You might want to check with Diebold first. Who knows, the next election fraud may produce an even worse result.
What, you think the last election was honest? Seriously? Then I can't take anything you say seriously. I literally can't, because you are either self blinded, or your sources of information are controlled.
But why should this matter? Seriously, most projects choose a license that they find suitable and use it. I.e., the entire project uses it. What do they want to do that makes the GPL3 unsuitable? If I knew that I might approve, or not. So far I haven't heard any good reasons for objecting to GPL3 except "we can't convert our code". I accept that as a valid reason, but the main project that has that choice in it's license is the Linux kernel and that's going to STAY GPL2 no matter WHAT the GPL3 license is. No choice.
So, why is the GPL2 suitable, but the GPL3 not? The main reasons I've seen suggested are rather disreputable, and the sort that anyone would be ashamed to admit about ones intentions. I suspect that's why I don't hear detailed objections (except, again, from HP), but this is a guess. However it's a guess that causes me to look with a jaundiced eye at those who are objecting incoherently.
I'll need to look over HPs objections a bit before I decide whether or not they are vaild from my perspective. My first impression is that they aren't. If someone points out how HP has been a good member of the community, then I'll consider their goals & desires are more worthy of consideration. My impression of them has been as a sponge and a net drag, but I could be wrong. OTOH, support that says "first install windows" doesn't get my vote for anything positive. At all. Support for a PRINTER problem. A TCP/IP connected printer! (Fortunately I had a Mac I could throw on the network, but I was not and am not pleased.)
Only by having an application so attractive that you WANT to run the application. That's the only leverage available...and that's the leverage that the GPL, in any version, to greater or lesser extent, provides.
Actually, the Linux kernel project DON'T have a choice. It is and will be GPL2. To switch to GPL3 would require getting the agreement of a very large number of people, living and dead...or just totally out of contact. This isn't going to happen.
GPL3 will be used where GPL3 is used. It will (probably) be compatible with GPL2, so I don't expect any conflict there. Some people will choose to use it, some will choose GPL2, some BSD, etc. And this makes me quite suspicious of those who are vehemently against GPL3. (Note that the comment is "from someone who was purported to be Linus Tolvard". Wonder who it was.) What is it that they want to do with MY code that the GPL3 would be so bad for, and why can't they explain how it would be so bad? (Well, if it *is* Linux, then he's got a lot of credibility, but I still want an answer.)
HP apparently has some objection as to how patents are handled. I'll have to read their objection, but I'm disposed to dismiss it. HP doesn't, to me, have a strong reputation as a member of the community. (I know some feel that it does. Perhaps parts of it do, but the company as a whole definitely doesn't.) Still, the objections *might* have merit, even though they are about patents...as long as they aren't about software patents.
But notice that with HP's objection, you CAN check (and I'm quite certain that lots of people who are closer to the process than I am *are* checking). This is the sign of an objection that's worth taking seriously. (I more or less cavalierly dismiss it because 1. it's about patents, and 2. it's from HP... but my real reason for being so cavalier is... 3. my opinion isn't going to have a lot of influence. [If it would, I'd be much more careful with it, though I suspect it would come to the same conclusion in the end.])
It all depends on what you're doing. If you are running a neural network, 8 cores is too few rather than excessive.
Part of the problem is that we've spent centuries designing things for a single flow of control, so everything we know how to do is single flow of control. Partly it's that multiple streams of control are more difficult. If you end up doing context swtiching, then it's clearly going to be an expensive operation.
OTOH, the nervous systems of everything from nematodes to humans proves that with appropriate algorithms a multi-cpu computer (for a high value of "multi") can be very effective. This may become more important as transistors shrink, but it's already becoming significant or we wouldn't be seeing any of these multi-core CPUs.
OTOH, I'll grant that the CURRENT desktop market doesn't need 8-core chips.
Except that the standard contract allows the Music Companies (i.e., the RIAA members, rather than the RIAA itself) to spend money to advertise their works at it's discresion and charge it to the artists, whether they benefit or not. So bet on it, the artists owe money to the companies they signed with (though not to the RIAA as such).
