Well, here you go, now you know one. I've only got mild contact highs from pot in particularly unvented parties and have never smoked an entire joint on my own in 32 years on the planet... but I rather like cocaine and crystal to keep up a particularly good blowout lasting, although I'm not really a big fan of either just for themselves. My favorite drug is zoomies, I dunno where you think fungus fits into this 'progression' of yours, and lately I'm rather liking some of the nifty pills going around like Mitsubishis (MDMA/opium) and Stop Signs (MDMA/PCP). And I drink like a fish, but that's just keeping up with the rest of my good Polish peasant family stock. That's how we survived those cold winters, you know.
So there you go. Pot stinks and just the smoke makes me feel sleepy, fuck that, I went straight for the good stuff. Sure I may be a minority, but we're definitely out here:)
I'm glad to see a return to a genuinely creative and interesting stunt from the nadir of "let's go down to the University of Washington, smash the trophy case, and steal the Rose Bowl trophy" a few years back.
Ummmm... well... that was never intended to be a stunt. That was a night of drinking after a day of flying at Tiger that somehow went horribly, horribly wrong. Kinda embarrassing, actually.
But it was one of the best "Dude, what is that thing and why is it on my couch?" moments ever:)
And, if you're not distributing this application, what difference does any of this make?
Well, that's the whole problem -- I *DO* want other Ball owners to use it. If I didn't the GPL wouldn't be any kind of a concern, I know.
As for the driver thing -- I thought that would be unacceptably subverting the spirit of the GPL, but it certainly seems that most people think it'd be fine. I'll probably do that next rev then:)
They are the administrative implementation of 2.6.3:
"2.6.3 Memory used for flight data. The memory used for storage of the flight data to be used in the flight verification process should be of a type and design so that it cannot be accessed, combined (such as in a storage device with software partitions), altered or corrupted by other data legitimately or otherwise present in the equipment..."
Their interpretation is that allowing public disclosure of the protocols is an unacceptable risk of contravening the above provision.
If you are using a device and software to take measurements for indicating a world record, why would you NOT want the software to be public anyway?
The way that aerial records work is that you submit the documentation to them along with the instrument you carried on the flight, and they and ONLY they open up the instrument and see if its recordings match your claims.
It's easy to tell if a device has mechanically been tampered with, not so easy to tell if its been electronically tampered with, so the advent of communications-enabled varios got them in a bit of a snit. The current status is that a very few electronic varios are certified, but under strict conditions about who is allowed to know what the protocols are.
Yes, it's security through obscurity, yes it doesn't stop you or me hacking the device for a second, but pointing that out to them would not let us open the source, it would just make them decertify electronic devices. People who buy these things wouldn't find that a worthwhile tradeoff, trust me on this one.
is there a reason why you can't just release those 38500 lines of code as open source?
The immediate reason is that there isn't a clean separation between the device-communicating code and the rest of it, so the easiest way to avoid any kerfluffle with FAI is to keep it all closed.
I certainly could put the device code into its own library/daemon as people have suggested, and it seems that there's some level of separation of the two at which the GPL would be technically adhered to in the main program -- but that strikes me as obviously subverting the spirit of the GPL so the GPL crusaders would still be mad with me anyway. *shrug* I'll probably give it a try next time I do a major rev and see what happens...
You write a closed-source daemon that talks to the hardware and exports the data via HTTP or RPC or whatever interface style you happen to like.
Well, that certainly does make a lot of sense. But where exactly is the line drawn here? If I can use HTTP, can I use platform specific IPC, like AppleEvents? Can I link directly to a shared library? Can I link to a static library?
Pardon me if the GPL specifically addresses what level of plugin integration is allowable somewhere, but I've never noticed it if it does...
I fail to see how GPL can constrain you as long as you don't distribute your software.
Well, I'm talking about the version that I distribute to other programming-challenged pilots here. I'm quite aware that I can use whatever GPL code I want however I please for my own software... I would just prefer to write software that my fellow pilots can use too.
You don't have to contribute to this community if you don't want to, you just can't use our resources for purposes which don't contribute.
