A process of building an application as the GGP defined involves multiple steps to go from source code to final binary. For a typical C application it goes as follows (and is true for windows, linux or OS2):
1) preprocess macros (for conditional compiling and including multiple source files amongst other things). 2) compile C source to object files ( this includes lexing, parsing and assembling) 3) link object files and outside libraries into final binary.
Essentially after compilation you compile "myslickapp.c" it becomes "myslickapp.o". The object file ("myslickapp.o") does not contain any library functions or references to where it could find them in a shared library. To provide that you "link" your object file to your shared libraries (*.dll for windows, *.so for modern *nix).
Now to apply that to the GPL/LGPL, any file that links to anything GPL _must_ be GPL according to the license. This sometimes is too restrictive as you could not use Apache, Java or Firefox if glibc was GPL. It's not becuase the LGPL was written for explicitly this reason. The LGPL allows you to link against it and still distribute under any license you please, as long as you don't distribute changes to the _shared_ library itself.
In the United Sates, copyright violation has _laws_ describing monetary damages per infringement. Those are on the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands in statutory damage (which are essentially punishment and are not connected to "profit" or "lost business")
check out section 504(c) for clarification here. Notice it also has provisions based on "lost business", but they are seperate from the statutory ones.
If, for example, Microsoft used a nifty feature copied directly from the HURD (hahaha) in longhorn and was found out two years and 10 million copies later they could easily owe billions of dollars in restitution.
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
found here. So you really do have to advertise the fact your software uses GPL code.
Though I hardly think this is bad for companies as _they_ knew this upfront. If you want to dip into the community well, you better be prepared to put more back in. If that is to onerous then you have zero right to use it.
Yes, this is more complex then the cost of copying. You also need to consider the creator of the works rights in so far as copyright (which is an artificial scarcity, but is the law of the land) is concerned. Those rights govern how entities can copy your creation but ultimately get decided by the creator or purchased owner.
For programming, that owner can decide to open source it. Now depending on the specifics of the work, it can easily match and surpass the same proprietary software. Now due to economic forces of the market, your proprietary product is worth the same as the open source copy, namely $0.
Yes the proprietary maker spent money to produce said work, but the market simply doesn't care. Your work can't be distinguished from the open product. More people are working on the alternative AND they are doing it for free (to the product at least). Your product is now actually worth less than the competing _free_ alternative. How do you compete with that?
Merging solaris code into the linux kernel is a lot more difficult then implementing the feature from scratch. This is largely due to the codebases being wildly different but other difficulties contribute to the problem.
On the bright side, hot swappable processors, memory and pci cards are already in linux. enjoy!
GP asked a legitmate question. What is the idiotic "picking a fight where there is none" responce? Apparently the finer points of naming conventions matters so much to people that we will needlessly talk about the crap even when we have _no_ vested interest to begin with. You, sir, are a moron.
Do you really think that you can insult someone into agreeing with you?
Nor do I think there is anyway I could provide enough data that you would accept as supporting evolution. I honestly think that none of that matters to the keepers of the faith and no amount of discourse will change the willfull ignorance creationist show. It was over the top but it is still true.
I would like to have a testable hypothesis. irriducible complexity has been shown to be flawed so often that I will just be repeating myself. If you want to now why irrudicible complexity as you define it is flawed, there is mountains of discourse on why your hypothesis is biased, flawed and cannot be disproven (which any theory based on this hypothesis would require of it).
So you either don't understand the scientific method or are being ignorant of it. I do appreciate your attempt. Please feel free to investigate the theories involved and I will gladly discuss anything and test anything that will forward creationism as a theory supplanting evolution.
Though I am not responding to you, I will refute the premise that I will have made $100 dollars (even at my more substantial pay rate) in the time it takes me to piece together a system.
Having not bought a boxed PC since 92, at this point the do-it-yourself build curve is strictly behind me. The longest part for any system is, by a large margin, installing the OS. I just can't trim data transfer from one medium to another out _any_ new pc.
The only benefit for the out-of-the-box PC is that you don't need to do any of that potential confusing stuff on your own, since it is all done for you. But none of that applies to someone who knows what s/he wants and knows that it will most likely not be what s/he can get in the box.
The more important thing to keep in mind is that to get a comparable system that you would get in the box is rarely cheaper in parts.
Hypothesis: "Blood clotting needs to be so precise that its process defies simplicity and its operation increases order."
