THE ONLY RULE is that rules are meant to make you think carefully before you break them.
The GP's statement was that he would fire someone for repeatedly writing the "garbage" code offered as an example, no for simply using a goto.
What careful thought do you see in the code offered? I see code that is more difficult to recognize as conditional because it is not indented. Such indentation is important because we often glance / skim through code while trying to get an idea of its flow.
>The existence of alternate software does not require the GPL.
So where are the custom roms for Iphones ?
Locking down the hardware to factory signed binaries happens on the GPL side of the world too. It was considered so troublesome that it was a major motivation for GPL v3. However Linux is stuck at GPL v2 so this will forever be a problem for any Linux based device. Linux based device users are at the mercy of hardware vendors every bit as much as everyone else.
Consider hardware with open specs. say a PC. I can buy a Linux box, wipe the factory Linux, and install FreeBSD.
The GPL does not guarantee you can update your factory installed GPL based Linux code. The GPL fails. Period. The FSF acknowledged this failure of v2. You are totally at the mercy of the hardware vendor.
> Having to completely replace it with different software demonstrates a failure of the GPL
No it doesn't the mere EXISTENCE of alternative software and the capacity to replace is the VIRTUE of the GPL.
The existence of alternate software does not require the GPL. If I am completely replacing the vendor supplied software I can replace it with something non-GPL'd.
>Some users. Few go that route, most go without critical patches. The GPL is not benefitting these users, the vast majority are still at the mercy of their hardware vendors.
What people DO is not the issue - it's what they are ABLE to do that matters.
If the horse won't drink, that's not our fault - but if we locked it up without water then that most certainly IS an ethical concern.
They are not able to update the linux from their hardware vendor despite the hardware vendor using GPL'd software. Having to completely replace it with different software demonstrates a failure of the GPL. And as a result of this failure many choose to stick with what they have.
With devices checking for factory signed software vendor lock is doable with the GPL based Linux.
One does not have an inherent right to the work of someone else. Such a right only exists when it is contractually forced by an agreement such as the GPL.
Indeed, that's the point. That's one thing the developer loses when he choses a BSD license over a copyleft one (not just the GPL).
There is no loss. You confuse loss with gaining a contractual obligation. An absence of gain is not a loss.
No, it is not a loss. It is simply coveting something one does not have. If you want to say it it unfair, sure, but a loss, no, not all.
Isn't it correct to call "a loss" something that you can have, and then at some point you can no longer have? I get quite a lot of hits on Google for that usage: https://www.google.com/search?...
No, because there never was anything you inherently could have, i.e. someone else's property. There is no lost opportunity because there never was a right to such an opportunity. Coveting someone else's property and not getting access to that property is not a lost opportunity.
The point is that with the GPL they cannot commercially fork code written by me. Of course they can do whatever they want with their own code.
They absolutely can use GPL code commercially. Commercial use does nor require distribution to external users. Commercial use simply means they make money off your work, and this is perfectly allowable under the GPL.
use != fork
A "fork" can be internal, private. The GPL allows such an internal effort to apply any subsequent changes or additions you make, to track your main "branch", and to use such code internally to make money and not reimburse you.
You forget the pesky little detail that I mentioned that users are under no obligation to use a proprietary BSD fork rather than the community version. They can stick with the community and have no such fear, use FreeBSD rather than Mac OS X for example.
Another loss for the user. With the GPL, I have the freedom to choose the products that I like. With the BSD license, I have to take what the community gives me...
No. Both GPL and BSD users only have what the community happens to offer them. There is nothing to "like" beyond the community's offering. Plus there is your confusion of "loss" with failing to get something you never had but merely covet.
... And today this means that I might even not have the ability to run the free version of the software on my machine, because its manufacturers might decide (and they usually do) that it's not worth the hassle for them to release the source code of some machine-specific software that is required to use even the community version of the product.
Again, coveting something you never had, not a loss. If you buy a Windows box and it doesn't run BSD you did not lose anything. You did not buy a BSD box. If you bought a BSD box in the first place you would lose nothing.
Since Linux is GPL, and only because of that, at least Android phone owners can install a community-driven distribution on their phones. That's because the hardware manufacturers have to release both the kernel and the drivers. For the userspace parts, which fall under different licenses, they don't bother - and that's an endless source of problems for the users.
The fact remains that a user who wants to continue using their original vendor supplied software is forced to go without a patch despite the GPL.
Yes you mentioned GPLv3 but that was a crude attempt to manufacture a hypothetical, the reality is that Linux is what most devices will be based upon and Linux is inhe
>Its also a humorous example given the fact that Android phones with their GPL based Linux host are not getting critical patches.
Actually - right there is the PERFECT example of why the GPL does in fact benefit USERS... GPL benefits users because it means there is always a third-party vendor available - regardless of the whims of the vendor you originally got the product from.
Some users. Few go that route, most go without critical patches. The GPL is not benefitting these users, the vast majority are still at the mercy of their hardware vendors.
The GPL is about protecting the freedom of the end user. Not the developer. The end user.
The end user is not forced to use a commercial fork, they may continue to use the community BSD code. For example FreeBSD users are not impacted at all by anything the Mac OS X adds or changes and does not contribute back. They have lost nothing.
