a big grain of salt.
But, then, this is a change to the GPL, and the license on the use of the text of the GPL (overriding the copyright on the text of the
Since your claim goes against common wisdon, I would very much like to see a cite.
I can not relate to this... I knew I would code when I was 12, had an incling at 9 (studying electronics, and boolean algebra), and knew that I wanted to do something "scientific" at 4.
So, my life has been a refinement of a generic "wanting to do something scientific" to "computers" to "software design" to "embedded software design" to "embedded software design with an emphasis on data communications". With the telecom bust that's shifted a bit toward "embedded video processing", but real-time media processing has a certain data networking "feel" to it, so it isn't far off.
The closest differnce between "skill" and "want" is that I "want" to work closer with embedded, networked, multimedia distribution in a home environment, with entertainment servers, computers, and silent set top boxes. Working in the Consumer Products Division (i.e. set top boxes with Xilleon chips) at ATI brings me very close to this.
Not having the experience of "not knowing" what to do with my life, I can not relate to those that don't.
However, knowing what direction I want to take, and being forced into an environment where I am expected to "find this out" by measuring skills in many different "rounded" areas, but with the hidden requirement to be "acceptably adequate" in all, would lead to spectacular failure on my part -- I'm the type of person who would fail "art" in grade school out of an inability to decide why I should paint something, and what, and in who's style, and how the hell can I possibly paint well enough as a master who's brush strokes and style I am trying to immitate -- I don't need to try this to know I am not good at it. For the same reason, I can not possibly ever dance: I lack the ability to decompose a played musical score to identify the rythem that is supposed to be matched by movement of body parts -- at least I can't do that in real time. I can't read sheet music in real-time, but I can memorize some pieces and play them from memory with a keyboard. In short, I am the archtypical nerd.
Despite these shortcomings, I can earn a half-decent wage designing and implementing complex and difficult software, and debugging same, when written by others -- my skills include strong deductive resoning abilities. Toward a more well-rounded education, my interests include philosophy, politics, and history, to the point where I can carry on an intelligent conversation in these areas (the minutae of the Canadian and American constitutions can lead to fascinating debate), but could not, by any means, pass as an expert, or achieve degree-level competence.
So, while I am unable to do many supposedly simple things, I find trivial, issues which give others great difficulty, and apply this talent to earn a living.
If I had to go through a "find myself phase", I would wind up a bum on the street. Personally, I find "well-rounded" people generally annoying because they do not excel at anything to the level necessary to make a meaningful contribution -- jacks (and janes) of all trades and masters of none, as it were. I work best with people who's skills complement mine and who excel in their disiplines to the degree I excel in mine.
Oh, but there is a world of difference! And, an error in your logic.
First, the GPL does not address use, except to the extent that use, including redistribution is restricted according to the manner of redustribution: If you do not redistribute, you can use GPL code any way you like. If you do redistribute, you an only use the code, including performing that redistribution if you redistribute under the terms of the GPL. There's a subtle point there: if you do redistribute in violation of the GPL, you lose your right to anyuse, including non-redistributive uses.
As you your second point, the license probably forbids what you are considering: remembering it is not GPL in that case -- it is "GPL but can only be dynamically linked with GPL code or code under this license". This is (a) fine for dynamic linking with similar code, and (b) fine for dynamic linking by the kernel because the kernel makes an exception for non-GPL modules (which, ironically causes the problem in the first place) which this is -- it is using the exception against itself, as it were.
In a word, NO!
Now, there is nothing wrong with this, as Linus Torvalds can license his code any way he likes, and contributors have to accept that license for their contributions to be redistributed. Since some contributers prefer a pure GPL position, for political reasons, the means are there for their modules to check, at run-time, if any other non-GPL code has been dynamically linked in, at least that is my understanding. I don't know if this technique can apply to any contributed kernel code, but I see no reason why it couldn't in practice.
It is my understanding that RMS is very upset about this particular exception, but that should come as no surprise. It has led to production of non-free drivers within kernel modules with minimal "free" applications under the misleading notion that the code (all of it) is free. I'm told that NVidia does this with some of their video drivers, and RMS considers that very unfriendly, to the point of NVidia being hostile to the free software community (Disclaimer: I work for ATI, a competitor of NVidia, but these comments are entirely mine and not representative of any position ATI might take).
But, the fact remains, proprietary kernel modules or not, if you distribute binaries of the Linux kernel, even if unmodified (your mods being entirely in kernel modules), the GPL obliges you to either (a) distribute the source, (b) offer the source to anyone who asks (not just the recipient of your binaries) and has received the binaries, or (c) point them to a well-known location where they can be found. Option (c) is only available for non-commercial redistributors.
Contrary to popular belief, this does mean that a pointer to an FTP site you maintain is not sufficient complience unless that's where the binaries came from -- that is you can't ship CDs of binaries with a pointer to an FTP site as the only means of obtaining source, though it is perfectly acceptable to do this as an alternate means.