Are you serious? What part of this has anything to do with evolution or "ID". Your hypothesis simply tests if blood clotting is simple (it's not) and that works counter to entropy (as any biological process ultimately does). Not only are you not trying to show ID as a legimate theory, you are restating well accepted data.
Again any coherent testable ID hypothesis needs to be more than mathematical masterbation. Probabilities of the kind you are talking about don't occur on a timescale of 6,000 years and a world the size the moon (much that antiquity thought of the world when the bible was written). you are talking about an engine of change and adaption that you obviously have a problem wrapping your head around. The fact that the earth is over a billion years old may cross you but it is no less a fact.
Ignoring for a moment that this is a disproof of natural selection and not a proof of creationism...
Hypothesis: "blood clotting needs to be so precise that it cannot haven happened by chance"
Data: the chance that blood clotting would have happened through random mutation and enviromental selection is 1 in some in insanely large number.
conclusion: There is a chance and this hypothesis fails observable data.
Now you can say that is unfair because the hypothesis was written to not include "severly unlikely" but I have no way to gauge that or agree with others that what that possibility would be. A hypothesis requires that it's foundations are not subject to interpretation.
Again I implore any ID propenent to give me a testable hypothesis.
english, spanish, german, french, hindi, japanese and every other major language man reads and speaks. These are all translated and modified to suit the langauge and sect of the christian. I.E. The king james is different in a substantive way then the catholic canon. As these are also different in different langauges and _all_ have changed with time because _language_ mutates and adapts as does the bible.
4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
That is why evolution is a theory and not a hypothesis. Evolution is supported by facts. There is no rational dispute to these facts. Evolution is not in question. You can't pray that away. You can't put enough stickers in enough books to change it.
If you don't even have an understanding of the theory, how can you criticize it?
Bacteria do indeed evolve as they become adapted better to the environment due to reproductive pressures. That is the _definition_ of evolution as it was hypothesized. Nothing more, nothing less. The speed of adaption isn't in the definition.
You can delude yourself into to thinking that "fast" adaption and "slow" adaption are different things according to the hypothesis, but they aren't. No amount of hand waving, indignation or disbelief will change it. Nor will it change the observation of it's truth.
no amount of criticizing is going to make intelligent design a theory. You can argue all you want about evolution but it will never make intelligent design anything more then religion.
We have observed evolution and created tools based on it's selective pressure. We have a cornicopia of physical proof. The majority of _all_ scientist, let alone bioligists have been convinced by evidence. No amount of school boards can change the facts.
Or more interesting what is the hypothesis that we can test? We have yet to see anything out of the "evolution didn't happen" camp to even test.
The continuing problem with religous conviction is that it presupposes fact. Science, on the other hand, assumes denial. If you come up with the hypothesis "God's tears cause thunder." you need to prove God. You may be able to (as possibilty may allow) but you need to be smarter than _many_ that have come before you.
If we reduce the argument to "Variation of life on earth couldn't exist without a guiding ${THING}". Then presumption is that ${THING} is god, but you can't do that because your hypothesis didn't include that. Change the hypothesis to include God and you are stuck with the proof-of-god conundrum again.
At some point you have to include assumption which isn't science, rather subjective reality. You can not prove it objectively, therefore we can't agree on it and it is not testable.
BSD license is open source. It does not require you to distribute the source, your modifications or anything else when you sell the binaries. Yet the original code can still be "Open Source" just not "Free Software".
GPL on the other hand requires that you distribute the source of the binary if requested by the customer along with notification of how they can get the source. Traditionally the source is on the web, but there is no requirement to do such. This is considered "Free Software" because no one can have proprietary modifications that you cannot get as a customer.
Did you miss:...the myth of how a single person or even a single company makes a huge difference in the market. It's the belief that things happen because somebody was visionary and "planned" it that way.
He is simply stating that his interest lay elsewhere. If his personal goals were to clone solaris, then checking out solaris would be important. But that's not his goal and he has more effective things to do with his time. If the project lead for solaris was checking out linux to come up with ideas for solaris, he's wasting his time and talents if he had no experience with linux.
Also understand that Linus is in no way a commercial spokesman. he does not make a "product" in any sense. He doesn't charge anyone for his labor nor charges people for the results. He is not competing against anything except for his previous releases.
It isn't to much to ask. It is to much to expect though.