*rolls eyes*
Geez, didn't you READ what I said? I would LOVE to contribute to the community everything except that which I may not through the dictates of an outside agency, which is maybe fifteen hundred lines out of forty-thousand odd lines of code.
Thus the terms of the GPL result in the community getting nothing instead of 38500 lines, for lack of that last 1500 lines. Which strikes me as silly.
Now how do you get from "FAI will not let me release this one small part of the total, so I won't because I can't, the rest I'm fine with" to "I don't want to contribute to this community"? I don't see it.
it would seem to me to be reasonable to open up the code for the protocol, but not the code to make the entire game...that would seem silly. Any thoughts on this?
I see you're new here:)
What you're missing is that the GPL is a political tool, not a source code license.
As a source code license, of COURSE it is utterly ludicrous that you should have to open up source code unrelated to what you're using.
As a political tool, hey, whatever you can get away with to force other people to release THEIR code, no matter that it has nothing to do with YOUR contribution.
This also puts me in an annoying situation. I write free-as-in-beer software to download flight data from the Ball Varios variometers. Now, there's a number of GPL projects it would be nice to include code from, graphing libraries for instance; but if I did, I would have to open ALL the source, which includes the part that communicates with the hardware device, although that obviously has nothing to do with a graphing library for instance.
This is a problem, because the Ball varios are certified by FAI as being acceptable as documentation of a world record flight. And one of FAI's conditions for that certification is that the protocols for communicating with these devices may not be made public. Which means, not releasing the source code containing those protocols. Which means, I can't use any GPLd code at all, no matter how completely unrelated it is to the actual problem and how perfectly willing I'd be to contribute back any work I did to the source I used.
So my users lose out on functionality they'd get quicker otherwise, and the Open Source community loses out on the work I would put towards something licensable.
Now whose interests exactly is the GPL serving here? Nobody's that I can see.
(Don't bother saying "change FAI's mind". They have no motivation to do so whatsoever; there's no way you'd ever get even time to explain the CONCEPT of Open Source, never mind why their certification process should accomodate the GPL...)
But honestly I'd work on a farm, for free, and give away everything I didn't need
Ohhhh-kayyyyyy... I grew up on a farm, and everybody except Cyno, just trust me on this one: Only a person who has ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CLUE WHATSOEVER what farm work is like could say that with a straight face. I'd accuse Cyno of trolling, but *sigh* I do routinely meet city-raised kids that actually are this utterly ignorant, so the chances are pretty good that Cyno probably means it.
but I current do a job that no farmer could.
*raises eyebrow*
Ahhhh... ok, you keep thinking that.
Now, in the REAL world, everybody except Cyno, farmers are using software to optimize stock growth, calculate fertilizers needed, monitor soil conditions, pull down weather forecasts from the 'net, protect their incomes by hedge investing against the prices they expect to be getting down the road... a modern farmer is more wired than probably two-thirds of the so-called 'geeks' on/.
The difference is the farmers are using their software and their software-writing abilities as a TOOL, not as some pathetic attempted assertion of self-worth like the typical freak around here.
"Losers" is such a negative word. How about "speculative plays"?
(c) You're not doing anyting to, uh, contribute to the demise of these companies, are you?
Hey, *I* do *my* part -- one place my products won a Best Of Show at MacWorld three (3) Expos running -- there's just never anyone around that could market water to a guy stranded in the desert:)
And you can save the "well, programming the Macintosh is your first mistake" cracks too;)
I've been in this situation four times in the last six years. The chances that things will turn around are about zero no matter how hard you work -- cut your losses and bail now, trust me on this one.
I was faced every day with fellow students who were SO SURE that they were smarter than me, and professors who didn't think that I deserved to be here, assuming that I was only here because of Affirmative Action (I've got that in the workplace as well).
Well, if you take the chip off your shoulder for just a second here and look at this objectively, the effect of affirmative action more often than not IS that the affirmativized individuals are qualitatively inferior to their peers, so this is not a racist presumption, this is a rational presumption.
So it seems to me that the obvious thing for you Americans to do here is dump affirmative action, all it does is reinforce stereotypes when it promotes the incompetent and call in to question the abilities of those that are competent when it doesn't, and fix your schools so that poorer people of WHATEVER race can compete equitably with people who get a decent education. Now wouldn't that make a whole whack more sense?
