But this is not about his worldly possessions, it's about his intellectual "possessions", letters he wrote and other products of the mind. Many people wish that noone will gain access to such intimate information, even after their death.
When my great-aunt had died, my grandfather came over to us with a box containing letters. My parents have a stove with fire and all. My grandfather burned the letters, to fulfill a promise he gave my great-aunt.
If they had they rid the world of VBA on top of publishing their binary specs in an Open Source compatible way, their reputation bar might have ended up on the "good guy" side:).
But it needs a memory upgrade and a new video card to run Vista. Well, next time you buy a Turing machine, you should go right for the Aleph brand memory tape. Plain old infinity obviously doesn't cut it.
How then, do you suggest, can the GPL work in Europe? If you distribute GPL code, you must have implicitly agreed to the license, otherwise, you wouldn't be entitled to further distribution. The GPL has been tested in various European (at least German) courts, so I believe that this form of (voluntary) implicit agreement is considered valid.
Regarding the "use" part of the MS licenses -- well, if agreeing to the license is not a prerequisite for use in Europe, I can use the software anyway, great:-). No problem there. When I want to distribute, I can still agree and do it.
In theory, it could be able to, since it's implemented in IronPython which runs fine on Mono. OTOH, their Website states that currently it only runs on Windows, possibly because they use parts of.NET that are missing in Mono. Or maybe there are some native parts too. They'll consider other OS if interest should arise.
You can't "accept" the license as it's not a contract.
So that's why there is never an "I agree" button when I am presented with an EULA... hey, wait a minute.
I believe a license usually is given by both sides agreeing on certain conditions... a contract. Well, at least in German law. Maybe in anglo-saxon law a license is something special. However, if I am obliged to something under the terms of a license, I may very well choose not to accept these obligations (and not to accept the rights either).
SOooooooo, what I wonder is this: if the Original IP belonged to Caldera (and now, through aquisition, DR-DOS inc) aren't they free to do with it -and with derived products as they see fit?
Well, generally, the author of a derived work retains copyright in the work he created, i.e. the parts he created and how they fit in with the base work. The author of the original work has no rights on the modifications except by agreement.
If TFA is true, I don't have a really high opinion of these guys (charging $45 for a couple of 3rd-party kernel inhancements and distributing GNU software illictly -without source); but look back at the original license for the kernel source and I bet you ten to one that there is a clause in there which allows this behavior by the owner of the DR DOS code base.
If the code really was released under GPL and the FreeDOS people used only GPL code, there was no such clause. The GPL has no such clause.
You're wrong. Someone who has accepted the licence may subsequently break its terms. The consequence of breaking the terms of the GPL is simply the forfeiture of the rights that were granted, i.e. redistribution and modification, in addition to the ordinary rights that are granted by copyright law.
Now if I sue the one who is distributing a piece of software that breaks the GPL, he may either tell me that he hasn't accepted the GPL anyway. In which case he has commited ordinary copyright infringement. On the other hand, he may tell me that he had the right to distribute under the GPL, which he has accepted. My answer is that he BROKE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the licence under which he was allowed to distribute. And therefore, he had no right to distribute, neither under copyright law, nor under the more permissive licence.
No, it does not. It is sufficient that - no matter and in what way the king flips - the one to say yes knows that everyone has been in the room. That is possible if each of the prisoners turns the cup often enough that the king can neither cause an early yes or delay it indefinitely. Which is possible.
If any boy opens the door (we don't know if he's the firstborn), BB becomes twice as probable as BG or GB (the conditional probability P(BB | a random child is B) is greater than P(BG | a random child is B) and greater than P(GB | a random child is B)
I believe you're wrong. See my other post and tell me what you think:). Short:
- If any boy opens the door (we don't know if he's the firstborn), BB becomes twice as probable as BG or GB (the conditional probability P(BB | a random child is B) is greater than P(BG | a random child is B)) and therefore the probability of the second child being a girl equals that of the second child being a boy.
- If the firstborn opens the door and it's a boy, BB is equally probable as BG (since P(BB | firstborn is B) = P(BG | firstborn is B).
In both cases, I think that the probability of the second child being a girl or boy stays the same. Which coincides with common sense.
In the first case where you don't know if the boy is the first child or not there are four possibilites BB, BG, GB and GG. We can eliminate GG since that's now impossible. From the remaining 3 cases only BB would allow the second child to be a boy so the chance that the other child is a girl is 2/3.
Well, this is obviously wrong. When you see a boy open the door BB, BG and GB are not equally probable anymore; BB becomes more probable than BG or GB.
Let's do the math: The probability of a boy opening under the condition that there are two boys is 100%: P(B | BB) = 1 The other cases: P(B | BG) = P(B | GB) =.5 P(B | GG) = 0
Now, we want the inverse probability P(BB | B) = = P(BB, B) / P(B) = P(B | BB) * P(BB) / P(B) = 1 *.25 / P(B)
P(B) is the sum over all 4 cases P(B | xx) * P(xx) where xx=BB,BG,GB,GG P(B) = (1 +.5 +.5 + 0) *.25 =.5
=> P(BB | B) =.5
and P(BG | B) = P(BG,B) / P(B) = P(B | BG) * P(BG) / P(B) =.5 *.25 /.5 =.25
=> P(BG | B) != P(BB | B) - when a boy has opened the door, BB is twice as probable as BG or GB, which makes the chance of the second child being a girl equally probable as being a boy.