Security is not one of those "optional" things that a proper user interface will solve. This is why Windows is by default the most insecure OS out there on the net. You just can't make security convenient for the user, but not the hacker. authentication just doesn't work that way. This is why identy theft is just so simple and devastating, you need to scarcely know aything about someone to accomplish it.
There has been no credible research into it's effects long/short term ever. There will not be any for the forseeable future. Anyone who claims that they are doing credible research is not.
The problem is the _only_ legal research being conducted are carefully controlled and must be about _detrimental_ effects. How do you test it with certainty if you cannot test it in human subjects.
Furthermore how do you know reliably anything about regular abusers. The very nature of the substances legal status leads to fuzzy math. The only users you really know about are the ones in jail. I wonder the correlation of inmates to people who fail in both eductation and employment?
Cost of power would be the only issue. If this is aimed at the third world then cost of power is a _huge_ issue. If you can mitigate that cost and provide good enough processing muscle then it is a better solution.
Re:Betraying what he ran for last time
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 1
And where is his party now? Without the local entrenched base there is nothing left. He had the money to have a go at it, but his party had no base to fall back on without him.
Re:Betraying what he ran for last time
on
The Nader Factor
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Greens are winning some local elections and with time might become a viable national party by working from the ground floor on up.
Which is the only way you'll get an alternative party. You can't win at the national level unless you have enough local support to mean something. I think there is plenty of room for a third party if enough groundswell can be had.
That being said, while I appreciate the greens view of how to form a proper party, the greens are running with associating themselves with a narrow issue. I think a party who spoke to a sweeping view of individual empowerment, pro-democracy and government ethics would do well in on both sides of the aisle, namely a party of the middle, without the rhetoric or corporate sponsership.
Tyranny of the majority afflicted politics in europe leading up to the facist regimes. The problem comes when the system breaks down the potential for abuse of a minority class is probable. This is what the founding fathers were striking a balance against. The EC may not be the best, but it is still better than pluralist elections in a party system.
The issue minorities are a red herring. They affect _any_ democratic society just being there. I also wouldn't want enviromentalists, animal-rights activists or the teachers unions have a disproportinate power in government.
Slashdot Mirror
Define "links"?
A process of building an application as the GGP defined involves multiple steps to go from source code to final binary. For a typical C application it goes as follows (and is true for windows, linux or OS2):
1) preprocess macros (for conditional compiling and including multiple source files amongst other things).
2) compile C source to object files ( this includes lexing, parsing and assembling)
3) link object files and outside libraries into final binary.
Essentially after compilation you compile "myslickapp.c" it becomes "myslickapp.o". The object file ("myslickapp.o") does not contain any library functions or references to where it could find them in a shared library. To provide that you "link" your object file to your shared libraries (*.dll for windows, *.so for modern *nix).
Now to apply that to the GPL/LGPL, any file that links to anything GPL _must_ be GPL according to the license. This sometimes is too restrictive as you could not use Apache, Java or Firefox if glibc was GPL. It's not becuase the LGPL was written for explicitly this reason. The LGPL allows you to link against it and still distribute under any license you please, as long as you don't distribute changes to the _shared_ library itself.
Hope that helps.
In the United Sates, copyright violation has _laws_ describing monetary damages per infringement. Those are on the order of thousands to hundreds of thousands in statutory damage (which are essentially punishment and are not connected to "profit" or "lost business")
check out section 504(c) for clarification here. Notice it also has provisions based on "lost business", but they are seperate from the statutory ones.
If, for example, Microsoft used a nifty feature copied directly from the HURD (hahaha) in longhorn and was found out two years and 10 million copies later they could easily owe billions of dollars in restitution.
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
found here. So you really do have to advertise the fact your software uses GPL code.
Though I hardly think this is bad for companies as _they_ knew this upfront. If you want to dip into the community well, you better be prepared to put more back in. If that is to onerous then you have zero right to use it.
Yes, this is more complex then the cost of copying. You also need to consider the creator of the works rights in so far as copyright (which is an artificial scarcity, but is the law of the land) is concerned. Those rights govern how entities can copy your creation but ultimately get decided by the creator or purchased owner.
For programming, that owner can decide to open source it. Now depending on the specifics of the work, it can easily match and surpass the same proprietary software. Now due to economic forces of the market, your proprietary product is worth the same as the open source copy, namely $0.