'Course, I'm in Canada where we have schools that don't suck so I may be being a trifle naive about just how utterly fucked up the American system is, so please don't flame me TOO hard if this is a bit too logical for Americans to be able to handle:)
You're close -- 49% white in the Lower Mainland overall, but less in Vancouver city itself. And our population is quite more strikingly diverse than you portray, not to mention that your percentages add up to 110%. However, blacks don't even register statistically in any part of the province. Here's some percentages from the Sun's election coverage a couple months back:
Vancouver Kingsway has the largest non-white population, with 63.4 per cent of residents visible minorities. Vancouver South-Burnaby comes second with 56.2 per cent. Not surprisingly, Kingsway also has the highest percentage of residents who have a mother tongue other than English -- 62.2 per cent.
The least diverse riding in the region is Fraser Valley, where only 5.2 per cent of residents are non-white. The second-least diverse is South Surrey-White Rock-Langley, where only six per cent of residents are a member of a visible minority.
While Kingsway has a higher proportion of minorities, South-Burnaby is be the most diverse riding in the region. It boasts a large Chinese (30.9 per cent), Indo-Canadian (13.1 per cent) and Filipino (3.6 per cent) population. But it also has smaller, but still significant, groups of Korean, Japanese, Southeast Asian and Latin American residents -- all making up between one and two per cent of voters.
In addition to having the most minorities over all, Vancouver Kingsway also has the largest Chinese population in the region, with 39.7 per cent of residents being Chinese.
Richmond is second with 34.1 per cent.
Surrey Central has the largest population of Indo-Canadians with 21.3 per cent identifying themselves to census takers as South Asian. Surrey North is second with 16.6 per cent.
North Vancouver has the largest proportion of Arabs (3.3 per cent), Vancouver Kingsway has the most Filipinos (5.7 per cent) and Vancouver East has the highest number of aboriginals (5.6 per cent)
Is it just me, or my g-g-g-generation, or does new music really suck?
New *pop* music sucks.
The rave/techno scene in its multitudinously fragmented genres is pumping out awesome stuff left and right, though.
What's happening is that pop music has become a commodity designed and marketed by suits, and DJs have taken over the cutting-edge space that bands used to be in.
Think about it. How many top ten singles on any given week are from a music-industry created band? Least six or seven, right? How many was it in the early 80's say? Like, once in a blue moon, right?
And that, my friend, is the problem. It is not we that suck, it is the record industry that sucks, and the little goobers who don't know any better than to buy the pap they're fed that suck. And therefore the pop music scene sucketh.
Hey Katz, this is/., news for nerds who don't know any women:-)
Heh. Well, I can attest that this would indeed be a good flick to get to know one at then... I took one I met at Friday's party to see this Saturday afternoon, and she dug it. Bigtime.
So yes this really IS a date movie that doesn't suck, for once Katz got something right:)
Don't bother at the moment... Sorenson 3 is coming out with QT 5 and it should be *dramatically* improved over current generation codecs. Which MSFT's still is, just a very good one.
If you give people the choice of BSD or GPL, then your code is usuable with projects under all known forms of license.
And if anybody has a problem with you making your code available to anyone who wants it -- tell them to go fuck themselves. We're programmers, not missionaires for their religion, we want people to use our code and if they have a problem with that, well it's their problem not ours.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, here you go, now you know one. I've only got mild contact highs from pot in particularly unvented parties and have never smoked an entire joint on my own in 32 years on the planet ... but I rather like cocaine and crystal to keep up a particularly good blowout lasting, although I'm not really a big fan of either just for themselves. My favorite drug is zoomies, I dunno where you think fungus fits into this 'progression' of yours, and lately I'm rather liking some of the nifty pills going around like Mitsubishis (MDMA/opium) and Stop Signs (MDMA/PCP). And I drink like a fish, but that's just keeping up with the rest of my good Polish peasant family stock. That's how we survived those cold winters, you know.
:)
So there you go. Pot stinks and just the smoke makes me feel sleepy, fuck that, I went straight for the good stuff. Sure I may be a minority, but we're definitely out here
I'm glad to see a return to a genuinely creative and interesting stunt from the nadir of "let's go down to the University of Washington, smash the trophy case, and steal the Rose Bowl trophy" a few years back.
