Really, what's on Mars that can't be done more cheaply by building near earth orbital environments?
The real estate to spread a colony upon. 1/3 gravity would be healthier. Local water is pretty damn nice too. Easier construction environment, simpler building designs, etc.
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything...
Of course privatizing space will lead to corporate naming. Keeping to a more scientific naming scheme is one of the advantages of government leadership in space exploration. If government abdicates that role then corporations will fill that vacuum.
I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.
That's not what "a written offer [...] to give any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" means. If you choose the written offer route then it has to be good for everybody.
The section you link to only says you have to license *everyone*, it then explicitly say you have to do nothing else.
"Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."
Would that period include the nearly 400 years where the Roman Empire controlled Britain?
If you are referring to a period during the days of the British Empire then I refer you to my first post where I stated that words were imported voluntarily during that era. We are in agreement from the 1500s or so onward.
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party...
I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.
"Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code..."
The Google reference kernel code doesn't contain the driver code for any of these tablets, and the vast majority of them are based on SoC platforms that don't exist at all in the Google code. The tablet vendors can't simply point at the Google repositories, they're obliged to either ship the source with the devices or provide a written offer to provide the source to any third party on request.
No. they only have to provide source to their customers, not to any third party.
For that to work the company earning profits from Android must contribute to hosting the source code. If that don't do that the version of android used on the tablet might not be available when needed.
There is no requirement to contribute. If the version they use is available they need to do nothing. If the version is not then they must find another site to refer to or make it available themselves.
I think there is some confusion because the FSF recommends not referring to another site because they may stop providing your version at some time without your knowledge.
Simply being willing to ship the sources to their customers for a nominal fee would meet the GPL requirement.
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
Those examples are all well and good but I can also point to the tremendous amount of latin and greek words that came into English without war being involved.
Sorry, but SF-Movies did nothing to encourage kids into pursuing a scientific career. How many movies/series do you know where scientists are the ACTUAL HEROES?
It is not the humans themselves that generate the interest, it is the technology and the idea of new lands to explore. The human characters are secondary.
Comics, TV and movies have been generating interest in science and engineering for generations. Do you think there was a shortage of NASA engineers in the 1960s who had not read sci fi comics or watched sci fi shorts/serials in the theaters when they were kids? Do you think there was a shortage of engineers in the 1980s who were not avid Star Trek viewers?(*) Do you think there is a shortage of engineers today who were not fans of Star Wars, Blade Runner, Aliens, etc when they were kids?
(*) How many Motorola engineers were trying to open the Razor flip phone like a Star Trek communicator during the Razor's development?;-)
Good journalism often edits out info. There are often details or info that does not add to an article. Redundant, off topic or tangential material can make an article worse and dilute or confuse the point of the article. Consider that a total dump of all info and data is what hostile parties due when they want to hide meaningful information in response to a court order to provide info or data. Journalism is often about sifting through this mess to find the meaningful info, not merely repeating the total dump.
iOS, formerly iPhone OS, is the operating system for iPad. It is related but different and distinct from Mac OS X. The French could make a similar exception for Mac OS X as they have for Windows 7 and iOS and Windows CE would still be taxed.
My understanding is that there are so many regional dialects and official languages that many Indians from different regions speak English to each other in India. It is often the most practical common language, after their regional dialect many are most fluent in english. Is this accurate or have I gotten a mistaken impression from my university classmates?
"Lingua franca" is Italian, and means "Frankish language". According to my book (I'll copy the paragraph out if you ask), the Arabs used to refer to all Europeans as Franks, and the language they used to communicate was Frankish -- some kind of minimal common vocabulary for all the people from various countries.
It sounds like they were referring to latin. The Franks may have been the successors to the western roman empire to some degree but the most common language across all of Europe would probably have been latin for quite some time after Rome's fall, at least for the educated and those engaging in international commerce.
As someone or other has said, defending the purity of the English language would be like defending the purity of a cribhouse whore
That would be James Nicoll, back in 1990 on rec.arts.sf-lovers; the complete quote is
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary
English did not necessarily draw from other languages, it was not always voluntary. Germanic tribes conquered England, the vikings invaded and settled in some regions, and then the French (Normans) conquered England. All these invaders forcibly altered the english language. To illustrate the effect of the norman conquest one professor claimed that french words in the english language tend to be those of the ruling class and not so much those of the folks down on the farm. However during the imperial era English did voluntarily draw words from throughout the british empire and the quote is more accurate.