Yes the proprietary maker spent money to produce said work, but the market simply doesn't care. Your work can't be distinguished from the open product. More people are working on the alternative AND they are doing it for free (to the product at least). Your product is now actually worth less than the competing _free_ alternative. How do you compete with that?
Merging solaris code into the linux kernel is a lot more difficult then implementing the feature from scratch. This is largely due to the codebases being wildly different but other difficulties contribute to the problem.
On the bright side, hot swappable processors, memory and pci cards are already in linux. enjoy!
GP asked a legitmate question. What is the idiotic "picking a fight where there is none" responce? Apparently the finer points of naming conventions matters so much to people that we will needlessly talk about the crap even when we have _no_ vested interest to begin with. You, sir, are a moron.
Do you really think that you can insult someone into agreeing with you?
Nor do I think there is anyway I could provide enough data that you would accept as supporting evolution. I honestly think that none of that matters to the keepers of the faith and no amount of discourse will change the willfull ignorance creationist show. It was over the top but it is still true.
I would like to have a testable hypothesis. irriducible complexity has been shown to be flawed so often that I will just be repeating myself. If you want to now why irrudicible complexity as you define it is flawed, there is mountains of discourse on why your hypothesis is biased, flawed and cannot be disproven (which any theory based on this hypothesis would require of it).
So you either don't understand the scientific method or are being ignorant of it. I do appreciate your attempt. Please feel free to investigate the theories involved and I will gladly discuss anything and test anything that will forward creationism as a theory supplanting evolution.
Though I am not responding to you, I will refute the premise that I will have made $100 dollars (even at my more substantial pay rate) in the time it takes me to piece together a system.
Having not bought a boxed PC since 92, at this point the do-it-yourself build curve is strictly behind me. The longest part for any system is, by a large margin, installing the OS. I just can't trim data transfer from one medium to another out _any_ new pc.
The only benefit for the out-of-the-box PC is that you don't need to do any of that potential confusing stuff on your own, since it is all done for you. But none of that applies to someone who knows what s/he wants and knows that it will most likely not be what s/he can get in the box.
The more important thing to keep in mind is that to get a comparable system that you would get in the box is rarely cheaper in parts.
And AROS runs on top of linux no less. AROS is no different then gnome or KDE.
Hypothesis: "Blood clotting needs to be so precise that its process defies simplicity and its operation increases order."
Are you serious? What part of this has anything to do with evolution or "ID". Your hypothesis simply tests if blood clotting is simple (it's not) and that works counter to entropy (as any biological process ultimately does). Not only are you not trying to show ID as a legimate theory, you are restating well accepted data.
Again any coherent testable ID hypothesis needs to be more than mathematical masterbation. Probabilities of the kind you are talking about don't occur on a timescale of 6,000 years and a world the size the moon (much that antiquity thought of the world when the bible was written). you are talking about an engine of change and adaption that you obviously have a problem wrapping your head around. The fact that the earth is over a billion years old may cross you but it is no less a fact.
Ignoring for a moment that this is a disproof of natural selection and not a proof of creationism...
Hypothesis: "blood clotting needs to be so precise that it cannot haven happened by chance"
Data: the chance that blood clotting would have happened through random mutation and enviromental selection is 1 in some in insanely large number.
conclusion: There is a chance and this hypothesis fails observable data.
Now you can say that is unfair because the hypothesis was written to not include "severly unlikely" but I have no way to gauge that or agree with others that what that possibility would be. A hypothesis requires that it's foundations are not subject to interpretation.
Again I implore any ID propenent to give me a testable hypothesis.
english, spanish, german, french, hindi, japanese and every other major language man reads and speaks. These are all translated and modified to suit the langauge and sect of the christian. I.E. The king james is different in a substantive way then the catholic canon. As these are also different in different langauges and _all_ have changed with time because _language_ mutates and adapts as does the bible.
4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"
That is why evolution is a theory and not a hypothesis. Evolution is supported by facts. There is no rational dispute to these facts. Evolution is not in question. You can't pray that away. You can't put enough stickers in enough books to change it.
If you don't even have an understanding of the theory, how can you criticize it?
Bacteria do indeed evolve as they become adapted better to the environment due to reproductive pressures. That is the _definition_ of evolution as it was hypothesized. Nothing more, nothing less. The speed of adaption isn't in the definition.
