I was talking about humanity, not civilization. Evolution has gifted us with an unrivaled (on this planet) ability to adapt to all kinds of circumstances through judicious application of intellect alone far faster than physiological evolution could hope to achieve. This ability is entirely orthogonal to the support structures that you are referring to which are largely derived from technology.
Humanity would survive. Civilization? Maybe, maybe not.
âoeIt was very clear to the officers that she knew exactly what was going onâ
I absolutely abhor it when somebody, *ANYBODY* can somehow claim to know what another person is thinking when they have absolutely no real evidence to back up their claim beyond personal supposition.
Yeah, it's plausible that the language barrier was just a ploy, but I didn't see any obvious indication that such an issue was actually not really plausible. Just because she understood one sentence somehow means she's fluent enough in english to understand anything said to her once, without explanation?
The followup line also got me a bit hot under the collar:
âoeThe officer didnâ(TM)t think for a second that she was having difficulty understanding what she was being asked to do.â
No... what happened is that the officer didn't think for a second.
Tasers should not *EVER* be used by the police as a means of forcing compliance unless the police officer has some real cause to assume that the situation is about to escalate to physical violence. What indication did the officer have that she was going to assault anyone? Hmmm?
I would dare say that I don't think there are very many extinction-level type events could plausibly happen anytime in the foreseeable future which could also wipe out the human race unless the incident were also actually detrimental to the entire physiology of the planet. I do not think that a collision of the magnitude that led to the wiping out the dinosaurs, for instance, would have the same effect on us. Certainly no small number of people would die, but I do believe humanity itself would endure.
My reasoning is simply this. We have intellect. Dinosaurs did not.
When one cheats at solitaire, they are only depriving themselves of some sense of accomplishment that comes with winning the game as it was designed. If that really means so little, then why are they even playing the game at all?
What non programmer will compile software in the first place? Plenty of open source apps are only available from the creator as source, and not in binary form. If the software is any good, somebody else might make prebuilds for it, and they should be free to do so as long as they adhere to the licensing terms for redistribution.
A good developer's time is worth more than $99/hour
Uh... what? Where?
According to this even the some of the highest paying positions with a good tech company aren't liable to net you much more than $100k or so per year, which works out to about $50 an hour.
Yeah, a paid developer should be able to afford $99/year without a problem... but saying that they can make that in an hour is nothing but an outright exaggeration.
True... you can't redistribute your binary... but doesn't the GPL only require that people who receive the software have the right to redistribute the *SOURCE*?
You do not need to jailbreak the device in order to compile apps for it, unless you do not have an iOS developer's license.
The provision that a person should not have to have such a license seems to me to be no more arbitrary than requiring a particular commercial compiler, and should not affect the availability of the source code or the ability for people to modify and recompile it.
It really seems to me like the VLC developer was objecting that it was being ported to a platform that costs money to develop for.
There was also an argument (not sure if it was in the copyright complaint) that iOS did not allow users to change the version they had installed, so they couldn't grab the source, recompile, and update their version.
Uh, no... if the source is available, and you have an app developer's license for iOS, then you can compile any iOS source code you want and install it in your own devices. Redistributing the binary requires going through the iOS store, but if it's GPL, you can redistribute your modified the source code however you want.
Or is the objection that it requires a (paid) developer's license to compile for the platform? How is that any different than, say, requiring a particular commercial compiler?
I get why Apple didn't feel like fighting him on it... it's not their fight, nor should it be. But the VLC developer who decided to go after Apple for that was an idiot... completely defeating the entire point of having his software be GPL in the first place, and in the process, probably scaring quite a few people away from using GPL software entirely legitimately.
Heck, do you know how much your weight in printer ink would cost???
A cursory examination of current retail prices at nation-wide computer and electronics stores, and then working out the cost per unit of weight brings it to around $45 per ounce. That makes the average adult worth over $100,000!
Which means that the one who provided the binary to them has failed to comply with the GPL because he has not taken any effor to pass on those freedoms to people who obtained the software.
You always have a right to use GPL code whether or not you agree to its terms.
You have no right to *COPY*, above and beyond whatever sense of copying is necessary to simply utilize the software in the first place, GPL code without agreeing to its terms.
But in this sense, the GPL is basically no different than any other type of copyright notice which says something to the effect of no portion of the work may be copied without permission... the GPL only differs in that it explicitly describes what entails getting permission to copy, which is agreeing to its terms.