Now, the GPL strikes me as a little vague when it comes to inter-process communication between cooperating processes as part of a whole. Tom Christiansen's "GPL-freeing" socket wrapper around readline() is an example of it. While it may be legally complient with the GPL (though I am not a lawyer and you should seek specific advice from your legal council), it is generally viewed as deceitful and unfriendly by many.
So, legally you are correct, but the practice is viewed with some disdain, particularly when a "toy" GPL application is provided, making it look like the code is free, yet it relies on a kernel module that does the real work.
Though I agree that stating the facts without an opinion and identifying the supplier would probably be safe, without mentioning why this is done (i.e. the possibility of a GPL violation), the point would probably be lost on many readers.
Without going into a dissertation on GPL, it should be noted the GPL expects companies developing or selling products based on (or containing) embedded Linux make source code to the GPL components used in their products available to their end customers who request it. Therefore, as a consequence of GPL, if you need kernel sources for some specific processor, you ought to be able to buy a device known to be based on that processor, that uses embedded Linux, and then request and obtain source to that processor's kernel from the maker (or supplier) of that device.
Indeed, some device and system manufacturers do make sources to the embedded Linux kernel and other open source software used in their products freely available (by some other means) to their end customers. Unfortunately, however, we have found that many device and system vendors appear to consider themselves "above the law" when it comes to the GPL's source code obligations. For example, the author recently purchased an embedded Linux powered device and, when he asked the vendor's support person how to obtain a copy of the Linux they used, was politely informed that their product uses "a proprietary version of Linux." Additionally, some developers of kernel loadable module code, such as for device drivers, believe that by packaging their code as a loadable module it need not be released under the GPL. Thus, you might not be able to obtain source to some of the Linux code in your system even if you are one of their customers.
Am I the only one who sees this as a serious breach of the GPL and an affront and insult to the free software community?
A bit more time?
How much more bloody time does one need? If you don't know what you want to do by 18, there's something wrong. (Then again, maybe it's just me).
Though, your point about a rounded education is noted. But, that's what high school and, in Quebec, CEGEP are for. Ontario has (or had, they're deprecating it now), a Grade 13 for this, and Quebec has a two year CEGEP program between high school (that ends at grade 11), and University (where an undergrad degree is generally a three year program). In Quebec CEGEP, for example, one out of ever 6 courses a semester is a "humanities" course, and English is du rigeur as well. Perhaps it matches the intent of the U.S. system after all.
Still, University level Fine Arts and English courses would have killed me -- that's not where my skills lie -- it was bad enough having to memorize various Shakespeare plays in 9th grade English, and putting on "Oliver Twist" as a play in 6th/7th. The CEGEP humanities courses were horrible (though I did enjoy quoting from Mein Kampf to my Propaganda proffessor) and only fourth semester Non-Ideal Thermodynamics with Dr. Westbury kept me sane.
Well, I certainly couldn't pass that! Only one class in my major, instead of almost all but one? Are American universities that different from Canadian ones? I guess.
Lesse, first year undergraduate Computer Science in 1979-80 at Concordia in Montreal, Canada involved a two semester Advanced Calculus course, Statistics, Linear Algebra, Fortran, CDC 6600 Assembler, "Data Structures" a.k.a. "Pascal" (this was 1979, remember), COBOL, Computer Organization (hardware design and architecture), and an elective, I think. Certainly no English Literature, Fine Arts, and definately no Phys Ed. -- the acadamic courses in that triad would be more of a Liberal Arts education.
FWIW, I graduated Magna Cum Laude, Honours Computer Science in 1982 (missing Summa Cum Laude by 0.2%) and went on to a graduate degree.
Had I had to take Fine Arts courses, I'dve failed them miserably.
The imperial gallon, of course, is that volume of distiled water at 62F and 30 inches mercury that weights 10 pounds avoirdupois, about 276.78 cubic inches.
That makes the beer pint a tad over 19.5 fl. oz., fitting nicely in a 20 fl. oz. glass.
I returned to Canada after spending 5-1/2 years in the U.S. Naturally, I am comfortable with both metric and English measurement systems, but...
Recently, I went into a shop, got a bunch of stuff and went z. Diet Coke I told the shopkeeper, "I forgot my Coke. Charge me and I'll grab it on the way out." As the shopkeeper knew me, this wasn't odd. But, he had no idea what a 20oz Coke was -- and I didn't realize that it was my use of ounces that was confusing him.
In Canada, soft drinks generally come in 2 litre, one litre, 750 milliliter (well, when the bottles were glass, they used to), bottles; smaller plastic bottles, and cans. The cans are nominally 355 ml (10 oz.) and the small plastic bottles 591 or 600 ml. (20 oz.). Now, no one asks for a 355 ml. soft drink -- they ask for "a can of XXX", the "can" being an implied unit of soft drink volume measurement.