You confuse loss with coveting. A FreeBSD user may simply covet something added to Mac OS X.
But of course that does tell us why you don't like the GPL.
Who said anything about not liking the GPL. The only thing going on here is debunking the myth of GPL being free. As I said before forced benevolence may or may not be good but it is not freedom.
What rights do BSD contributors lose? All the community code exists, the community can continue without the commercial changes, the community is not required to use some commercial fork. They lose nothing if some contributor chooses not to give back.
They lose the rights to take advantage of the improvements that the commercial contributor has done to their code,...
One does not have an inherent right to the work of someone else. Such a right only exists when it is contractually forced by an agreement such as the GPL.
... while the commercial contributor does not lose the right to take advantage of the improvements that the free contributor has done. You may agree or disagree with this, but it is objectively a loss.
No, it is not a loss. It is simply coveting something one does not have. If you want to say it it unfair, sure, but a loss, no, not all.
Furthermore, users of GPL'd code decide not to give back at times too. They can use some a commercial fork internally and benefit from community work and not give back.
The point is that with the GPL they cannot commercially fork code written by me. Of course they can do whatever they want with their own code.
They absolutely can use GPL code commercially. Commercial use does nor require distribution to external users. Commercial use simply means they make money off your work, and this is perfectly allowable under the GPL.
What rights do BSD users lose?
100% pragmatic example: GPLv3 bash has a serious bug (any reference to reality is purely intentional). GPLv3 users patch, recompile and they have lost no right. BSD-licensed phone firmware has a serious bug. Users lose the right to make use of the phone they bought and not be pwned by hackers while doing that.
You forget the pesky little detail that I mentioned that users are under no obligation to use a proprietary BSD fork rather than the community version. They can stick with the community and have no such fear, use FreeBSD rather than Mac OS X for example.
Its also a humorous example given the fact that Android phones with their GPL based Linux host are not getting critical patches. Yes you mentioned GPLv3 but that was a crude attempt to manufacture a hypothetical, the reality is that Linux is what most devices will be based upon and Linux is inherently GPLv2 and will not be changing.
The GPL does *not* offer greater freedom, it creates restrictions to force behaviors it believes benevolent. Forced benevolence may or may not be a good thing but it is not freedom.
I believe that my rights to own property and to live are freedom. They exists only because other people are "forced to benevolence", in particular not to steal my stuff or harm me. Try to convince me that this is not freedom.
A straw man. No where was your property, the community BSD code, at risk of loss. Only the commercial fork's code, and that code is not yours, it is someone else's property.
Translated to the software world, can you argue that the ability to fix the code of a program that I use is not a freedom for me? I'm free from bugs. I'm free from hackers. I'm free to add new features. I'm free both in a practical and philosophical sense.
You are under no obligation to use commercial forks. Again, you may stay with FreeBSD and not run Mac OS X. Nothing Mac OS X does or adds takes away from anyone who wishes to use FreeBSD.
BSD licensed software allows someone to take it, modify it in some meaningful way, and not share those changes back with the community at large. In that sense, it is possible for software licensed under a BSD license to lose the freedom it had. The developers did not lose any freedoms, the source did.
The source lost no freedom at all. Not one line of community source code was lost. Not one user is forced to use the commercial fork.
GPL does not force you to be benevolent, it just requires that if you want to use GPL'ed software that your contributions remain benevolent (to use your term). If you don't want to, then chose some other solution, no one is forcing you to use GPL.
That is a strange straw man. The GPL only forces you to act benevolently if you use GPL'd code.
Both licenses have their strengths and weaknesses. Both cater to different needs and are appropriate for different (possibly overlapping) uses.Neither is a one size fits all, and neither is better than the other.
No one is saying otherwise. Just debunking the myth that the GPL is about freedom, its is not. It is about forced benevolence.
You keep talking about "masked by terrain." It's irrelevant. Ballistic projectiles follow parabolic trajectories that are described by the quadratic equation.
Only in high school introductory physics with its grossly simplified mathematical models that ignore many relevant variables where they are trying to get you to understand concepts, not solve real world problems. In the world the naval rail guns will have to operate having a target masked by terrain is a significant problem.
The quadratic equation has two solutions. In gunnery these are often (incorrectly) called "direct" and "indirect." The distinction is that for a target at about the same level as the gun the "direct" solution will involve an elevation of less than 45 degrees and less travel time. The "indirect" solution has an elevation greater than 45 degrees and greater travel time.
Wrong. Direct fire is when you can see the target, indirect fire is when you can not see the target. And one of the major reasons one can not see the target, being masked by terrain.
The "direct" solution is how you'd fire a hand held gun, because it's much easier to aim by eye. The "indirect" solution would be if you fired up into the air and the bullet killed someone when it came back down (which does happen).
When people are killed it is generally because the gun was fired at a lower elevation and the projectile still had a lot of forward momentum when it hit. With very high elevations approaching the vertical, "firing up", that forward momentum gets lost and the bullet has a near vertical descent at its terminal velocity. The notion that a bullet returns at its muzzle velocity is a long debunked myth. At least until they start firing bullets on a planetary body without an atmosphere.