It's my understanding that the GPL requires only that you give source code to people that that have legally acquired the binary from you. It does not require that you provide source to anyone else, even if they otherwise legally obtained your binary. The trick here is that it also requires that you may *NOT* prevent anyone who legally obtains the source code from you from further distributing it to others, even to people who have not received any binaries from you, with the exact same freedoms and limitations applying to whoever receives it from them, so if somebody legally obtained the binary from somebody else, but not the source code, when you only gave source code to people who purchased licensed binaries from you, being GPL compliant yourself, then the person they got it from has committed the violation and not you.
I appreciate that you were probably trying to be helpful, but I did specifically mention that it was unsupported as a slackbuild. Ubuntu is not Slackware. Slackware64 out of the box is a pure 64 bit system that does not support 32 bit binaries without installing additional software (multilib) that, while readily available and quite commonly used, has not ever been officially supported by the slackware distribution, or by slackbuilds.org. It is my understanding that this is a deliberate choice because it is not unheard of for some applications to fail to build correctly on a system which supports both 32bit and 64bit binaries because the build file is set up in such a way that the linker may try to link the wrong libraries when both are present. Editing the build file will usually correct this, but because not all projects which are supported by slackbulds.org have had their build files manually adjusted to account for the possibility of a dual 32-bit/64-bit system. A user thus enables running 32-bit binaries on 64-bit Slackware entirely at their own risk, and must potentially hand-edit other people's build files to build applications to run on it.
While I understand it's possible to get Wine working on 64-bit Linux, it's my experience that it's not really supported on a pure-64 bit system... at least not on Slackbuilds.org
While there's nothing that can be done to stop a kid from doing something like this, there *are* ways to be absolutely certain that the device was used during the evening after you went to bed, or that it was tampered with in some way.
I realize that when a parent feels they have to resort to such measures, then in part, there's a battle involved that's already occurred and there's little hope of salvaging, but it can still be better than nothing at all.
If this is possible, how does it keep somebody from not needing your approval to tag you even if you request it by using a mispelling of your name, or a nickname you might go by? If that's the case, the requirement to review tags is not particularly valuable.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about civilization?
I was talking about humanity, not civilization. Evolution has gifted us with an unrivaled (on this planet) ability to adapt to all kinds of circumstances through judicious application of intellect alone far faster than physiological evolution could hope to achieve. This ability is entirely orthogonal to the support structures that you are referring to which are largely derived from technology.
Humanity would survive. Civilization? Maybe, maybe not.
I absolutely abhor it when somebody, *ANYBODY* can somehow claim to know what another person is thinking when they have absolutely no real evidence to back up their claim beyond personal supposition.
Yeah, it's plausible that the language barrier was just a ploy, but I didn't see any obvious indication that such an issue was actually not really plausible. Just because she understood one sentence somehow means she's fluent enough in english to understand anything said to her once, without explanation?
The followup line also got me a bit hot under the collar:
No... what happened is that the officer didn't think for a second.
Tasers should not *EVER* be used by the police as a means of forcing compliance unless the police officer has some real cause to assume that the situation is about to escalate to physical violence. What indication did the officer have that she was going to assault anyone? Hmmm?
I would dare say that I don't think there are very many extinction-level type events could plausibly happen anytime in the foreseeable future which could also wipe out the human race unless the incident were also actually detrimental to the entire physiology of the planet. I do not think that a collision of the magnitude that led to the wiping out the dinosaurs, for instance, would have the same effect on us. Certainly no small number of people would die, but I do believe humanity itself would endure.
My reasoning is simply this. We have intellect. Dinosaurs did not.
When one cheats at solitaire, they are only depriving themselves of some sense of accomplishment that comes with winning the game as it was designed. If that really means so little, then why are they even playing the game at all?
What non programmer will compile software in the first place? Plenty of open source apps are only available from the creator as source, and not in binary form. If the software is any good, somebody else might make prebuilds for it, and they should be free to do so as long as they adhere to the licensing terms for redistribution.
Uh... what? Where?
According to this even the some of the highest paying positions with a good tech company aren't liable to net you much more than $100k or so per year, which works out to about $50 an hour.
Yeah, a paid developer should be able to afford $99/year without a problem... but saying that they can make that in an hour is nothing but an outright exaggeration.
If all your apps are free and open source, then there's no requirement that you pay the $99 at all... simply publish the source code.
Depends.... are you paying for something at your website that somehow relates to an application on that device?
If so, yes
What on earth would the point of that be?
Ultima was solitaire.
How bad does it have to get to feel like you need to cheat at solitaire?
