From fsf.org/licenses:" The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this.
Perhaps NASA does not want submitters to introduce a viral license via code they did not author. As an author you have the right to dual license any previously GPL'd code that you may now be submitting to NASA. As someone including the work of GPL'd code written by others you can not dual license. As a tax payer funded organization NASA's code should not be subject to the licensing requirements of someone outside of government.
Actually it would make more sense for NASA to license their software under BSD than GPL. As a taxpayer funded organization they should not be discriminating against commercial organization who are also taxpayers. That said, if you are developing software on your own time and on your own expense then of course you have the right to use whatever license you prefer, restrictive or not. I just think it changes when you are developing software at the taxpayer's expense.
It would also be more consistent with NASA's past efforts. Long ago I recall reading through catalogs of NASA developed software that was being made available to the public including commercial entities, I don't recall any restrictions.
An argument from experience or expertise would have to contain actual statements that describe the experience directly. For example, "X experienced Z,T,U and says Y".
I think that the experience or expertise can be implied for brevity. When Stephen Hawking says "The universe behave thusly.." and a hollywood starlet says "The universe behave thusly.." the arguments are not equivalent.:-)
Well, I don't trust the prompting for account name and password. There's absolutely nothing that confirms, to me, that the prompt is from Apple's code and not the game.
Well there is the fact that the Apple review process requires that each in app purchase item be individually submitted by the developer and approved by Apple before it can be made available to users. That helps a bit.
Good luck with your app, but for a lot of us, in-app purchases is a sign that maybe I really don't want your app very much to begin with.
As a developer using in app purchase I am honestly interested in what you would suggest.
I offer a technical product rather than a game. A single app that combines the functionality of various traditional handheld calculators, scientific, statistics, business, hex, etc. Perpenso Calc. Rather than have a single high priced app that probably included functionality a particular user would not care about I decided to have a modestly priced app that offered basic built-in functionality -- scientific, rpn, fractions, complex numbers,... -- but was expandable using in app purchases. This allowed a person to pick and pay for only the additional functionality -- statistics, business and hex -- that they cared for. I suppose another option would have been to offer several medium priced apps, one each for statistics, business or hex but what if a person was interest in more than one? They would need multiple apps, that would be more costly. Also more inconvenient if they needed to move data from one calculator to the other.
In your opinion am I missing something? What alternatives would you suggest? Thanks in advance. Seriously, I am curious.
... I don't trust the mechanism. Any game that wants to pop up a "Click OK to buy in-game" crap, well, I'm not going to buy it, and I don't want to inadvertently click "Yes"...
Actually the mechanism is part of Apple's built-in App Store app. I take it you don't buy things directly from your device, only through your computer? Also you would have to click yes more than once. Once for the game's user interface and then again for the Apple's user interface.
In short, "Commander Keen creator says Direct3D is now better than OpenGL" is an argument from authority. Arguments from authority are fallacious since both the reasoning and the premises of the argument may be wrong, and that the argument was made by a famous person doesn't change that.
What you are missing is that the pro-Direct3D argument being made today is from one of the most enthusiastic proponents of OpenGL of the past, one of the most critical of Direct3D in the past. Also a person of great technical skill in the actual domain being discussed. Its not an argument from authority. Its an argument from experience and expertise, an argument enhanced by open mindedness as suggested by a radical change of opinion as the underlying circumstances changed radically.
Precisely. Which is why it does some "desktop user" type things much better than payware alternatives. However, some people would rather just repeat FUD from the 90s and ignore the current state of things.
What FUD? No one said a user friendly distribution did not exist.
Also it is erroneous to believe that the "by nerds for nerds" attitude is something from the 90s. Such an attitude is alive and well today. For example consider the attacks on distributions when they do something for user convenience that is not philosophically pure. Consider the venom when a distribution delivers/installs binary-only code, say a driver. Consider the desire by some to guide those new to linux to the most philosophically pure distribution despite the possible difficulties involved. I'd say many in the Linux community still guide newcomers according to their personal agendas rather than what is simplest for the newcomer.
Oh hey everybody, he's using an argument from the 1990s! Tell me, what is so nerdy about Ubuntu, Mint, SuSE, or Pardus (to blatantly plug that distro)? You don't ever have to drop to a command line anymore if you really don't want to.
I realize the beginning of the post got you panties in a bunch but perhaps you should have kept reading:
"To be specific one Linux distribution would need a different attitude, not all of the Linux distributions. Having different distributions focus on radically different communities would seem to be the way to go."