You can do the math yourself if you want. Both solutions are perfectly valid using exactly the same initial velocity. Howitzers may reduce the charge when they're using high elevation indirect fire in order to reduce the shell's travel time and, for unguided shells, improve accuracy. It's not necessary though.
When masked by terrain, when in the terrain's "shadow", there are no lower angle solutions as one would have in direct fire. The only available solutions are high angle, and not all high angle solutions are equivalent. The equation for a parabola is woefully inadequate once one gets past the intro to physics thought experiment. Perhaps an illustration will help: http://askthephysicist.com/ima.... If you doubt this graphic I can give you the page number of an Army field manual pdf that has similar illustrations. The shortest of the high angle shots is more desirable because it is more accurate. Shorter exposure to the myriad of unknowns that destroy accuracy.
A rail gun with its extremely high velocities is even more susceptible to the unknowns of long flight times, higher altitude ballistic paths. If you bother to read about rail guns you will find that one of its advantages is that the launch speed of a projectile is far more variable than with a convention gun and its 1, 2, or 3 powder bags approach. The rail gun provides, for the first time, the opportunity to optimize the trajectory for the shortest path when lobbing a projectile just barely over masking terrain. But again, this will result in low speeds so old fashioned explosives will be necessary. Kinetic weapons can not fill all roles.
And even if the mathematical models were improved to account for the various variables currently contributing to inaccuracy, the simple effect of air resistance and the resulting terminal velocity render kinetic weapons unusable for high elevation shots. At least ground/sea based kinetic weapons. Space based would be a different story.
... larger corporations will build non-free proprietary improvements on BSD licensed code without contributing back, and to continue to be productive as a programmer you will be forced to pay for the licenses on their proprietary tools...
Really? How did they degrade your performance? You have access to and may enhance and contribute to the exact same source code they did. You lost *nothing*, not one line of code, not one opportunity to add a new line of code.
And if your code was GPL based a corporation may do the exact same thing. They may fork and enhance a GPL based tool for internal use only and not share. They can continue to benefit and merge all your work and the rest of the communities work as well.
RMS has a philosophy that users of software should have certain freedoms / rights (use, study & modify, redistribute, distribute). That's the gist of GPL and why he founded GNU. BSD-style license does not guarantee these freedoms more likely it's simply easier not to guarantee those rights...
What rights do BSD contributors lose? All the community code exists, the community can continue without the commercial changes, the community is not required to use some commercial fork. They lose nothing if some contributor chooses not to give back. Furthermore, users of GPL'd code decide not to give back at times too. They can use some a commercial fork internally and benefit from community work and not give back. Also, various commercial users of BSD code have a pretty good track record of contributing back.
What rights do BSD users lose? **IF** they care about "free software" or access to the source code they can just avoid commercial/closed forks and stick to the community based code.
The GPL does *not* offer greater freedom, it creates restrictions to force behaviors it believes benevolent. Forced benevolence may or may not be a good thing but it is not freedom.
Still a complete and utter physics failure. The point about escape velocity is anything below escape velocity will return back to the earth surface.
And who disputed that? What was being disputed was your erroneous statement that things "fall back to earth with roughly the same speed". Go re-read your junior high physics text and pay attention to necessary conditions like "in a vacuum".
The vertical component of the "muzzle" velocity will be more or less preserved, so if you shoot upwards all that kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy, and then gravity takes over and it all gets converted back to kinetic energy.
No, they don't. Their velocity is limited by air resistance when they "fall back" (gravitation acceleration), they fall at their terminal velocity. You fire a.30 cal rifle straight up, the velocity of the bullet leaving the barrel is roughly 2,500 to 3,000 feet per second. The bullet does not return at that speed, it returns at its terminal velocity of around 300 feet per second, about 1/8th to 1/10th of its muzzle velocity.
Yes there is losses due to air resistance, but indirect fire with a hypersonic inert projectile DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPLOSIVES. Anyone who thinks it does is a blithering moronic twit who clearly knows jack shit about physics. You get some right idiots on slashdot.
Check the mirror dude. The physics of a rail gun projectile is the same physics as a howitzer projectile. And howitzers have to reduce launch speed (smaller powder charge) and use extremely high barrel elevations ( up to 70 degrees) to hit targets that are masked by terrain. It is no different for rail guns. And to hit targets that are near to the terrain that is masking them nearly all the forward momentum of the projectile has to be bled off and the path to the target approaches the vertical. This will be too slow for kinetic weapons, explosive warheads will be needed.
If the Navy were to employ rail guns as you describe there would be enormously long "shadows" behind masking terrain that they could not hit.
Absolutely wrong. Upward acceleration is due launch energy. Downward acceleration is due to gravity and air resistance creates a terminal velocity that limits downward velocity. Fire a shot upwards with a rail gun and the project falls at the same speed as if it were dropped from a balloon. It does *not* come down at the same speed it went up at, it does *not* have the same kinetic energy.
You're wrong, except for extremely short range shots where you're better off using direct fire.