... well ... that was never intended to be a stunt. That was a night of drinking after a day of flying at Tiger that somehow went horribly, horribly wrong. Kinda embarrassing, actually.
:)
Ummmm
But it was one of the best "Dude, what is that thing and why is it on my couch?" moments ever
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Of course it is -- anyone competent has used violence to get what they want long before that!
There's videoclipstream, a Java streaming video solution, here.
And, if you're not distributing this application, what difference does any of this make?
:)
Well, that's the whole problem -- I *DO* want other Ball owners to use it. If I didn't the GPL wouldn't be any kind of a concern, I know.
As for the driver thing -- I thought that would be unacceptably subverting the spirit of the GPL, but it certainly seems that most people think it'd be fine. I'll probably do that next rev then
They are the administrative implementation of 2.6.3:
"2.6.3 Memory used for flight data. The memory used for storage of the flight data to be used in the flight verification process should be of a type and design so that it cannot be accessed, combined (such as in a storage device with software partitions), altered or corrupted by other data legitimately or otherwise present in the equipment..."
Their interpretation is that allowing public disclosure of the protocols is an unacceptable risk of contravening the above provision.
If you are using a device and software to take measurements for indicating a world record, why would you NOT want the software to be public anyway?
The way that aerial records work is that you submit the documentation to them along with the instrument you carried on the flight, and they and ONLY they open up the instrument and see if its recordings match your claims.
It's easy to tell if a device has mechanically been tampered with, not so easy to tell if its been electronically tampered with, so the advent of communications-enabled varios got them in a bit of a snit. The current status is that a very few electronic varios are certified, but under strict conditions about who is allowed to know what the protocols are.
Yes, it's security through obscurity, yes it doesn't stop you or me hacking the device for a second, but pointing that out to them would not let us open the source, it would just make them decertify electronic devices. People who buy these things wouldn't find that a worthwhile tradeoff, trust me on this one.
is there a reason why you can't just release those 38500 lines of code as open source?
The immediate reason is that there isn't a clean separation between the device-communicating code and the rest of it, so the easiest way to avoid any kerfluffle with FAI is to keep it all closed.
I certainly could put the device code into its own library/daemon as people have suggested, and it seems that there's some level of separation of the two at which the GPL would be technically adhered to in the main program -- but that strikes me as obviously subverting the spirit of the GPL so the GPL crusaders would still be mad with me anyway. *shrug* I'll probably give it a try next time I do a major rev and see what happens...
You write a closed-source daemon that talks to the hardware and exports the data via HTTP or RPC or whatever interface style you happen to like.
Well, that certainly does make a lot of sense. But where exactly is the line drawn here? If I can use HTTP, can I use platform specific IPC, like AppleEvents? Can I link directly to a shared library? Can I link to a static library?
Pardon me if the GPL specifically addresses what level of plugin integration is allowable somewhere, but I've never noticed it if it does...
I fail to see how GPL can constrain you as long as you don't distribute your software.
... I would just prefer to write software that my fellow pilots can use too.
Well, I'm talking about the version that I distribute to other programming-challenged pilots here. I'm quite aware that I can use whatever GPL code I want however I please for my own software
You don't have to contribute to this community if you don't want to, you just can't use our resources for purposes which don't contribute.
*rolls eyes*
Geez, didn't you READ what I said? I would LOVE to contribute to the community everything except that which I may not through the dictates of an outside agency, which is maybe fifteen hundred lines out of forty-thousand odd lines of code.
Thus the terms of the GPL result in the community getting nothing instead of 38500 lines, for lack of that last 1500 lines. Which strikes me as silly.
Now how do you get from "FAI will not let me release this one small part of the total, so I won't because I can't, the rest I'm fine with" to "I don't want to contribute to this community"? I don't see it.
it would seem to me to be reasonable to open up the code for the protocol, but not the code to make the entire game...that would seem silly. Any thoughts on this?
:)
I see you're new here
What you're missing is that the GPL is a political tool, not a source code license.
As a source code license, of COURSE it is utterly ludicrous that you should have to open up source code unrelated to what you're using.