If you had kept reading perhaps you might have realized we are in agreement more than you currently believe. Where do I say such a user friendly distribution does not exist? What I claim to exist is an intolerant attitude towards those who want such a distribution. Have you not noticed how Ubuntu seems to a target of criticism around here lately, for daring to do things that enhance convenience but are not philosophically pure to some?
The "by nerds for nerds" attitude is not something from the 90s, it is alive and well today and its adherents should get over it. Point newbs towards the friendliest distribution despite its lack of FSF purity. Once the newbs get up to speed then perhaps introduce them to other distributions.
Understanding the needs of desktop users is perpetually hampered by a large component of Linux culture. The "by nerds for nerds" attitude. Historically this was a great asset when targeting the server and unix workstation markets, users in these areas were typically nerds. However going after the public in general (the mythical year of the Linux desktop) requires a different attitude. To be specific one Linux distribution would need a different attitude, not all of the Linux distributions. Having different distributions focus on radically different communities would seem to be the way to go.
Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see. Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.
The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post.:-)
I invent something, somebody catches wind of it and puts in a patent application, then I send in a patent application showing I've been working on it for longer. They get a patent because they filed first and I can't afford to take them to court to get it reversed. I lose. Or I do have enough money, they lose the patent and now NOBODY has a patent. I needed patent protection so I could license out my product. I still lose.
Why did you not file as you were inventing, before someone else discovered what your were doing? If you were trying to max out the time your invention would be under patent then you knowingly took a risk, trading a longer protection period for increased risk of discovery. With a US patent lasting 20 years it seems you got greedy and lost. Even if it took ten years to get to market you would have ten years of monopoly. Furthermore licensing can occur during development. It may even be financially beneficial for you to do so. Things are not as simple as you are suggesting.
So "republic" is it? Socialist republic like China? Parliamentary republic like Germany? Islamic republic like Iran?... That's the problem with just a single term. They are all too vague.
Hey I offered three terms, you asked me to cut it down to one.;-)
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.
A federation is a bit too vague, a collection of states retaining control over internal affairs. Both democracy and republic share more details, supreme authority in citizens and elected (directly or indirectly) representatives to exercise power. However republic ads one more constraint, a head of state that is not a monarch. So if forced to choose only one word I would say republic is the most descriptive.
A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.
Not really. When we hear the word dictator we think of absolute rulers who claim divine authority, the president for life, etc. However there is another type of dictator. One that was chosen by the people to temporarily lead during a crisis that threatens survival. If that dictator is a Cincinatus rather than a Caesar things may not be bad.
"... an invasion caused him [Cincinatus] to be called to serve Rome as dictator... Cincinnatus led the infantry in person... the war ended and Cincinnatus disbanded his army. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm, a mere sixteen days after he had been nominated dictator..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus.
So, your saying that you would be fine with a dictatorship, as long as the dictator was making moral and ethically sound decisions? While a benevolent dictatorship might work for Linux, I don't think it would work well for a full government.
Even during a crisis where survival is at stake?
Dictatorship is a historic response to crisis where survival is in question. It uses the battlefield proven concept that sometimes there is no time to debate, no time to search for the best solution, that a good-enough solution from an expert is needed at this precise moment. The concept is not theoretically totally without merit, the problem is that in practice dictators tend to lack the morals to give up power once the crisis is over and such rapid decision making is no longer necessary. One of the rare exceptions:
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519 BC – 438 BC) was an aristocrat and political figure of the Roman Republic, serving as consul in 460 BC and Roman dictator in 458 BC and 439 BC.[1]
Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity. A persistent opponent of the plebeians, when his son was convicted in absentia and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines and Volscians.
His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty. As a result, he has inspired a number of organizations and other entities, a number of which are named for him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus
It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.
What distinguishes the definition of a republic from the definition of a democracy is the prohibition against a head of state that is a monarch. The definitions of both often include supreme power in citizens allowed to vote and the direct or indirect election of representatives who exercise power on behalf of the citizens.
In what strange universe is it impossible to be a democracy and a republic? What feature of the US constitution makes it not a democracy?
No monarchy makes republic a slightly better fit.
The definitions for both republic and democracy tend to include:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic tend to add:
- A head of state that is not a monarch.
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary... Merriam-Webster dictionary... dictionary.reference.com...
You should have looked up both "democracy" and "republic". You would have found that they both share the characteristics you emphasize:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic also includes:
- A head of state that is not a monarch. In contrast your sources specifically permit a monarchy in a democracy.
So "republic" is a better fit for the Unites States.