No, you are thinking of indirect fire as an over-the-horizon direct shot. Something very different from what I am referring to. What I am referring to as indirect fire is a target masked by terrain, in the "shadow" of that terrain. For such fire launch speeds are low and the gun elevation extremely high because most forward momentum must be bled off and the projectiles descent to target approaches the vertical. Read up on modern howitzers. They reduce the powder charge and elevate to 70 degrees for this this type of mission. Rail guns will need to do similarly, however the speeds involved are insufficient for kinetic weapons so the rail guns will need to launch old fashioned explosive warheads.
When conventional large guns want to vary their range they don't send out a guy with a teaspoon to add or remove a bit of gunpowder. They change their elevation.
The Army and Navy also vary the powder charges to adjust the ballistic curve. For example in WW2 battleship they would load one to three bags of powder behind a projectile. The rail gun has the advantage in that it can more easily be adjusted for launch speed. Adjusting launch speed is absolutely essential to hit a variety of targets via indirect fire. Rail guns do not change this fact.
Ballistic shells follow parabolas determined by the quadratic equation... Including air resistance, any shot that goes more than a few tens of kilometres will be going faster when it hits if you use the indirect solution because the air is thinner up high.
Indirect fire usually refers a target being hidden by, of being in the in the "shadow" of, terrain. For such targets a very high ballistic trajectory is needed. For a long range over-the-horizon shot that you are describing the trajectory is relatively low compared to the former. Its not unlike a soldier taking a shot at a target 1,000 yards out with a.30 cal rifle, the barrel gets a lot of elevation.
The type of shot you are describing still hits hard because the forward momentum has been preserved. But in many indirect fire missions the point of the high parabola is to bleed off most of that forward momentum and have a very sharp descent. Such a trajectory is needed when the target is relatively close to the terrain it is in the "shadow" of. Note that Army howitzers elevate to 70 degrees for such shots. These shots have lost most of the forward momentum and are descending at their terminal velocity due to air resistance. Such shots will not have the momentum necessary for a kinetic weapon, old fashioned high explosive projectiles will be necessary.
ICBMS are ballistic (that's what the B is) missiles that fly on suborbital trajectories out of the atmosphere, halfway around the planet, then come down at several kilometres per second. A large railgun could fire a shell that does the same thing. Kinetic energy projectiles DO replace explosive warheads, except perhaps for special purpose munitions such as the delayed fuses used to penetrate deeply buried bunkers. Even then, a shaped kinetic projectile might well work better.
Utterly wrong. Firing only a high speed kinetic projectile effectively creates extremely long "shadows" behind terrain that would be untouchable. The only way to hit targets masked by terrain, such as those on a reverse slope, is through low launch speed and high barrel elevation. Just like howitzers do by reducing the powder charge and cranking elevation up to 70 degrees. Rail guns will need to act similarly, slow the launch, have a very high elevation, and fire explosive projectile for this type of flight profile.
Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?
Gibson Guitars. Gibson imported wood guitar components that we legally harvested and legally exported. Eventually the US gov't admitted Gibson did nothing wrong. However to investigate Gibon's possible improper importation of wood a heavily armed SWAT raid was conducted to seize their paperwork and the wood in question. http://www.nationalreview.com/...
A robot can get closer to the source of some fires than crew members, even crew members completely outfitted in firefighting gear.
Plus since we are talking warships there are also issues of live ordinance. There was at least one, maybe more, fires on board aircraft carriers in the 1960s where a dozen or so crew members fighting a fire on deck were killed when an aircraft's bombs cooked off and detonated.
Sorry, but kinetic energy is only removed from the bullet in two ways: 1) Shooting up - This means actually hitting something higher than you,...
Wrong. Shooting "up" is exactly what I referred to as "more ballistic" trajectories. This is how you hit a target on land that is in the "shadow" of terrain. To get over that terrain and hit a target a behind it you either have to use a slower launch or an extremely elevated launch. In either case you don't have the huge momentum needed for a kinetic weapon.
Basically if you launch at full speed there is a "shadow" behind that hill that can extend for many tens of miles because of the shallow ballistic curve for such a shot.
if the bullet goes up and comes down, the KE -> PE -> KE stuff all evens out.
Absolutely wrong. Upward acceleration is due launch energy. Downward acceleration is due to gravity and air resistance creates a terminal velocity that limits downward velocity. Fire a shot upwards with a rail gun and the project falls at the same speed as if it were dropped from a balloon. It does *not* come down at the same speed it went up at, it does *not* have the same kinetic energy.
2) Air resistance - This is an actual drag force and takes energy from the bullet and puts it into the air.
So basically, no, the KE of the bullet should still be sufficient.
Sorry, no. Howitzers can elevate to 70 degrees for a reason (previously mentioned indirect fire and terrain shadows), and with such shots most of the forward momentum is lost. Rail guns have the same problem. Employing rail guns as you assume would make a reverse slope defense untouchable.
But lasers and rail gun will eventually replace all the artillery style weapons that ships used to have. The lasers take out the fast moving airborne stuff, kinetic weapons take out the rest.
No, consider indirect fire. To hit a target in the "shadow" of terrain you need a highly ballistic trajectory. That mean a much slower launch for shorter range targets. And for more difficult shots, say a target on a reverse slope, you need a trajectory where the projectile will be coming down somewhat close to the vertical and its speed will be its gravitational terminal velocity. Explosive warheads will still be needed.