As a political tool, hey, whatever you can get away with to force other people to release THEIR code, no matter that it has nothing to do with YOUR contribution.
This also puts me in an annoying situation. I write free-as-in-beer software to download flight data from the Ball Varios variometers. Now, there's a number of GPL projects it would be nice to include code from, graphing libraries for instance; but if I did, I would have to open ALL the source, which includes the part that communicates with the hardware device, although that obviously has nothing to do with a graphing library for instance.
This is a problem, because the Ball varios are certified by FAI as being acceptable as documentation of a world record flight. And one of FAI's conditions for that certification is that the protocols for communicating with these devices may not be made public. Which means, not releasing the source code containing those protocols. Which means, I can't use any GPLd code at all, no matter how completely unrelated it is to the actual problem and how perfectly willing I'd be to contribute back any work I did to the source I used.
So my users lose out on functionality they'd get quicker otherwise, and the Open Source community loses out on the work I would put towards something licensable.
Now whose interests exactly is the GPL serving here? Nobody's that I can see.
(Don't bother saying "change FAI's mind". They have no motivation to do so whatsoever; there's no way you'd ever get even time to explain the CONCEPT of Open Source, never mind why their certification process should accomodate the GPL...)
But honestly I'd work on a farm, for free, and give away everything I didn't need
... I grew up on a farm, and everybody except Cyno, just trust me on this one: Only a person who has ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING CLUE WHATSOEVER what farm work is like could say that with a straight face. I'd accuse Cyno of trolling, but *sigh* I do routinely meet city-raised kids that actually are this utterly ignorant, so the chances are pretty good that Cyno probably means it.
... ok, you keep thinking that.
... a modern farmer is more wired than probably two-thirds of the so-called 'geeks' on /.
Ohhhh-kayyyyyy
but I current do a job that no farmer could.
*raises eyebrow*
Ahhhh
Now, in the REAL world, everybody except Cyno, farmers are using software to optimize stock growth, calculate fertilizers needed, monitor soil conditions, pull down weather forecasts from the 'net, protect their incomes by hedge investing against the prices they expect to be getting down the road
The difference is the farmers are using their software and their software-writing abilities as a TOOL, not as some pathetic attempted assertion of self-worth like the typical freak around here.
(a) That's some coincidence!
:)
;)
Well, no...
(b) Boy, you sure can pick the losers.
"Losers" is such a negative word. How about "speculative plays"?
(c) You're not doing anyting to, uh, contribute to the demise of these companies, are you?
Hey, *I* do *my* part -- one place my products won a Best Of Show at MacWorld three (3) Expos running -- there's just never anyone around that could market water to a guy stranded in the desert
And you can save the "well, programming the Macintosh is your first mistake" cracks too
I've been in this situation four times in the last six years. The chances that things will turn around are about zero no matter how hard you work -- cut your losses and bail now, trust me on this one.
:)
You only feel like a jerk the first time
Yeah, that truly makes sense. Gassee risks ruining his company because he doesn't like a former co-worker. Mm-Hmm...
Errrrrrr...
If you ever knew JLG at Apple -- it makes perfect sense.
Well if we're going on hearsay,
You don't need to. We can go on the license of MkLinux, which Apple assigned their own engineers to getting running...
posts by Be employees that it could be done, but only by reverse engineering the code,
...which prove beyond a shadow of doubt that those posts are flat out lies.
If this were actually how Apple felt,
Again, the history of MkLinux proves it is.
This is NOT Aqua support! This is XFree86 running on Darwin!
Er, no, it's running on CoreGraphics, aka "Quartz". Quartz is not part of Darwin.
So, you can have X on your screen, or you can have Aqua on your screen.
Or you can have both.
Either way, you're limited to programs compiled for what's on the screen.
No. The above link works for free now, XTools works for money now, and direct support in future Darwin XFree86's is planned.
Hi. I'm a person from a non-US country desperate to get karma by exploiting the 'I'm from a different country/you americans are so wacky' meme!
... it wouldn't work if it wasn't true, would it? :)
Hey, I'm capped and I keep right on using that one
I was faced every day with fellow students who were SO SURE that they were smarter than me, and professors who didn't think that I deserved to be here, assuming that I was only here because of Affirmative Action (I've got that in the workplace as well).