Well, NO, I don't expect MSWind to work on "any platform". I know better. I expect, instead, that the platforms it doesn't work on will stop being sold. For now.
I think MUCH more highly of Apple than of MS, and it does do a good job of hardware integration. I Have my wife on a Mac, because Linux doesn't have the applications that she needs. (This might actually be "because I can't tell that Linux has the applications that she needs". I'm talking about musical score editors and animation packages. And it might well be that my system doesn't support the things which are working on other systems [I'm rather certain my midi card is broken]).
But I've been considering how difficult Linux is to use, and I've decided that it's actually easier than the Mac. (And, of course, easier than MSWind.) True there is some maintenance that should be done occasionally...but that's gotten quite easy, and, additionally, I'm the person that needs to do it even on her Mac, so that's no argument.
The problem it solely applications. And not many of them.
Make that *some* Apple fans...though I suspect that the number that remain Apple fans is decreasing as Linux improves.
Yes, it's nice that Apple "just works". But the same is nearly true of Ubuntu and, if reputation is accurate, of Xandros and Linspire. Possibly also PCLinux. There's just a few little tweaks here and there still neededd. Now due to licensing, Ubuntu may never get there with a free edition (note that the others that I mentioned were commercial) because of things like licensed codecs...but it can get close. And, if rumor is correct, there's talk of a commercial edition that WILL contain the proprietary stuff.
We'd almost certainly be better off if we'd responded to 9/11 by doing nothing official. Except, perhaps, legalizing the creation and awarding of a reward for the perpetrators...with official judges to ensure that there was sufficient evidence that the persons turned over actually were the guilty parties.
But then we'd need a new... president? vice-president? head of the CIA? I don't know who the lead party is, but he's someone high up in the government (or, of course, with a lot of power over the people high up in the government). Unfortunately, that's a large list, and evidence is quite hard to come by. You see rulings here, and decisions there, and you don't know exactly who decided on them and who had to approve them. You see evidence ignored, and you don't know why. Was it reasonable, in this case? Perhaps. Or at least non-culpable. But when there's a pattern of behavior you know that somewhere in that bush there is a tiger. But it's a big bush, and you have only a few bullets (if any!).
Ever made a decision in a large office. Sometimes things that shouldn't have been allowed to pass are let pass. Sometimes things that appear perfectly reasonable are overruled. And you may not know why. You know what the official chain of command is, but it doesn't match the real flows of power. And the person actually making the decisions may be someone aparently minor.
Joseph Stalin became the power in the Soviet Union because he was the party secretary, i.e., the person entrusted with informing others of when the meeting would be held. By timing who he let know when he was able to affect who would show up to vote. Eventually his political foes started finding out about meetings only after the votes had been counted. History shows how things developed from there, but that was the start. He wasn't officially anyone important. Not then.
This is largely, but definitely not entirely, true. If you want a blatant example of the system being corrupted to serve the interests of the powerful, check into how corporations became legal persons. There never was a legal decision that decided that, it was some law clerk's transcription. But it's the law now. Just *try* to challenge it.
As in most of the law, the reason that his transcription was allowed to stand was that it benefitted powerful interests. Whether these same interests caused the original transcription to be written is not know by me.
If you want clear cases where people have suborned legislators whether legally or illegally, you can find them. Proving that a law was passed because of bribery *might* get someone thrown in jail (quite unsual), but it doesn't get rid of the law. These days the laws are such that only a very careless attempt at bribery is actually illegal, however. It was too embarassing several times in the past, so the laws were changed.
A smaller government is better, if it means less administrative overhead and reduced central control. If it doesn't mean that, then it can be worse. (Well, and even if it does. I can easily envision scenarios where there is more efficient government with reduced central control which are worse. A lot depends on the purposes of the government.)
I don't have "reams and reams", and I'm not making the kind of sweeping assertion you seem to be reading. OTOH, I have met and worked with scientists a few times, and I do have eyes in my head.
One example: An IUD is a mechanical device for performing abortions on embryos a day or two old. NOBODY talks about this, even though it's common knowledge within the field.