Furthermore your Merriam-Webster source includes:
Examples of REPUBLIC
when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
and your dictionary.com source includes:
Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today:
Once any human activity starts, the lawyers will crawl out of the woodwork, and treaties, contracts and agreements will begin to stack up nicely. Pretty much as it does in International Marine Law.
Actually the moon is under legal jurisdiction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty. However objects placed there continue to be under the jurisdiction of the government that put it there. It would seem that a company can not escape the jurisdiction of its earthly government by going to the moon.
As I recall Windows NT 4.0 was independent of hardware... I'm guessing they dropped this capability with one of the newer incarnations...
They dropped it only in the sense that they no longer offered it to the public. Recall that Windows NT was started on MIPS, x86 came later. The goal was to make sure the code was portable between architectures. My understanding is that internally MS kept building NT (XP, Vista, 7,...) on non-x86 platforms to maintain/verify portability.
Slashdot Mirror
From fsf.org/licenses :" The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your “original creation”. Free software development depends on combining code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this.
Perhaps NASA does not want submitters to introduce a viral license via code they did not author. As an author you have the right to dual license any previously GPL'd code that you may now be submitting to NASA. As someone including the work of GPL'd code written by others you can not dual license. As a tax payer funded organization NASA's code should not be subject to the licensing requirements of someone outside of government.
Actually it would make more sense for NASA to license their software under BSD than GPL. As a taxpayer funded organization they should not be discriminating against commercial organization who are also taxpayers. That said, if you are developing software on your own time and on your own expense then of course you have the right to use whatever license you prefer, restrictive or not. I just think it changes when you are developing software at the taxpayer's expense.
It would also be more consistent with NASA's past efforts. Long ago I recall reading through catalogs of NASA developed software that was being made available to the public including commercial entities, I don't recall any restrictions.
An argument from experience or expertise would have to contain actual statements that describe the experience directly. For example, "X experienced Z,T,U and says Y".
I think that the experience or expertise can be implied for brevity. When Stephen Hawking says "The universe behave thusly .." and a hollywood starlet says "The universe behave thusly .." the arguments are not equivalent. :-)
Well, I don't trust the prompting for account name and password. There's absolutely nothing that confirms, to me, that the prompt is from Apple's code and not the game.
Well there is the fact that the Apple review process requires that each in app purchase item be individually submitted by the developer and approved by Apple before it can be made available to users. That helps a bit.
Good luck with your app, but for a lot of us, in-app purchases is a sign that maybe I really don't want your app very much to begin with.
As a developer using in app purchase I am honestly interested in what you would suggest.
... -- but was expandable using in app purchases. This allowed a person to pick and pay for only the additional functionality -- statistics, business and hex -- that they cared for. I suppose another option would have been to offer several medium priced apps, one each for statistics, business or hex but what if a person was interest in more than one? They would need multiple apps, that would be more costly. Also more inconvenient if they needed to move data from one calculator to the other.
I offer a technical product rather than a game. A single app that combines the functionality of various traditional handheld calculators, scientific, statistics, business, hex, etc. Perpenso Calc. Rather than have a single high priced app that probably included functionality a particular user would not care about I decided to have a modestly priced app that offered basic built-in functionality -- scientific, rpn, fractions, complex numbers,
In your opinion am I missing something? What alternatives would you suggest? Thanks in advance. Seriously, I am curious.
... I don't trust the mechanism. Any game that wants to pop up a "Click OK to buy in-game" crap, well, I'm not going to buy it, and I don't want to inadvertently click "Yes" ...
Actually the mechanism is part of Apple's built-in App Store app. I take it you don't buy things directly from your device, only through your computer? Also you would have to click yes more than once. Once for the game's user interface and then again for the Apple's user interface.
In short, "Commander Keen creator says Direct3D is now better than OpenGL" is an argument from authority. Arguments from authority are fallacious since both the reasoning and the premises of the argument may be wrong, and that the argument was made by a famous person doesn't change that.
What you are missing is that the pro-Direct3D argument being made today is from one of the most enthusiastic proponents of OpenGL of the past, one of the most critical of Direct3D in the past. Also a person of great technical skill in the actual domain being discussed. Its not an argument from authority. Its an argument from experience and expertise, an argument enhanced by open mindedness as suggested by a radical change of opinion as the underlying circumstances changed radically.
Precisely. Which is why it does some "desktop user" type things much better than payware alternatives. However, some people would rather just repeat FUD from the 90s and ignore the current state of things.
What FUD? No one said a user friendly distribution did not exist.