Wrong. There were no restrictions on publishing the research. Only the Windows source code was under NDA. MS was merely granted a license in the event the research was patented or otherwise restricted.
How does publishing of things other than source code affect the fact that they can't publish any of that source code?
By "Windows source code" I am referring to the Windows operating system code written by Microsoft. The code written by the university researchers may be published.
Wrong. MS had (has ?) a program granting access to Windows NT source code for university researchers. MS had to like the research topic and be granted the right to use anything that comes from this research (keep in mind universities like to patent things, MS would automatically get a license) and the professor and students had to sign NDAs and keep the source "locked up" so those outside the project would not have access. A friend was on such a project while in grad school, I believe they had Windows NT 4.
And no one is allowed to publish any of that, so they are just as good as Microsoft employees.
Wrong. There were no restrictions on publishing the research. Only the Windows source code was under NDA. MS was merely granted a license in the event the research was patented or otherwise restricted.
Nobody outside Microsoft knows how much of this was portable code and how much of it was each hardware architecture splitting into its own branch of code.
Wrong. MS had (has ?) a program granting access to Windows NT source code for university researchers. MS had to like the research topic and be granted the right to use anything that comes from this research (keep in mind universities like to patent things, MS would automatically get a license) and the professor and students had to sign NDAs and keep the source "locked up" so those outside the project would not have access. A friend was on such a project while in grad school, I believe they had Windows NT 4.
Regarding architecture specific branches, that is pretty much only done for portions of the hardware abstraction layer of NT, just as it is done for portions of Linux and BSD kernels.
The fact that non-Intel platforms all disappeared strongly indicates that it was mostly the latter in the end.
A terribly bad guess. Windows NT started on MIPS (i860 when it was OS/2 NT?), designing the code for portability was a priority since day 1. MIPS was used to further this goal. Alpha and PowerPC cpus were more commercially oriented ports. Their failure in the Windows market was not necessarily MS' fault. Apple never delivered the Mac OS component of CHRP that would let people have native Mac OS and native Windows NT running on the same machine. On the low end server side Linux thwarted MS expansion into that realm. The non-x86 retail products were dropped due to a lack of consumer interest. Note that x86 includes two hardware platforms, IA32 and AMD64.
Isn't ARM already dominant? Think smart phones and tablets not laptops and desktops. The former will one day exceed the later with respect to personal ownership.
ARM may also get used in some netbooks. I suppose something from the NT side of the family, as opposed to the CE side, could make sense there. I'm not sure why a desktop or laptop might go that route (Atom + NT).
The NT Kernel might be, even after all this time slapping whatever each release thinks is a useful feature into it, but who cares about that. I think I can guarantee Office will not run on ARM...
I believe MS Office Mac 2008 targeted Intel and PowerPC cpu architectures, that would make it highly portable.
They can just trot down to the Azure lab and ask Dave Cutler how he got it to work last time.
The NT dev team's method is no secret, throw everything out and start from scratch.
FWIW, note "NT" not "Windows NT", it actually started as "OS/2 NT". Back in the day MS was telling people that Windows was a temporary thing for users sticking with DOS rather than migrating to OS/2 1.x plus the Presentation Manager GUI, a 16-bit protected mode environment. IBM was going to do a more expedient x86-only 32-bit version, OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft was going to do a 32-bit portable version targeting various CPU architectures, OS/2 NT. At some point Microsoft decided to split up with IBM and renamed the product Windows NT.
I wonder if the NT guts of newer versions of Windows are still as portable as they were a decade ago.
My understanding is that even though non-x86 retail versions are no longer available MS still built non-x86 versions for internal testing in order to maintain/verify portability of code. It also helps for debugging. A problem that is difficult to reproduce on one hardware platform is sometimes much more apparent on another hardware platform.
Slashdot Mirror
But are not all of these advantages not obviated by the costs of initial setup?
You could say the same for the down payment on a house. In the short term it would cost less out of pocket to just rent an apartment.
However a house and a mars colony are long term investments and in the long term are rational.
Really, what's on Mars that can't be done more cheaply by building near earth orbital environments?
The real estate to spread a colony upon. 1/3 gravity would be healthier. Local water is pretty damn nice too. Easier construction environment, simpler building designs, etc.