You describe an ideal, but real work is done by real people. Real scientists are quite likely to intentionally avoid saying things that would "give aid and comfort to the enemy", and given the way "official christians" have been behaving recently, they are very likely to be seen as "the enemy".
The Greeks knew not only that the earth was round, but it's approximate size. They go back to before 1 BC. SOME Christians thought the world was flat. That's because they were stupid and ignorant. Some knew the Greek math. A few even taught it.
Don't blame the flat-earth theory on the Christians. It's just that different kinds of stupidity like to clump together on the same people.
I notice that you don't provide any pointers. Were I to believe that you were a representative of the Plan9 crowd it would, indeed, kill any interest I had in it. However I suspect you are merely a troll.
But he's predicting the paths of those typhoons in real time, not typhoons predicted to occur 10 years from now.
The predictions won't be at a fine grained level...even if they manage to get the modeled area down in size to an acre (and they'd like even finer) they won't be able to escape chaotic effects. But many chaotic effects can be "summarized", as temperature "summarizes" the speeds of atoms within a particular piece of material. So you may not be able to predict details (a typhoon will strike land near Kyoto at 3:57 PM on Aug 27, 2016), but still be able to predict "intermediate" level results "2016 will have an unusually strong typhoon season, but it will end early and will feature more typhoons at both the small and the large ends, and fewer in the middle").
Caution: I am not a climate scientist of any sort, much less a climate modeler, so my examples are wholecloth. The process, however, is about right, as I understand it.
Yes, but *climate* predictions can be accurate for much longer. And there are intermediate levels that fall between climate and weather that are more easily predicted than local weather (and especially than micro-clime weather).
This is a popularized version of an article that was probably originally written in Japanese. And I doubt that the translator was a climate modeling specialist.
(OTOH, this *could* just be pork-barrel politics.)
Yeah, there are people who argue that. And in a kind of shortsighted way it makes sense.
And I've been known to target some particular application to a particular group of users (in one case 15 individuals). In that case I spec not only the browser, but the OS...and in that particular case I configured the OS to boot directly into my custom application.
This doesn't mean I think the idea of standards is bad, but I am *very* skeptical of the groups that grab control of standards. I believe that standard compliance should be voluntary. Totally. And that if a standard isn't useful, it should be deleted (not merely ignored, but ruled invalid). However, in order to do this you need some kind of body to do the adoption and repeal of standards.
I'm not sure the W3C has proven itself a trustworthy custodian of standards. It tends to want to adopt proprietary standards, and then allow people to be charged for using them. (And worse, not charged by the standards organization...which could be seen as a fair user charge, but charge by one [or more?] of the companies that helped design the standard.) Actions like that cause me to feel we would be better off without ANY W3C than with the one we've got. And then there's R.A.N.D., which is a clear attempt to prevent GPL software from using the standards.
If the W3C were much worse, I would recommend DEFINITELY dropping them immediately and either starting from scratch or attempting to "muddle through". As it is, however, they frequently provide a reasonable language about which to describe things. I'm reminded of the difference between the French grammar of France (government approved by designated sub-committee) and the grammar of English (when the Queen speaks, she says things this way...do what you chose, but you may reveal yourself as an uncultured idiot). I find that I approve of the English approach over the French... I have no trouble (except for spelling) with "Hasta la vista", but the official French committee got into a tizzy over "baby-sitter". Of course, our histories and geographies are different.
The W3C is maintained and manipulated by a tight group of corporations to make decisions to their benefit. We need to realize this, and decide which of their decisons we consider acceptable, and which should be ignored. And not require VAST amounts of proof before deciding to ignore one of their decisions. This would be easier if there were a parallel organization of groups (and individuals) that were NOT represented on the W3c, which would issue it's own standards. Normally these could be rubber stamps of the W3C standards (to the extend that the W3C would allow this), and compatibility should certainly be striven for...if not insisted on. But when necessary, they could diverge, and then people could chose which standard to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
You might want to check with Diebold first. Who knows, the next election fraud may produce an even worse result.
What, you think the last election was honest? Seriously?
Then I can't take anything you say seriously. I literally can't, because you are either self blinded, or your sources of information are controlled.
YOU may grant such permission. *I* don't.