As my only experience with 20 oz soft drink bottles was in the U.S., I didn't think in terms of a 591 (nominally 600) ml. bottle, but rather a 20 oz. bottle -- I figured that the shopkeeper would respond, "Oh, you mean a 600 ml. bottle", and I'd reply, "Duh! I'm back in Canada... yeah, that sounds right." But, instead, he was utterly confused and not indicating that his confusion stemmed from my use of an unfamiliar volume measurement (which would have clued me in).
Now the funny thing is I can still get a proper 20oz pint of beer at the pub! -- none of this 500 ml. shit. As someone with a scientific bent, I appreciate the metric (base-10) system, and usually convert easily, but damn it: beer is meant to be dispensed in pints, yards, and barrels! Booze, of course, is sold in "fifths".
Sorry to be so harsh, but as someone who has sent good money to indie artists just because I liked the MP3s I downloaded for free, if the talent is there, the dollars will follow (well, some at least).
This is compounded by people who's needs might well be satisfied with an imperfect implementation that has an acceptable rate of false positive or false negative failure modes, but who insist on "perfection", and point to the "good enough" implementation as disproof by example of the theoreticians claim that perfection in that context is impossible.
It comes down to two people not talking the same language.
While complete decompilation is impossible, if any data has been thrown away, partial translation into a form that is more useful may be possible: when many ask for a "decompiler", they really want that useful translation instead, though may not know it -- knowing only that a complete decompilation would be such a useful translation.
IOW, "You can't always get what you want, but you might just find, you can get what you need."
The real danger here are people (think PHBs) who can't tell the difference between a translation and a complete decompilation, see that the former is possible, think it is the same as the latter, and INSIST, on pain of being fired, that a tool be developed to produce the latter. A little knowledge is a dengerous thing in that context.
I've often thought this myself. You do realize that the most "dangerous criminal" is the person who perceives he has nothing to lose.
As for industrialization causing disease, this may very well be true, though it would seam all would be equally at risk, and the political dynamics pro/con indistrialization are similar to those pro/con taxation.
But we do appear to agree with regard to people not even owning their own lives anymore: I'm very much in support of legalization of suicide and assisted suicide, at least in the case of people of sound mind (and desiring to end one's life, in and of itself, does not negate this).
This law was put into action by the same well meaning christian folks who say that assisted suicide is wrong, but the death penalty is just great.
So you see, it's these people that are so God fearing that are there to help their fellow man stay nailed to the cross for as long as possible, and make sure that their fellow americans pay for it all.
Thou preacheth to the converted, my anonymous friend.
That's why I qualified "worthwhile purpose" with "ostensibly".
In Canada, where the tax burden is much worse, it is true that I have little in the way of discretionary income to give to various causes. Sadly, the government does a poor job with what it takes from me.
During my time in the U.S., I have found Americans (though generalizations like this are dangerous, the anectodal observations are, nevertheless useful) among the most generous people in the world: helping the truly and suddenly destitute at the drop of a hat.
Separating people from their honestly and legally earned money, at the point of a gun, ostensibly for some worthwhile cause, remains theft, regardless of the cause: if it is so noble, why depend of force to secure it's support?
Thank god? Thank god?
How about thanking ME and all the other taxpayers who make it possible for the distress in what would otherwise be an even more difficult life relieved?
How about thanking those, who paid such taxes all there life, and then needing urgent care, didn't get it "back" and died as a result?
I don't particularly mind doing my part to relieve suffering in the world (though, I resent the state gun at my head if I resisted and did mind). But, I get royally pissed off when someone or something else gets the credit.
[shock-rag wire service] Scientists discover that bismuth, a major component of Pepto-Bismol , is RADIOACTIVE and decays into the TOXIC POISON thallium.
While the decay rate is the slowest observed to date and, in fact, sets a record, it is noted that NO MINIMUM SAFE EXPOSURE LEVEL has been established for radiation exposure, and there is NO CURE for thallium posioning.
It gets the job done, but there are a lot of ugly fat people out there... do you really want to look at them naked too?
(In defense of the political incorrectness in this post, I will hastily admit that I am an ugly skinny person).
...and here I thought thatd den_member> = 0; was bad style.
((<sneaky_private_type_I_wanna_access> *)<void_starish_opaque_handle>)-><ha_take_that_hi
Once I actually got so frustrated that I did call 911, and as soon as the operator got on the line, explained, "This is NOT an immediate emergency, but I need the non-emergency number for the police." The operator understood my plight, and transfered me to the appropriate person to handle the call (i.e., the "not a real emergency but the person dialed 911 so talk to them letting them think they are being taken seriously" operator). I eventually got tranferred to the right department, but even then could not get a non-emergency number for future use.
The reason? The department did not want to get sued for someone dialing the non-emergency number in an emergency and not responding in an urgent enough manner. They'd rather have someone clog up the 911 lines, albeit briefly, and get redirected.
Of course, as always, YMMV.