The king CANNOT "never call a prisoner again". It is guaranteed that any prisoner will be called an arbitrary number of times, until the end of the riddle. The king may decide to call prisoner A a million times in a row, if he so pleases, but at some point in the future, B will be called again.
You're not in a hurry?! Have you looked at European demographics lately? Calculated what a 1.2 children/woman birthrate does for your population, long-term? Figured out how many 55-year-old full-medical-benefits retirees each European worker is expected to support in 15 years (after 15 more years of 1% annual economic growth rate, I might add)? Or thought fully through the implications of that burgeoning and wholly unassimilated Islamic subculture?
Yes, there are demographic problems in a number of european countries. Social security systems will have to adapt in order to cope. But I fail to see how speeding up european integration could solve these problems.
That is, I think there's a good chance it's now too late for a pan-European government within traditional post-war European secular socialist values. It's going to be either Balkanization and lifeboat-running-out-of-food mutual cannibalism or the Islamic deluge.
I fail to see the connection. Europe is quite unbalcanized right now, without a strong pan-european government. Why should that change? Who would cannibalize whom in order to gain what?
this isn't about the technologies, we aren't saying people can't create their own root servers and use them, we are saying you can't control our root servers that we have and still are sharing nicely with you.
Well, this isn't about the hardware either. It's about the control of the namespaces. Some nations other than the US demand that the global namespaces are put under the supervision of some global agency that no particular nation controls.
My point is, if the authority is voluntary, based on something like 'reputation', what does it mean to "give it away"?
In a way or another, all authority is observered voluntarily - if the general public doesn't accept authority, it isn't there. All authority is created in the mind. In order to establish the legitimacy of authority, we often observe rituals. Coronations, polls, contracts, celebrating inaugurations, standing to attention before a higher ranked officer...
While a formal handover is unnecessary, it'd greatly help the acceptance of the new authority.
Slashdot Mirror
For a second I was afraid you were done playing Slashdot, my new favorite MMOFPG. It's like Forumwarz, but on stuff that matters!
Hey, that "Anonymous" guy posts over there too. Only now I know his last name is "Coward" :-D.
...who also invented an early telephone. In 1861!
Actually, I remember starting IronPython on Mono... I think it just worked.
You CAN pass a fundamental type by reference in C# (a method void add(int a, int b, ref int result) will write to result). That is what he meant.
Obviously, the thief who didn't know about the hardware phoning home also wouldn't have known about the theft protection and taken it anyway.
I actually don't WANT to look into the program options of all the stuff that puts itself into my system tray. I like the msconfig way :).
But this is not about his worldly possessions, it's about his intellectual "possessions", letters he wrote and other products of the mind. Many people wish that noone will gain access to such intimate information, even after their death.
When my great-aunt had died, my grandfather came over to us with a box containing letters. My parents have a stove with fire and all. My grandfather burned the letters, to fulfill a promise he gave my great-aunt.
If they had they rid the world of VBA on top of publishing their binary specs in an Open Source compatible way, their reputation bar might have ended up on the "good guy" side :).
How then, do you suggest, can the GPL work in Europe? If you distribute GPL code, you must have implicitly agreed to the license, otherwise, you wouldn't be entitled to further distribution. The GPL has been tested in various European (at least German) courts, so I believe that this form of (voluntary) implicit agreement is considered valid.
:-). No problem there. When I want to distribute, I can still agree and do it.
Regarding the "use" part of the MS licenses -- well, if agreeing to the license is not a prerequisite for use in Europe, I can use the software anyway, great
errr... no it doesn't. Except for parts that don't use native interfaces. The mono runtime doesn't emulate the Windows API.
In theory, it could be able to, since it's implemented in IronPython which runs fine on Mono. OTOH, their Website states that currently it only runs on Windows, possibly because they use parts of .NET that are missing in Mono. Or maybe there are some native parts too. They'll consider other OS if interest should arise.
You can't "accept" the license as it's not a contract.
So that's why there is never an "I agree" button when I am presented with an EULA... hey, wait a minute.
I believe a license usually is given by both sides agreeing on certain conditions... a contract. Well, at least in German law. Maybe in anglo-saxon law a license is something special. However, if I am obliged to something under the terms of a license, I may very well choose not to accept these obligations (and not to accept the rights either).
SOooooooo, what I wonder is this: if the Original IP belonged to Caldera (and now, through aquisition, DR-DOS inc) aren't they free to do with it -and with derived products as
they see fit?
Well, generally, the author of a derived work retains copyright in the work he created, i.e. the parts he created and how they fit in with the base work. The author of the original work has no rights on the modifications except by agreement.
If TFA is true, I don't have a really high opinion of these guys (charging $45 for a couple of 3rd-party kernel inhancements and distributing GNU software illictly -without source); but look back at the original license for the kernel source and I bet you ten to one that there is a clause in there which allows this behavior by the owner of the DR DOS code base.