I'd rather grant such rights to protestors than to politicians. They have done more to earn my trust.
They'll stick with GPL2.
But why should this matter? Seriously, most projects choose a license that they find suitable and use it. I.e., the entire project uses it. What do they want to do that makes the GPL3 unsuitable? If I knew that I might approve, or not. So far I haven't heard any good reasons for objecting to GPL3 except "we can't convert our code". I accept that as a valid reason, but the main project that has that choice in it's license is the Linux kernel and that's going to STAY GPL2 no matter WHAT the GPL3 license is. No choice.
So, why is the GPL2 suitable, but the GPL3 not? The main reasons I've seen suggested are rather disreputable, and the sort that anyone would be ashamed to admit about ones intentions. I suspect that's why I don't hear detailed objections (except, again, from HP), but this is a guess. However it's a guess that causes me to look with a jaundiced eye at those who are objecting incoherently.
I'll need to look over HPs objections a bit before I decide whether or not they are vaild from my perspective. My first impression is that they aren't. If someone points out how HP has been a good member of the community, then I'll consider their goals & desires are more worthy of consideration. My impression of them has been as a sponge and a net drag, but I could be wrong. OTOH, support that says "first install windows" doesn't get my vote for anything positive. At all. Support for a PRINTER problem. A TCP/IP connected printer! (Fortunately I had a Mac I could throw on the network, but I was not and am not pleased.)
Only by having an application so attractive that you WANT to run the application. That's the only leverage available...and that's the leverage that the GPL, in any version, to greater or lesser extent, provides.
Actually, the Linux kernel project DON'T have a choice. It is and will be GPL2. To switch to GPL3 would require getting the agreement of a very large number of people, living and dead...or just totally out of contact. This isn't going to happen.
... but my real reason for being so cavalier is... 3. my opinion isn't going to have a lot of influence. [If it would, I'd be much more careful with it, though I suspect it would come to the same conclusion in the end.])
GPL3 will be used where GPL3 is used. It will (probably) be compatible with GPL2, so I don't expect any conflict there. Some people will choose to use it, some will choose GPL2, some BSD, etc. And this makes me quite suspicious of those who are vehemently against GPL3. (Note that the comment is "from someone who was purported to be Linus Tolvard". Wonder who it was.) What is it that they want to do with MY code that the GPL3 would be so bad for, and why can't they explain how it would be so bad? (Well, if it *is* Linux, then he's got a lot of credibility, but I still want an answer.)
HP apparently has some objection as to how patents are handled. I'll have to read their objection, but I'm disposed to dismiss it. HP doesn't, to me, have a strong reputation as a member of the community. (I know some feel that it does. Perhaps parts of it do, but the company as a whole definitely doesn't.) Still, the objections *might* have merit, even though they are about patents...as long as they aren't about software patents.
But notice that with HP's objection, you CAN check (and I'm quite certain that lots of people who are closer to the process than I am *are* checking). This is the sign of an objection that's worth taking seriously. (I more or less cavalierly dismiss it because 1. it's about patents, and 2. it's from HP
It all depends on what you're doing. If you are running a neural network, 8 cores is too few rather than excessive.
Part of the problem is that we've spent centuries designing things for a single flow of control, so everything we know how to do is single flow of control. Partly it's that multiple streams of control are more difficult. If you end up doing context swtiching, then it's clearly going to be an expensive operation.
OTOH, the nervous systems of everything from nematodes to humans proves that with appropriate algorithms a multi-cpu computer (for a high value of "multi") can be very effective. This may become more important as transistors shrink, but it's already becoming significant or we wouldn't be seeing any of these multi-core CPUs.
OTOH, I'll grant that the CURRENT desktop market doesn't need 8-core chips.
Except that the standard contract allows the Music Companies (i.e., the RIAA members, rather than the RIAA itself) to spend money to advertise their works at it's discresion and charge it to the artists, whether they benefit or not. So bet on it, the artists owe money to the companies they signed with (though not to the RIAA as such).
Rosegarden aparently doesn't work on my computer. Possibly, as I mentioned, a bad midi card.
Sigh ... yes.
They aren't always better, but sometimes they're the only option...if they're there.