In other words kinetic weapons need relatively "flat" trajectories, works well for targets at sea but not so well for many targets on land.
Oh boy, physics 101 failure. The escape velocity of earth at sea level is roughly 11200 m/s. Anything less will fall back to earth with roughly the same speed. The rail guns the US Navy are looking for have a muzzle velocity in the region of 6000m/s which is well below escape velocity. They are looking for a range in 200nmi or 370km which is well over the horizon.
Who said anything about escape velocity? A ballistic trajectory does not mean "intercontinental ballistic". You do realize that current shells, rifle bullets and the long range shot you describe are ballistic in nature?
The fact remains that targets in the "shadow" of terrain will require a ballistic trajectory to hit it. So launch speed will need to be reduced, or a highly parabolic trajectory will be needed and the impact speed will be due to gravity not launch speed. So the speed necessary for a kinetic weapon is lost. Old fashioned explosive warheads will be needed for such indirect fire.
current depleted uranium ordinances aren't railgun-line-of-sight deals and yet still cause enormous damage... It doesn't have to be going *that* fast to do damage (e.g. take a few pounds of aluminum and send it at a ship at say 2x the speed of sound, and it will do lots of damage even without any explosives---and yet still be traveling in a parabolic curve).
Indirect fire is not really over the horizon ship to ship, its more things behind obstacles on land. For example the reverse slope of terrain.
For line of sight type shots and shots with a relatively low ballistic trajectory kinetic can keep its high speed. For shorter ranged shots with a more ballistic trajectory the launch speed would need to be greatly reduced. Note that if the shot is sufficiently high (perhaps a target on a reverse slope) the projectile is coming down at a gravity induced speed, not at a launch induced speed.
and big naval guns are not used as mortars, so the fact that a rail gun is not a mortar replacement is not news. what's your point?
Its not just mortars. Big land guns do it too. There is no reason a naval railgun can not go up to 70 degree elevations like a howitzer.
The modern US Navy wishes to project force inland far farther than pre-WW2 battleship designs (which is the most recent) called for. That means more than ship to ship and bombarding a beach.
Slashdot Mirror
THE ONLY RULE is that rules are meant to make you think carefully before you break them.
The GP's statement was that he would fire someone for repeatedly writing the "garbage" code offered as an example, no for simply using a goto.
What careful thought do you see in the code offered? I see code that is more difficult to recognize as conditional because it is not indented. Such indentation is important because we often glance / skim through code while trying to get an idea of its flow.
if (!v) ...
goto out;
more work
out:
It makes it so much cleaner and easier to read.
What problem did you solve, indenting a conditional block of code?
How is it more readable to mask / hide the fact that a block of code is conditional?
>The existence of alternate software does not require the GPL.
So where are the custom roms for Iphones ?
Locking down the hardware to factory signed binaries happens on the GPL side of the world too. It was considered so troublesome that it was a major motivation for GPL v3. However Linux is stuck at GPL v2 so this will forever be a problem for any Linux based device. Linux based device users are at the mercy of hardware vendors every bit as much as everyone else.
Consider hardware with open specs. say a PC. I can buy a Linux box, wipe the factory Linux, and install FreeBSD.
The GPL does not guarantee you can update your factory installed GPL based Linux code. The GPL fails. Period. The FSF acknowledged this failure of v2. You are totally at the mercy of the hardware vendor.
> Having to completely replace it with different software demonstrates a failure of the GPL
No it doesn't the mere EXISTENCE of alternative software and the capacity to replace is the VIRTUE of the GPL.
The existence of alternate software does not require the GPL. If I am completely replacing the vendor supplied software I can replace it with something non-GPL'd.
>Some users. Few go that route, most go without critical patches. The GPL is not benefitting these users, the vast majority are still at the mercy of their hardware vendors.
What people DO is not the issue - it's what they are ABLE to do that matters. If the horse won't drink, that's not our fault - but if we locked it up without water then that most certainly IS an ethical concern.
They are not able to update the linux from their hardware vendor despite the hardware vendor using GPL'd software. Having to completely replace it with different software demonstrates a failure of the GPL. And as a result of this failure many choose to stick with what they have.
With devices checking for factory signed software vendor lock is doable with the GPL based Linux.
One does not have an inherent right to the work of someone else. Such a right only exists when it is contractually forced by an agreement such as the GPL.
Indeed, that's the point. That's one thing the developer loses when he choses a BSD license over a copyleft one (not just the GPL).
There is no loss. You confuse loss with gaining a contractual obligation. An absence of gain is not a loss.
No, it is not a loss. It is simply coveting something one does not have. If you want to say it it unfair, sure, but a loss, no, not all.
Isn't it correct to call "a loss" something that you can have, and then at some point you can no longer have? I get quite a lot of hits on Google for that usage: https://www.google.com/search?...
No, because there never was anything you inherently could have, i.e. someone else's property. There is no lost opportunity because there never was a right to such an opportunity. Coveting someone else's property and not getting access to that property is not a lost opportunity.
The point is that with the GPL they cannot commercially fork code written by me. Of course they can do whatever they want with their own code.