You can delude yourself into to thinking that "fast" adaption and "slow" adaption are different things according to the hypothesis, but they aren't. No amount of hand waving, indignation or disbelief will change it. Nor will it change the observation of it's truth.
no amount of criticizing is going to make intelligent design a theory. You can argue all you want about evolution but it will never make intelligent design anything more then religion.
We have observed evolution and created tools based on it's selective pressure. We have a cornicopia of physical proof. The majority of _all_ scientist, let alone bioligists have been convinced by evidence. No amount of school boards can change the facts.
There called salamanders.
Or more interesting what is the hypothesis that we can test? We have yet to see anything out of the "evolution didn't happen" camp to even test.
The continuing problem with religous conviction is that it presupposes fact. Science, on the other hand, assumes denial. If you come up with the hypothesis "God's tears cause thunder." you need to prove God. You may be able to (as possibilty may allow) but you need to be smarter than _many_ that have come before you.
If we reduce the argument to "Variation of life on earth couldn't exist without a guiding ${THING}". Then presumption is that ${THING} is god, but you can't do that because your hypothesis didn't include that. Change the hypothesis to include God and you are stuck with the proof-of-god conundrum again.
At some point you have to include assumption which isn't science, rather subjective reality. You can not prove it objectively, therefore we can't agree on it and it is not testable.
BSD license is open source. It does not require you to distribute the source, your modifications or anything else when you sell the binaries. Yet the original code can still be "Open Source" just not "Free Software".
GPL on the other hand requires that you distribute the source of the binary if requested by the customer along with notification of how they can get the source. Traditionally the source is on the web, but there is no requirement to do such. This is considered "Free Software" because no one can have proprietary modifications that you cannot get as a customer.
Did you miss: ...the myth of how a single person or even a single company makes a huge difference in the market. It's the belief that things happen because somebody was visionary and "planned" it that way.
He is simply stating that his interest lay elsewhere. If his personal goals were to clone solaris, then checking out solaris would be important. But that's not his goal and he has more effective things to do with his time. If the project lead for solaris was checking out linux to come up with ideas for solaris, he's wasting his time and talents if he had no experience with linux.
Also understand that Linus is in no way a commercial spokesman. he does not make a "product" in any sense. He doesn't charge anyone for his labor nor charges people for the results. He is not competing against anything except for his previous releases.
It isn't to much to ask. It is to much to expect though.
Security is not one of those "optional" things that a proper user interface will solve. This is why Windows is by default the most insecure OS out there on the net. You just can't make security convenient for the user, but not the hacker. authentication just doesn't work that way. This is why identy theft is just so simple and devastating, you need to scarcely know aything about someone to accomplish it.
There has been no credible research into it's effects long/short term ever. There will not be any for the forseeable future. Anyone who claims that they are doing credible research is not.
The problem is the _only_ legal research being conducted are carefully controlled and must be about _detrimental_ effects. How do you test it with certainty if you cannot test it in human subjects.
Furthermore how do you know reliably anything about regular abusers. The very nature of the substances legal status leads to fuzzy math. The only users you really know about are the ones in jail. I wonder the correlation of inmates to people who fail in both eductation and employment?
Cost of power would be the only issue. If this is aimed at the third world then cost of power is a _huge_ issue. If you can mitigate that cost and provide good enough processing muscle then it is a better solution.
And where is his party now? Without the local entrenched base there is nothing left. He had the money to have a go at it, but his party had no base to fall back on without him.
The Greens are winning some local elections and with time might become a viable national party by working from the ground floor on up.
Which is the only way you'll get an alternative party. You can't win at the national level unless you have enough local support to mean something. I think there is plenty of room for a third party if enough groundswell can be had.
That being said, while I appreciate the greens view of how to form a proper party, the greens are running with associating themselves with a narrow issue. I think a party who spoke to a sweeping view of individual empowerment, pro-democracy and government ethics would do well in on both sides of the aisle, namely a party of the middle, without the rhetoric or corporate sponsership.
Better than being clubbed anyday. At least the police have gotten nicer since the democratic national convention in chicago.
Tyranny of the majority afflicted politics in europe leading up to the facist regimes. The problem comes when the system breaks down the potential for abuse of a minority class is probable. This is what the founding fathers were striking a balance against. The EC may not be the best, but it is still better than pluralist elections in a party system.
The issue minorities are a red herring. They affect _any_ democratic society just being there. I also wouldn't want enviromentalists, animal-rights activists or the teachers unions have a disproportinate power in government.