Also it is erroneous to believe that the "by nerds for nerds" attitude is something from the 90s. Such an attitude is alive and well today. For example consider the attacks on distributions when they do something for user convenience that is not philosophically pure. Consider the venom when a distribution delivers/installs binary-only code, say a driver. Consider the desire by some to guide those new to linux to the most philosophically pure distribution despite the possible difficulties involved. I'd say many in the Linux community still guide newcomers according to their personal agendas rather than what is simplest for the newcomer.
>The "by nerds for nerds" attitude
Oh hey everybody, he's using an argument from the 1990s! Tell me, what is so nerdy about Ubuntu, Mint, SuSE, or Pardus (to blatantly plug that distro)? You don't ever have to drop to a command line anymore if you really don't want to.
I realize the beginning of the post got you panties in a bunch but perhaps you should have kept reading:
"To be specific one Linux distribution would need a different attitude, not all of the Linux distributions. Having different distributions focus on radically different communities would seem to be the way to go."
If you had kept reading perhaps you might have realized we are in agreement more than you currently believe. Where do I say such a user friendly distribution does not exist? What I claim to exist is an intolerant attitude towards those who want such a distribution. Have you not noticed how Ubuntu seems to a target of criticism around here lately, for daring to do things that enhance convenience but are not philosophically pure to some?
The "by nerds for nerds" attitude is not something from the 90s, it is alive and well today and its adherents should get over it. Point newbs towards the friendliest distribution despite its lack of FSF purity. Once the newbs get up to speed then perhaps introduce them to other distributions.
Understanding the needs of desktop users is perpetually hampered by a large component of Linux culture. The "by nerds for nerds" attitude. Historically this was a great asset when targeting the server and unix workstation markets, users in these areas were typically nerds. However going after the public in general (the mythical year of the Linux desktop) requires a different attitude. To be specific one Linux distribution would need a different attitude, not all of the Linux distributions. Having different distributions focus on radically different communities would seem to be the way to go.
Were you not responding to this post? That's the parent I see. Um, actually, it doesn't assert that. With all due respect, I suggest you reread it, as well as its parent. That post does not assert that the US is not a republic, it doesn't even mention the word. It asserts that a republic is a kind of democracy, and that those who think that the US is not a democracy (as if republic and democracy were mutually exclusive) were brainwashed. You're both making the same point, that the US is a democracy and a republic.
The post I responded to merely quotes three dictionary definitions of democracy. I see no assertion that a republic is a kind of democracy, just an attack on someone who rejects the vague label of democracy and accepts the more specific label of republic. You are being extraordinarily generous in your interpretation of this post. :-)
I invent something, somebody catches wind of it and puts in a patent application, then I send in a patent application showing I've been working on it for longer. They get a patent because they filed first and I can't afford to take them to court to get it reversed. I lose. Or I do have enough money, they lose the patent and now NOBODY has a patent. I needed patent protection so I could license out my product. I still lose.
Why did you not file as you were inventing, before someone else discovered what your were doing? If you were trying to max out the time your invention would be under patent then you knowingly took a risk, trading a longer protection period for increased risk of discovery. With a US patent lasting 20 years it seems you got greedy and lost. Even if it took ten years to get to market you would have ten years of monopoly. Furthermore licensing can occur during development. It may even be financially beneficial for you to do so. Things are not as simple as you are suggesting.
So "republic" is it? Socialist republic like China? Parliamentary republic like Germany? Islamic republic like Iran?... That's the problem with just a single term. They are all too vague.
Hey I offered three terms, you asked me to cut it down to one. ;-)
Jeez, you're both right, there is no contradiction, except from the poster who asserted that the US isn't a democracy. It's clearly both a republic and a democracy, and yes, that's very easily possible. It's like having having a beverage and having a beer- it's both.
Actually the post that I responded to was asserting that the US gov't was not a republic, claiming that those who thought it a republic were brainwashed. So there was a contradiction and various other shortcomings.
A federation is a bit too vague, a collection of states retaining control over internal affairs. Both democracy and republic share more details, supreme authority in citizens and elected (directly or indirectly) representatives to exercise power. However republic ads one more constraint, a head of state that is not a monarch. So if forced to choose only one word I would say republic is the most descriptive.
A dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed. This is inherently bad.
Not really. When we hear the word dictator we think of absolute rulers who claim divine authority, the president for life, etc. However there is another type of dictator. One that was chosen by the people to temporarily lead during a crisis that threatens survival. If that dictator is a Cincinatus rather than a Caesar things may not be bad.
... Cincinnatus led the infantry in person ... the war ended and Cincinnatus disbanded his army. He then resigned his dictatorship and returned to his farm, a mere sixteen days after he had been nominated dictator ..."