Well, NO, I don't expect MSWind to work on "any platform". I know better. I expect, instead, that the platforms it doesn't work on will stop being sold. For now.
I think MUCH more highly of Apple than of MS, and it does do a good job of hardware integration. I Have my wife on a Mac, because Linux doesn't have the applications that she needs. (This might actually be "because I can't tell that Linux has the applications that she needs". I'm talking about musical score editors and animation packages. And it might well be that my system doesn't support the things which are working on other systems [I'm rather certain my midi card is broken]).
But I've been considering how difficult Linux is to use, and I've decided that it's actually easier than the Mac. (And, of course, easier than MSWind.) True there is some maintenance that should be done occasionally...but that's gotten quite easy, and, additionally, I'm the person that needs to do it even on her Mac, so that's no argument.
The problem it solely applications. And not many of them.
Make that *some* Apple fans...though I suspect that the number that remain Apple fans is decreasing as Linux improves.
Yes, it's nice that Apple "just works". But the same is nearly true of Ubuntu and, if reputation is accurate, of Xandros and Linspire. Possibly also PCLinux. There's just a few little tweaks here and there still neededd. Now due to licensing, Ubuntu may never get there with a free edition (note that the others that I mentioned were commercial) because of things like licensed codecs...but it can get close. And, if rumor is correct, there's talk of a commercial edition that WILL contain the proprietary stuff.
We'd almost certainly be better off if we'd responded to 9/11 by doing nothing official. Except, perhaps, legalizing the creation and awarding of a reward for the perpetrators...with official judges to ensure that there was sufficient evidence that the persons turned over actually were the guilty parties.
... president? vice-president? head of the CIA? I don't know who the lead party is, but he's someone high up in the government (or, of course, with a lot of power over the people high up in the government). Unfortunately, that's a large list, and evidence is quite hard to come by. You see rulings here, and decisions there, and you don't know exactly who decided on them and who had to approve them. You see evidence ignored, and you don't know why. Was it reasonable, in this case? Perhaps. Or at least non-culpable. But when there's a pattern of behavior you know that somewhere in that bush there is a tiger. But it's a big bush, and you have only a few bullets (if any!).
But then we'd need a new
Ever made a decision in a large office. Sometimes things that shouldn't have been allowed to pass are let pass. Sometimes things that appear perfectly reasonable are overruled. And you may not know why. You know what the official chain of command is, but it doesn't match the real flows of power. And the person actually making the decisions may be someone aparently minor.
Joseph Stalin became the power in the Soviet Union because he was the party secretary, i.e., the person entrusted with informing others of when the meeting would be held. By timing who he let know when he was able to affect who would show up to vote. Eventually his political foes started finding out about meetings only after the votes had been counted. History shows how things developed from there, but that was the start. He wasn't officially anyone important. Not then.
This is largely, but definitely not entirely, true. If you want a blatant example of the system being corrupted to serve the interests of the powerful, check into how corporations became legal persons. There never was a legal decision that decided that, it was some law clerk's transcription. But it's the law now. Just *try* to challenge it.
As in most of the law, the reason that his transcription was allowed to stand was that it benefitted powerful interests. Whether these same interests caused the original transcription to be written is not know by me.
If you want clear cases where people have suborned legislators whether legally or illegally, you can find them. Proving that a law was passed because of bribery *might* get someone thrown in jail (quite unsual), but it doesn't get rid of the law. These days the laws are such that only a very careless attempt at bribery is actually illegal, however. It was too embarassing several times in the past, so the laws were changed.
So just put film over parts of the numbers...or drive through a muddy dirt road.
A smaller government is better, if it means less administrative overhead and reduced central control. If it doesn't mean that, then it can be worse. (Well, and even if it does. I can easily envision scenarios where there is more efficient government with reduced central control which are worse. A lot depends on the purposes of the government.)
I don't have "reams and reams", and I'm not making the kind of sweeping assertion you seem to be reading. OTOH, I have met and worked with scientists a few times, and I do have eyes in my head.
One example: An IUD is a mechanical device for performing abortions on embryos a day or two old. NOBODY talks about this, even though it's common knowledge within the field.