They absolutely can use GPL code commercially. Commercial use does nor require distribution to external users. Commercial use simply means they make money off your work, and this is perfectly allowable under the GPL.
use != fork
A "fork" can be internal, private. The GPL allows such an internal effort to apply any subsequent changes or additions you make, to track your main "branch", and to use such code internally to make money and not reimburse you.
You forget the pesky little detail that I mentioned that users are under no obligation to use a proprietary BSD fork rather than the community version. They can stick with the community and have no such fear, use FreeBSD rather than Mac OS X for example.
Another loss for the user. With the GPL, I have the freedom to choose the products that I like. With the BSD license, I have to take what the community gives me ...
No. Both GPL and BSD users only have what the community happens to offer them. There is nothing to "like" beyond the community's offering. Plus there is your confusion of "loss" with failing to get something you never had but merely covet.
... And today this means that I might even not have the ability to run the free version of the software on my machine, because its manufacturers might decide (and they usually do) that it's not worth the hassle for them to release the source code of some machine-specific software that is required to use even the community version of the product.
Again, coveting something you never had, not a loss. If you buy a Windows box and it doesn't run BSD you did not lose anything. You did not buy a BSD box. If you bought a BSD box in the first place you would lose nothing.
Since Linux is GPL, and only because of that, at least Android phone owners can install a community-driven distribution on their phones. That's because the hardware manufacturers have to release both the kernel and the drivers. For the userspace parts, which fall under different licenses, they don't bother - and that's an endless source of problems for the users.
The fact remains that a user who wants to continue using their original vendor supplied software is forced to go without a patch despite the GPL.
Yes you mentioned GPLv3 but that was a crude attempt to manufacture a hypothetical, the reality is that Linux is what most devices will be based upon and Linux is inhe
>Its also a humorous example given the fact that Android phones with their GPL based Linux host are not getting critical patches.
Actually - right there is the PERFECT example of why the GPL does in fact benefit USERS ... GPL benefits users because it means there is always a third-party vendor available - regardless of the whims of the vendor you originally got the product from.
Some users. Few go that route, most go without critical patches. The GPL is not benefitting these users, the vast majority are still at the mercy of their hardware vendors.
The GPL is about protecting the freedom of the end user. Not the developer. The end user.
The end user is not forced to use a commercial fork, they may continue to use the community BSD code. For example FreeBSD users are not impacted at all by anything the Mac OS X adds or changes and does not contribute back. They have lost nothing.
You confuse loss with coveting. A FreeBSD user may simply covet something added to Mac OS X.
But of course that does tell us why you don't like the GPL.
Who said anything about not liking the GPL. The only thing going on here is debunking the myth of GPL being free. As I said before forced benevolence may or may not be good but it is not freedom.
What rights do BSD contributors lose? All the community code exists, the community can continue without the commercial changes, the community is not required to use some commercial fork. They lose nothing if some contributor chooses not to give back.
They lose the rights to take advantage of the improvements that the commercial contributor has done to their code, ...
One does not have an inherent right to the work of someone else. Such a right only exists when it is contractually forced by an agreement such as the GPL.
... while the commercial contributor does not lose the right to take advantage of the improvements that the free contributor has done. You may agree or disagree with this, but it is objectively a loss.
No, it is not a loss. It is simply coveting something one does not have. If you want to say it it unfair, sure, but a loss, no, not all.
Furthermore, users of GPL'd code decide not to give back at times too. They can use some a commercial fork internally and benefit from community work and not give back.
The point is that with the GPL they cannot commercially fork code written by me. Of course they can do whatever they want with their own code.
They absolutely can use GPL code commercially. Commercial use does nor require distribution to external users. Commercial use simply means they make money off your work, and this is perfectly allowable under the GPL.
What rights do BSD users lose?
100% pragmatic example: GPLv3 bash has a serious bug (any reference to reality is purely intentional). GPLv3 users patch, recompile and they have lost no right. BSD-licensed phone firmware has a serious bug. Users lose the right to make use of the phone they bought and not be pwned by hackers while doing that.
You forget the pesky little detail that I mentioned that users are under no obligation to use a proprietary BSD fork rather than the community version. They can stick with the community and have no such fear, use FreeBSD rather than Mac OS X for example.
Its also a humorous example given the fact that Android phones with their GPL based Linux host are not getting critical patches. Yes you mentioned GPLv3 but that was a crude attempt to manufacture a hypothetical, the reality is that Linux is what most devices will be based upon and Linux is inherently GPLv2 and will not be changing.
The GPL does *not* offer greater freedom, it creates restrictions to force behaviors it believes benevolent. Forced benevolence may or may not be a good thing but it is not freedom.
I believe that my rights to own property and to live are freedom. They exists only because other people are "forced to benevolence", in particular not to steal my stuff or harm me. Try to convince me that this is not freedom.
A straw man. No where was your property, the community BSD code, at risk of loss. Only the commercial fork's code, and that code is not yours, it is someone else's property.
Translated to the software world, can you argue that the ability to fix the code of a program that I use is not a freedom for me? I'm free from bugs. I'm free from hackers. I'm free to add new features. I'm free both in a practical and philosophical sense.