"... an invasion caused him [Cincinatus] to be called to serve Rome as dictator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus.
So, your saying that you would be fine with a dictatorship, as long as the dictator was making moral and ethically sound decisions? While a benevolent dictatorship might work for Linux, I don't think it would work well for a full government.
Even during a crisis where survival is at stake?
Dictatorship is a historic response to crisis where survival is in question. It uses the battlefield proven concept that sometimes there is no time to debate, no time to search for the best solution, that a good-enough solution from an expert is needed at this precise moment. The concept is not theoretically totally without merit, the problem is that in practice dictators tend to lack the morals to give up power once the crisis is over and such rapid decision making is no longer necessary. One of the rare exceptions:
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus (519 BC – 438 BC) was an aristocrat and political figure of the Roman Republic, serving as consul in 460 BC and Roman dictator in 458 BC and 439 BC.[1]
Cincinnatus was regarded by the Romans, especially the aristocratic patrician class, as one of the heroes of early Rome and as a model of Roman virtue and simplicity. A persistent opponent of the plebeians, when his son was convicted in absentia and condemned to death, Cincinnatus was forced to live in humble circumstances, working on his own small farm, until an invasion caused him to be called to serve Rome as dictator, an office which he immediately resigned after completing his task of defeating the rivaling tribes of the Aequians, Sabines and Volscians.
His abandoning of his work to serve Rome, and especially his immediate resignation of his absolute authority with the end of the crisis, has often been cited as an example of outstanding leadership, service to the greater good, civic virtue, and modesty. As a result, he has inspired a number of organizations and other entities, a number of which are named for him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinatus
It's not more accurate. We're a representative democracy otherwise known as a democratic republic. A republic does not suggest that you're voting on representation. It's equally valid to have a system like they did in Rome where the oldest citizens are automatically representing the people. Consequently, the term representative democracy is the term to use or democratic republic.
What distinguishes the definition of a republic from the definition of a democracy is the prohibition against a head of state that is a monarch. The definitions of both often include supreme power in citizens allowed to vote and the direct or indirect election of representatives who exercise power on behalf of the citizens.
The US government officially describes itself as a constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
In what strange universe is it impossible to be a democracy and a republic? What feature of the US constitution makes it not a democracy?
No monarchy makes republic a slightly better fit.
The definitions for both republic and democracy tend to include:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic tend to add:
- A head of state that is not a monarch.
FWIW, the governments description of itself:
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
Accuracy? The United States is neither. It's a Federation. Why the hell do you think it's called "The Federal Government"?
Merely to distinguish it from state and local government.
According to the federal government itself, the proper description is:
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
Technically they're right. We are not a democracy, we are a republic. Their reasons for doing this may be wrong, but I agree with the overall outcome.
I know that they brainwashed you in school to believe that, but I would rather believe the New Oxford American Dictionary ... Merriam-Webster dictionary ... dictionary.reference.com ...
You should have looked up both "democracy" and "republic". You would have found that they both share the characteristics you emphasize:
- Supreme power resides in the people entitled to vote.
- Power exercised by elected representatives chosen directly or indirectly.
However the definitions for republic also includes:
- A head of state that is not a monarch. In contrast your sources specifically permit a monarchy in a democracy.
So "republic" is a better fit for the Unites States.
Furthermore your Merriam-Webster source includes:
Examples of REPUBLIC
when asked by a passerby what sort of government the constitutional convention had formulated for the new nation, Benjamin Franklin memorably replied, “A republic, if you can keep it”
and your dictionary.com source includes:
Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.
Which is why founding fathers described their creation as a republic back in the day. For a more modern perspective lets see how the US government describes itself today:
Country name:
conventional long form: United States of America
conventional short form: United States
abbreviation: US or USA
Government type:
Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
Once any human activity starts, the lawyers will crawl out of the woodwork, and treaties, contracts and agreements will begin to stack up nicely. Pretty much as it does in International Marine Law.
It already happened in 1967, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty.
Actually the moon is under legal jurisdiction, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty. However objects placed there continue to be under the jurisdiction of the government that put it there. It would seem that a company can not escape the jurisdiction of its earthly government by going to the moon.
These folks are not using mathematical notation. They are using the C programming language.
As I recall Windows NT 4.0 was independent of hardware ... I'm guessing they dropped this capability with one of the newer incarnations...
They dropped it only in the sense that they no longer offered it to the public. Recall that Windows NT was started on MIPS, x86 came later. The goal was to make sure the code was portable between architectures. My understanding is that internally MS kept building NT (XP, Vista, 7, ...) on non-x86 platforms to maintain/verify portability.