When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything ...
Of course privatizing space will lead to corporate naming. Keeping to a more scientific naming scheme is one of the advantages of government leadership in space exploration. If government abdicates that role then corporations will fill that vacuum.
That's not what "a written offer [...] to give any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" means. If you choose the written offer route then it has to be good for everybody.
The section you link to only says you have to license *everyone*, it then explicitly say you have to do nothing else.
"Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."
Our Latin words don't come from that period.
Would that period include the nearly 400 years where the Roman Empire controlled Britain?
If you are referring to a period during the days of the British Empire then I refer you to my first post where I stated that words were imported voluntarily during that era. We are in agreement from the 1500s or so onward.
Quoting from the GPL v2 section 3(b):
"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party...
I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.
..."
"Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code
The Google reference kernel code doesn't contain the driver code for any of these tablets, and the vast majority of them are based on SoC platforms that don't exist at all in the Google code. The tablet vendors can't simply point at the Google repositories, they're obliged to either ship the source with the devices or provide a written offer to provide the source to any third party on request.
No. they only have to provide source to their customers, not to any third party.
It is sufficient if they use stock Android.
For that to work the company earning profits from Android must contribute to hosting the source code. If that don't do that the version of android used on the tablet might not be available when needed.
There is no requirement to contribute. If the version they use is available they need to do nothing. If the version is not then they must find another site to refer to or make it available themselves.
I think there is some confusion because the FSF recommends not referring to another site because they may stop providing your version at some time without your knowledge.
Simply being willing to ship the sources to their customers for a nominal fee would meet the GPL requirement.
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
Those examples are all well and good but I can also point to the tremendous amount of latin and greek words that came into English without war being involved.
The Romans invaded Britain too.
Sorry, but SF-Movies did nothing to encourage kids into pursuing a scientific career. How many movies/series do you know where scientists are the ACTUAL HEROES?
It is not the humans themselves that generate the interest, it is the technology and the idea of new lands to explore. The human characters are secondary.
iOS, formerly iPhone OS, is the operating system for iPad. It is related but different and distinct from Mac OS X ...
iOS is provably OSX with some API stuff dropped and some tacked on.
and some stuff changed and not entirely compatible anymore.
Just curious but how is all this different from "related but different and distinct from"? I'm not sure where we are disagreeing.
Can Movies Inspire Kids To Be Future Scientists?
Comics, TV and movies have been generating interest in science and engineering for generations. Do you think there was a shortage of NASA engineers in the 1960s who had not read sci fi comics or watched sci fi shorts/serials in the theaters when they were kids? Do you think there was a shortage of engineers in the 1980s who were not avid Star Trek viewers?(*) Do you think there is a shortage of engineers today who were not fans of Star Wars, Blade Runner, Aliens, etc when they were kids?
;-)
(*) How many Motorola engineers were trying to open the Razor flip phone like a Star Trek communicator during the Razor's development?
Good journalism often edits out info. There are often details or info that does not add to an article. Redundant, off topic or tangential material can make an article worse and dilute or confuse the point of the article. Consider that a total dump of all info and data is what hostile parties due when they want to hide meaningful information in response to a court order to provide info or data. Journalism is often about sifting through this mess to find the meaningful info, not merely repeating the total dump.
What is Apple's iPad OS?
That should matter here.
iOS, formerly iPhone OS, is the operating system for iPad. It is related but different and distinct from Mac OS X. The French could make a similar exception for Mac OS X as they have for Windows 7 and iOS and Windows CE would still be taxed.
Uhm Hindi is the official language of India.
My understanding is that there are so many regional dialects and official languages that many Indians from different regions speak English to each other in India. It is often the most practical common language, after their regional dialect many are most fluent in english. Is this accurate or have I gotten a mistaken impression from my university classmates?
"Lingua franca" is Italian, and means "Frankish language". According to my book (I'll copy the paragraph out if you ask), the Arabs used to refer to all Europeans as Franks, and the language they used to communicate was Frankish -- some kind of minimal common vocabulary for all the people from various countries.
It sounds like they were referring to latin. The Franks may have been the successors to the western roman empire to some degree but the most common language across all of Europe would probably have been latin for quite some time after Rome's fall, at least for the educated and those engaging in international commerce.