True... you can't redistribute your binary... but doesn't the GPL only require that people who receive the software have the right to redistribute the *SOURCE*?
You do not need to jailbreak the device in order to compile apps for it, unless you do not have an iOS developer's license.
The provision that a person should not have to have such a license seems to me to be no more arbitrary than requiring a particular commercial compiler, and should not affect the availability of the source code or the ability for people to modify and recompile it.
It really seems to me like the VLC developer was objecting that it was being ported to a platform that costs money to develop for.
Uh, no... if the source is available, and you have an app developer's license for iOS, then you can compile any iOS source code you want and install it in your own devices. Redistributing the binary requires going through the iOS store, but if it's GPL, you can redistribute your modified the source code however you want.
Or is the objection that it requires a (paid) developer's license to compile for the platform? How is that any different than, say, requiring a particular commercial compiler?
I get why Apple didn't feel like fighting him on it... it's not their fight, nor should it be. But the VLC developer who decided to go after Apple for that was an idiot... completely defeating the entire point of having his software be GPL in the first place, and in the process, probably scaring quite a few people away from using GPL software entirely legitimately.
I don't get that.... in what way did the person who ported VLC to iOS not comply with the GPL? Was the source code for the iOS app unavailable?
Is it really so difficult for the USA to implement when it's been used successfully for decades in several other countries?
Misleading, perhaps... but in all fairness, the headline doesn't at all actually say that IBM were the first ones to do it... only that they did.
Heck, do you know how much your weight in printer ink would cost???
A cursory examination of current retail prices at nation-wide computer and electronics stores, and then working out the cost per unit of weight brings it to around $45 per ounce. That makes the average adult worth over $100,000!
Which means that the one who provided the binary to them has failed to comply with the GPL because he has not taken any effor to pass on those freedoms to people who obtained the software.
You always have a right to use GPL code whether or not you agree to its terms.
You have no right to *COPY*, above and beyond whatever sense of copying is necessary to simply utilize the software in the first place, GPL code without agreeing to its terms.
But in this sense, the GPL is basically no different than any other type of copyright notice which says something to the effect of no portion of the work may be copied without permission... the GPL only differs in that it explicitly describes what entails getting permission to copy, which is agreeing to its terms.
It's my understanding that the GPL requires only that you give source code to people that that have legally acquired the binary from you. It does not require that you provide source to anyone else, even if they otherwise legally obtained your binary. The trick here is that it also requires that you may *NOT* prevent anyone who legally obtains the source code from you from further distributing it to others, even to people who have not received any binaries from you, with the exact same freedoms and limitations applying to whoever receives it from them, so if somebody legally obtained the binary from somebody else, but not the source code, when you only gave source code to people who purchased licensed binaries from you, being GPL compliant yourself, then the person they got it from has committed the violation and not you.
I appreciate that you were probably trying to be helpful, but I did specifically mention that it was unsupported as a slackbuild. Ubuntu is not Slackware. Slackware64 out of the box is a pure 64 bit system that does not support 32 bit binaries without installing additional software (multilib) that, while readily available and quite commonly used, has not ever been officially supported by the slackware distribution, or by slackbuilds.org. It is my understanding that this is a deliberate choice because it is not unheard of for some applications to fail to build correctly on a system which supports both 32bit and 64bit binaries because the build file is set up in such a way that the linker may try to link the wrong libraries when both are present. Editing the build file will usually correct this, but because not all projects which are supported by slackbulds.org have had their build files manually adjusted to account for the possibility of a dual 32-bit/64-bit system. A user thus enables running 32-bit binaries on 64-bit Slackware entirely at their own risk, and must potentially hand-edit other people's build files to build applications to run on it.
While I understand it's possible to get Wine working on 64-bit Linux, it's my experience that it's not really supported on a pure-64 bit system... at least not on Slackbuilds.org
Do they also refuse to allow people to read paper books during those times?
If it's an attention issue, do they prohibit people from sleeping during those times?
While there's nothing that can be done to stop a kid from doing something like this, there *are* ways to be absolutely certain that the device was used during the evening after you went to bed, or that it was tampered with in some way.
I realize that when a parent feels they have to resort to such measures, then in part, there's a battle involved that's already occurred and there's little hope of salvaging, but it can still be better than nothing at all.
The so-called choice to buy another car is moot in this regard once all car manufacturers have them.
How do tag somebody who isn't a facebook user?
If this is possible, how does it keep somebody from not needing your approval to tag you even if you request it by using a mispelling of your name, or a nickname you might go by? If that's the case, the requirement to review tags is not particularly valuable.