You are under no obligation to use commercial forks. Again, you may stay with FreeBSD and not run Mac OS X. Nothing Mac OS X does or adds takes away from anyone who wishes to use FreeBSD.
BSD licensed software allows someone to take it, modify it in some meaningful way, and not share those changes back with the community at large. In that sense, it is possible for software licensed under a BSD license to lose the freedom it had. The developers did not lose any freedoms, the source did.
The source lost no freedom at all. Not one line of community source code was lost. Not one user is forced to use the commercial fork.
GPL does not force you to be benevolent, it just requires that if you want to use GPL'ed software that your contributions remain benevolent (to use your term). If you don't want to, then chose some other solution, no one is forcing you to use GPL.
That is a strange straw man. The GPL only forces you to act benevolently if you use GPL'd code.
Both licenses have their strengths and weaknesses. Both cater to different needs and are appropriate for different (possibly overlapping) uses.Neither is a one size fits all, and neither is better than the other.
No one is saying otherwise. Just debunking the myth that the GPL is about freedom, its is not. It is about forced benevolence.
You keep talking about "masked by terrain." It's irrelevant. Ballistic projectiles follow parabolic trajectories that are described by the quadratic equation.
Only in high school introductory physics with its grossly simplified mathematical models that ignore many relevant variables where they are trying to get you to understand concepts, not solve real world problems. In the world the naval rail guns will have to operate having a target masked by terrain is a significant problem.
The quadratic equation has two solutions. In gunnery these are often (incorrectly) called "direct" and "indirect." The distinction is that for a target at about the same level as the gun the "direct" solution will involve an elevation of less than 45 degrees and less travel time. The "indirect" solution has an elevation greater than 45 degrees and greater travel time.
Wrong. Direct fire is when you can see the target, indirect fire is when you can not see the target. And one of the major reasons one can not see the target, being masked by terrain.
The "direct" solution is how you'd fire a hand held gun, because it's much easier to aim by eye. The "indirect" solution would be if you fired up into the air and the bullet killed someone when it came back down (which does happen).
When people are killed it is generally because the gun was fired at a lower elevation and the projectile still had a lot of forward momentum when it hit. With very high elevations approaching the vertical, "firing up", that forward momentum gets lost and the bullet has a near vertical descent at its terminal velocity. The notion that a bullet returns at its muzzle velocity is a long debunked myth. At least until they start firing bullets on a planetary body without an atmosphere.
You can do the math yourself if you want. Both solutions are perfectly valid using exactly the same initial velocity. Howitzers may reduce the charge when they're using high elevation indirect fire in order to reduce the shell's travel time and, for unguided shells, improve accuracy. It's not necessary though.
When masked by terrain, when in the terrain's "shadow", there are no lower angle solutions as one would have in direct fire. The only available solutions are high angle, and not all high angle solutions are equivalent. The equation for a parabola is woefully inadequate once one gets past the intro to physics thought experiment. Perhaps an illustration will help: http://askthephysicist.com/ima.... If you doubt this graphic I can give you the page number of an Army field manual pdf that has similar illustrations. The shortest of the high angle shots is more desirable because it is more accurate. Shorter exposure to the myriad of unknowns that destroy accuracy.
A rail gun with its extremely high velocities is even more susceptible to the unknowns of long flight times, higher altitude ballistic paths. If you bother to read about rail guns you will find that one of its advantages is that the launch speed of a projectile is far more variable than with a convention gun and its 1, 2, or 3 powder bags approach. The rail gun provides, for the first time, the opportunity to optimize the trajectory for the shortest path when lobbing a projectile just barely over masking terrain. But again, this will result in low speeds so old fashioned explosives will be necessary. Kinetic weapons can not fill all roles.
And even if the mathematical models were improved to account for the various variables currently contributing to inaccuracy, the simple effect of air resistance and the resulting terminal velocity render kinetic weapons unusable for high elevation shots. At least ground/sea based kinetic weapons. Space based would be a different story.
... larger corporations will build non-free proprietary improvements on BSD licensed code without contributing back, and to continue to be productive as a programmer you will be forced to pay for the licenses on their proprietary tools ...
Really? How did they degrade your performance? You have access to and may enhance and contribute to the exact same source code they did. You lost *nothing*, not one line of code, not one opportunity to add a new line of code.
And if your code was GPL based a corporation may do the exact same thing. They may fork and enhance a GPL based tool for internal use only and not share. They can continue to benefit and merge all your work and the rest of the communities work as well.
RMS has a philosophy that users of software should have certain freedoms / rights (use, study & modify, redistribute, distribute). That's the gist of GPL and why he founded GNU. BSD-style license does not guarantee these freedoms more likely it's simply easier not to guarantee those rights ...
What rights do BSD contributors lose? All the community code exists, the community can continue without the commercial changes, the community is not required to use some commercial fork. They lose nothing if some contributor chooses not to give back. Furthermore, users of GPL'd code decide not to give back at times too. They can use some a commercial fork internally and benefit from community work and not give back. Also, various commercial users of BSD code have a pretty good track record of contributing back.
What rights do BSD users lose? **IF** they care about "free software" or access to the source code they can just avoid commercial/closed forks and stick to the community based code.