As someone or other has said, defending the purity of the English language would be like defending the purity of a cribhouse whore
That would be James Nicoll, back in 1990 on rec.arts.sf-lovers; the complete quote is
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary
English did not necessarily draw from other languages, it was not always voluntary. Germanic tribes conquered England, the vikings invaded and settled in some regions, and then the French (Normans) conquered England. All these invaders forcibly altered the english language. To illustrate the effect of the norman conquest one professor claimed that french words in the english language tend to be those of the ruling class and not so much those of the folks down on the farm. However during the imperial era English did voluntarily draw words from throughout the british empire and the quote is more accurate.
Wrong. There were no restrictions on publishing the research. Only the Windows source code was under NDA. MS was merely granted a license in the event the research was patented or otherwise restricted.
How does publishing of things other than source code affect the fact that they can't publish any of that source code?
By "Windows source code" I am referring to the Windows operating system code written by Microsoft. The code written by the university researchers may be published.
Wrong. MS had (has ?) a program granting access to Windows NT source code for university researchers. MS had to like the research topic and be granted the right to use anything that comes from this research (keep in mind universities like to patent things, MS would automatically get a license) and the professor and students had to sign NDAs and keep the source "locked up" so those outside the project would not have access. A friend was on such a project while in grad school, I believe they had Windows NT 4.
And no one is allowed to publish any of that, so they are just as good as Microsoft employees.
Wrong. There were no restrictions on publishing the research. Only the Windows source code was under NDA. MS was merely granted a license in the event the research was patented or otherwise restricted.
Nobody outside Microsoft knows how much of this was portable code and how much of it was each hardware architecture splitting into its own branch of code.
Wrong. MS had (has ?) a program granting access to Windows NT source code for university researchers. MS had to like the research topic and be granted the right to use anything that comes from this research (keep in mind universities like to patent things, MS would automatically get a license) and the professor and students had to sign NDAs and keep the source "locked up" so those outside the project would not have access. A friend was on such a project while in grad school, I believe they had Windows NT 4.
Regarding architecture specific branches, that is pretty much only done for portions of the hardware abstraction layer of NT, just as it is done for portions of Linux and BSD kernels.
The fact that non-Intel platforms all disappeared strongly indicates that it was mostly the latter in the end.
A terribly bad guess. Windows NT started on MIPS (i860 when it was OS/2 NT?), designing the code for portability was a priority since day 1. MIPS was used to further this goal. Alpha and PowerPC cpus were more commercially oriented ports. Their failure in the Windows market was not necessarily MS' fault. Apple never delivered the Mac OS component of CHRP that would let people have native Mac OS and native Windows NT running on the same machine. On the low end server side Linux thwarted MS expansion into that realm. The non-x86 retail products were dropped due to a lack of consumer interest. Note that x86 includes two hardware platforms, IA32 and AMD64.
Isn't ARM already dominant? Think smart phones and tablets not laptops and desktops. The former will one day exceed the later with respect to personal ownership.
ARM may also get used in some netbooks. I suppose something from the NT side of the family, as opposed to the CE side, could make sense there. I'm not sure why a desktop or laptop might go that route (Atom + NT).
The NT Kernel might be, even after all this time slapping whatever each release thinks is a useful feature into it, but who cares about that. I think I can guarantee Office will not run on ARM ...
I believe MS Office Mac 2008 targeted Intel and PowerPC cpu architectures, that would make it highly portable.
They can just trot down to the Azure lab and ask Dave Cutler how he got it to work last time.
The NT dev team's method is no secret, throw everything out and start from scratch.
FWIW, note "NT" not "Windows NT", it actually started as "OS/2 NT". Back in the day MS was telling people that Windows was a temporary thing for users sticking with DOS rather than migrating to OS/2 1.x plus the Presentation Manager GUI, a 16-bit protected mode environment. IBM was going to do a more expedient x86-only 32-bit version, OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft was going to do a 32-bit portable version targeting various CPU architectures, OS/2 NT. At some point Microsoft decided to split up with IBM and renamed the product Windows NT.
I wonder if the NT guts of newer versions of Windows are still as portable as they were a decade ago.
My understanding is that even though non-x86 retail versions are no longer available MS still built non-x86 versions for internal testing in order to maintain/verify portability of code. It also helps for debugging. A problem that is difficult to reproduce on one hardware platform is sometimes much more apparent on another hardware platform.