If the code really was released under GPL and the FreeDOS people used only GPL code, there was no such clause. The GPL has no such clause.
You're wrong. Someone who has accepted the licence may subsequently break its terms. The consequence of breaking the terms of the GPL is simply the forfeiture of the rights that were granted, i.e. redistribution and modification, in addition to the ordinary rights that are granted by copyright law.
Now if I sue the one who is distributing a piece of software that breaks the GPL, he may either tell me that he hasn't accepted the GPL anyway. In which case he has commited ordinary copyright infringement. On the other hand, he may tell me that he had the right to distribute under the GPL, which he has accepted. My answer is that he BROKE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS of the licence under which he was allowed to distribute. And therefore, he had no right to distribute, neither under copyright law, nor under the more permissive licence.
No, it does not. It is sufficient that - no matter and in what way the king flips - the one to say yes knows that everyone has been in the room. That is possible if each of the prisoners turns the cup often enough that the king can neither cause an early yes or delay it indefinitely. Which is possible.
That should have said:
If any boy opens the door (we don't know if he's the firstborn), BB becomes twice as probable as BG or GB (the conditional probability P(BB | a random child is B) is greater than P(BG | a random child is B) and greater than P(GB | a random child is B)
to make things clear.
I believe you're wrong. See my other post and tell me what you think :).
Short:
- If any boy opens the door (we don't know if he's the firstborn), BB becomes twice as probable as BG or GB (the conditional probability P(BB | a random child is B) is greater than P(BG | a random child is B)) and therefore the probability of the second child being a girl equals that of the second child being a boy.
- If the firstborn opens the door and it's a boy, BB is equally probable as BG (since P(BB | firstborn is B) = P(BG | firstborn is B).
In both cases, I think that the probability of the second child being a girl or boy stays the same. Which coincides with common sense.
In the first case where you don't know if the boy is the first child or not there are four possibilites BB, BG, GB and GG. We can eliminate GG since that's now impossible. From the remaining 3 cases only BB would allow the second child to be a boy so the chance
.5
.25 / P(B)
.5 + .5 + 0) * .25 = .5
.5
.5 * .25 / .5 = .25
that the other child is a girl is 2/3.
Well, this is obviously wrong. When you see a boy open the door BB, BG and GB are not equally probable anymore; BB becomes more probable than BG or GB.
Let's do the math:
The probability of a boy opening under the condition that there are two boys is 100%:
P(B | BB) = 1
The other cases:
P(B | BG) = P(B | GB) =
P(B | GG) = 0
Now, we want the inverse probability
P(BB | B) =
= P(BB, B) / P(B)
= P(B | BB) * P(BB) / P(B)
= 1 *
P(B) is the sum over all 4 cases P(B | xx) * P(xx) where xx=BB,BG,GB,GG
P(B) = (1 +
=> P(BB | B) =
and P(BG | B)
= P(BG,B) / P(B)
= P(B | BG) * P(BG) / P(B)
=
=> P(BG | B) != P(BB | B) - when a boy has opened the door, BB is twice as probable as BG or GB, which makes the chance of the second child being a girl equally probable as being a boy.
Yes, otherwise, there is no solution
The king CANNOT "never call a prisoner again". It is guaranteed that any prisoner will be called an arbitrary number of times, until the end of the riddle. The king may decide to call prisoner A a million times in a row, if he so pleases, but at some point in the future, B will be called again.
You're not in a hurry?! Have you looked at European demographics lately? Calculated what a 1.2 children/woman birthrate does for your population, long-term? Figured out how many 55-year-old full-medical-benefits retirees each European worker is expected to support in 15 years (after 15 more years of 1% annual economic growth rate, I might add)? Or thought fully through the implications of that burgeoning and wholly unassimilated Islamic subculture?
Yes, there are demographic problems in a number of european countries. Social security systems will have to adapt in order to cope. But I fail to see how speeding up european integration could solve these problems.
That is, I think there's a good chance it's now too late for a pan-European government within traditional post-war European secular socialist values. It's going to be either Balkanization and lifeboat-running-out-of-food mutual cannibalism or the Islamic deluge.
I fail to see the connection. Europe is quite unbalcanized right now, without a strong pan-european government. Why should that change? Who would cannibalize whom in order to gain what?
this isn't about the technologies, we aren't saying people can't create their own root servers and use them, we are saying you can't control our root servers that we have and still are sharing nicely with you.
Well, this isn't about the hardware either. It's about the control of the namespaces. Some nations other than the US demand that the global namespaces are put under the supervision of some global agency that no particular nation controls.
My point is, if the authority is voluntary, based on something like 'reputation', what does it mean to "give it away"?
In a way or another, all authority is observered voluntarily - if the general public doesn't accept authority, it isn't there. All authority is created in the mind. In order to establish the legitimacy of authority, we often observe rituals. Coronations, polls, contracts, celebrating inaugurations, standing to attention before a higher ranked officer...
While a formal handover is unnecessary, it'd greatly help the acceptance of the new authority.