:)
Well, if you take the chip off your shoulder for just a second here and look at this objectively, the effect of affirmative action more often than not IS that the affirmativized individuals are qualitatively inferior to their peers, so this is not a racist presumption, this is a rational presumption.
So it seems to me that the obvious thing for you Americans to do here is dump affirmative action, all it does is reinforce stereotypes when it promotes the incompetent and call in to question the abilities of those that are competent when it doesn't, and fix your schools so that poorer people of WHATEVER race can compete equitably with people who get a decent education. Now wouldn't that make a whole whack more sense?
'Course, I'm in Canada where we have schools that don't suck so I may be being a trifle naive about just how utterly fucked up the American system is, so please don't flame me TOO hard if this is a bit too logical for Americans to be able to handle
You're close -- 49% white in the Lower Mainland overall, but less in Vancouver city itself. And our population is quite more strikingly diverse than you portray, not to mention that your percentages add up to 110%. However, blacks don't even register statistically in any part of the province. Here's some percentages from the Sun's election coverage a couple months back:
Vancouver Kingsway has the largest non-white population, with 63.4 per cent of residents visible minorities. Vancouver South-Burnaby comes second with 56.2 per cent. Not surprisingly, Kingsway also has the highest percentage of residents who have a mother tongue other than English -- 62.2 per cent.
The least diverse riding in the region is Fraser Valley, where only 5.2 per cent of residents are non-white. The second-least diverse is South Surrey-White Rock-Langley, where only six per cent of residents are a member of a visible minority.
While Kingsway has a higher proportion of minorities, South-Burnaby is be the most diverse riding in the region. It boasts a large Chinese (30.9 per cent), Indo-Canadian (13.1 per cent) and Filipino (3.6 per cent) population. But it also has smaller, but still significant, groups of Korean, Japanese, Southeast Asian and Latin American residents -- all making up between one and two per cent of voters.
In addition to having the most minorities over all, Vancouver Kingsway also has the largest Chinese population in the region, with 39.7 per cent of residents being Chinese.
Richmond is second with 34.1 per cent.
Surrey Central has the largest population of Indo-Canadians with 21.3 per cent identifying themselves to census takers as South Asian. Surrey North is second with 16.6 per cent.
North Vancouver has the largest proportion of Arabs (3.3 per cent), Vancouver Kingsway has the most Filipinos (5.7 per cent) and Vancouver East has the highest number of aboriginals (5.6 per cent)
Is it just me, or my g-g-g-generation, or does new music really suck?
New *pop* music sucks.
The rave/techno scene in its multitudinously fragmented genres is pumping out awesome stuff left and right, though.
What's happening is that pop music has become a commodity designed and marketed by suits, and DJs have taken over the cutting-edge space that bands used to be in.
Think about it. How many top ten singles on any given week are from a music-industry created band? Least six or seven, right? How many was it in the early 80's say? Like, once in a blue moon, right?
And that, my friend, is the problem. It is not we that suck, it is the record industry that sucks, and the little goobers who don't know any better than to buy the pap they're fed that suck. And therefore the pop music scene sucketh.
Hey Katz, this is /., news for nerds who don't know any women :-)
... I took one I met at Friday's party to see this Saturday afternoon, and she dug it. Bigtime.
:)
Heh. Well, I can attest that this would indeed be a good flick to get to know one at then
So yes this really IS a date movie that doesn't suck, for once Katz got something right
Don't bother at the moment ... Sorenson 3 is coming out with QT 5 and it should be *dramatically* improved over current generation codecs. Which MSFT's still is, just a very good one.
If you give people the choice of BSD or GPL, then your code is usuable with projects under all known forms of license.
And if anybody has a problem with you making your code available to anyone who wants it -- tell them to go fuck themselves. We're programmers, not missionaires for their religion, we want people to use our code and if they have a problem with that, well it's their problem not ours.
At least, that's what I think. I could be wrong.
Er, no.
That's Metrotown mall in Burnaby.
There's less than 30 seconds in the whole movie that's outside Greater Vancouver and Whistler areas.