You describe an ideal, but real work is done by real people. Real scientists are quite likely to intentionally avoid saying things that would "give aid and comfort to the enemy", and given the way "official christians" have been behaving recently, they are very likely to be seen as "the enemy".
How many thousand was that?
The Greeks knew not only that the earth was round, but it's approximate size. They go back to before 1 BC. SOME Christians thought the world was flat. That's because they were stupid and ignorant. Some knew the Greek math. A few even taught it.
Don't blame the flat-earth theory on the Christians. It's just that different kinds of stupidity like to clump together on the same people.
I notice that you don't provide any pointers. Were I to believe that you were a representative of the Plan9 crowd it would, indeed, kill any interest I had in it. However I suspect you are merely a troll.
Oogh...which means that the first time you upgrade your system...well, you can expect "interesting" behavior.
But he's predicting the paths of those typhoons in real time, not typhoons predicted to occur 10 years from now.
The predictions won't be at a fine grained level...even if they manage to get the modeled area down in size to an acre (and they'd like even finer) they won't be able to escape chaotic effects. But many chaotic effects can be "summarized", as temperature "summarizes" the speeds of atoms within a particular piece of material. So you may not be able to predict details (a typhoon will strike land near Kyoto at 3:57 PM on Aug 27, 2016), but still be able to predict "intermediate" level results "2016 will have an unusually strong typhoon season, but it will end early and will feature more typhoons at both the small and the large ends, and fewer in the middle").
Caution: I am not a climate scientist of any sort, much less a climate modeler, so my examples are wholecloth. The process, however, is about right, as I understand it.
Yes, but *climate* predictions can be accurate for much longer. And there are intermediate levels that fall between climate and weather that are more easily predicted than local weather (and especially than micro-clime weather).
This is a popularized version of an article that was probably originally written in Japanese. And I doubt that the translator was a climate modeling specialist.
(OTOH, this *could* just be pork-barrel politics.)
It's unusual, I admit, but in THIS case it appears apt.
Yeah, there are people who argue that. And in a kind of shortsighted way it makes sense.
... I have no trouble (except for spelling) with "Hasta la vista", but the official French committee got into a tizzy over "baby-sitter". Of course, our histories and geographies are different.
And I've been known to target some particular application to a particular group of users (in one case 15 individuals). In that case I spec not only the browser, but the OS...and in that particular case I configured the OS to boot directly into my custom application.
This doesn't mean I think the idea of standards is bad, but I am *very* skeptical of the groups that grab control of standards. I believe that standard compliance should be voluntary. Totally. And that if a standard isn't useful, it should be deleted (not merely ignored, but ruled invalid). However, in order to do this you need some kind of body to do the adoption and repeal of standards.
I'm not sure the W3C has proven itself a trustworthy custodian of standards. It tends to want to adopt proprietary standards, and then allow people to be charged for using them. (And worse, not charged by the standards organization...which could be seen as a fair user charge, but charge by one [or more?] of the companies that helped design the standard.) Actions like that cause me to feel we would be better off without ANY W3C than with the one we've got. And then there's R.A.N.D., which is a clear attempt to prevent GPL software from using the standards.
If the W3C were much worse, I would recommend DEFINITELY dropping them immediately and either starting from scratch or attempting to "muddle through". As it is, however, they frequently provide a reasonable language about which to describe things. I'm reminded of the difference between the French grammar of France (government approved by designated sub-committee) and the grammar of English (when the Queen speaks, she says things this way...do what you chose, but you may reveal yourself as an uncultured idiot). I find that I approve of the English approach over the French
The W3C is maintained and manipulated by a tight group of corporations to make decisions to their benefit. We need to realize this, and decide which of their decisons we consider acceptable, and which should be ignored. And not require VAST amounts of proof before deciding to ignore one of their decisions. This would be easier if there were a parallel organization of groups (and individuals) that were NOT represented on the W3c, which would issue it's own standards. Normally these could be rubber stamps of the W3C standards (to the extend that the W3C would allow this), and compatibility should certainly be striven for...if not insisted on. But when necessary, they could diverge, and then people could chose which standard to follow.