The GPL does *not* offer greater freedom, it creates restrictions to force behaviors it believes benevolent. Forced benevolence may or may not be a good thing but it is not freedom.
Still a complete and utter physics failure. The point about escape velocity is anything below escape velocity will return back to the earth surface.
And who disputed that? What was being disputed was your erroneous statement that things "fall back to earth with roughly the same speed". Go re-read your junior high physics text and pay attention to necessary conditions like "in a vacuum".
The vertical component of the "muzzle" velocity will be more or less preserved, so if you shoot upwards all that kinetic energy gets converted to potential energy, and then gravity takes over and it all gets converted back to kinetic energy.
No, they don't. Their velocity is limited by air resistance when they "fall back" (gravitation acceleration), they fall at their terminal velocity. You fire a .30 cal rifle straight up, the velocity of the bullet leaving the barrel is roughly 2,500 to 3,000 feet per second. The bullet does not return at that speed, it returns at its terminal velocity of around 300 feet per second, about 1/8th to 1/10th of its muzzle velocity.
Yes there is losses due to air resistance, but indirect fire with a hypersonic inert projectile DOES NOT REQUIRE EXPLOSIVES. Anyone who thinks it does is a blithering moronic twit who clearly knows jack shit about physics. You get some right idiots on slashdot.
Check the mirror dude. The physics of a rail gun projectile is the same physics as a howitzer projectile. And howitzers have to reduce launch speed (smaller powder charge) and use extremely high barrel elevations ( up to 70 degrees) to hit targets that are masked by terrain. It is no different for rail guns. And to hit targets that are near to the terrain that is masking them nearly all the forward momentum of the projectile has to be bled off and the path to the target approaches the vertical. This will be too slow for kinetic weapons, explosive warheads will be needed.
If the Navy were to employ rail guns as you describe there would be enormously long "shadows" behind masking terrain that they could not hit.
You're wrong, except for extremely short range shots where you're better off using direct fire.
No, you are thinking of indirect fire as an over-the-horizon direct shot. Something very different from what I am referring to. What I am referring to as indirect fire is a target masked by terrain, in the "shadow" of that terrain. For such fire launch speeds are low and the gun elevation extremely high because most forward momentum must be bled off and the projectiles descent to target approaches the vertical. Read up on modern howitzers. They reduce the powder charge and elevate to 70 degrees for this this type of mission. Rail guns will need to do similarly, however the speeds involved are insufficient for kinetic weapons so the rail guns will need to launch old fashioned explosive warheads.
When conventional large guns want to vary their range they don't send out a guy with a teaspoon to add or remove a bit of gunpowder. They change their elevation.
The Army and Navy also vary the powder charges to adjust the ballistic curve. For example in WW2 battleship they would load one to three bags of powder behind a projectile. The rail gun has the advantage in that it can more easily be adjusted for launch speed. Adjusting launch speed is absolutely essential to hit a variety of targets via indirect fire. Rail guns do not change this fact.
Ballistic shells follow parabolas determined by the quadratic equation ... Including air resistance, any shot that goes more than a few tens of kilometres will be going faster when it hits if you use the indirect solution because the air is thinner up high.
Indirect fire usually refers a target being hidden by, of being in the in the "shadow" of, terrain. For such targets a very high ballistic trajectory is needed. For a long range over-the-horizon shot that you are describing the trajectory is relatively low compared to the former. Its not unlike a soldier taking a shot at a target 1,000 yards out with a .30 cal rifle, the barrel gets a lot of elevation.
The type of shot you are describing still hits hard because the forward momentum has been preserved. But in many indirect fire missions the point of the high parabola is to bleed off most of that forward momentum and have a very sharp descent. Such a trajectory is needed when the target is relatively close to the terrain it is in the "shadow" of. Note that Army howitzers elevate to 70 degrees for such shots. These shots have lost most of the forward momentum and are descending at their terminal velocity due to air resistance. Such shots will not have the momentum necessary for a kinetic weapon, old fashioned high explosive projectiles will be necessary.
ICBMS are ballistic (that's what the B is) missiles that fly on suborbital trajectories out of the atmosphere, halfway around the planet, then come down at several kilometres per second. A large railgun could fire a shell that does the same thing. Kinetic energy projectiles DO replace explosive warheads, except perhaps for special purpose munitions such as the delayed fuses used to penetrate deeply buried bunkers. Even then, a shaped kinetic projectile might well work better.
Utterly wrong. Firing only a high speed kinetic projectile effectively creates extremely long "shadows" behind terrain that would be untouchable. The only way to hit targets masked by terrain, such as those on a reverse slope, is through low launch speed and high barrel elevation. Just like howitzers do by reducing the powder charge and cranking elevation up to 70 degrees. Rail guns will need to act similarly, slow the launch, have a very high elevation, and fire explosive projectile for this type of flight profile.
Can you give an example of swat being used to apprehend a non-violent person?
Gibson Guitars. Gibson imported wood guitar components that we legally harvested and legally exported. Eventually the US gov't admitted Gibson did nothing wrong. However to investigate Gibon's possible improper importation of wood a heavily armed SWAT raid was conducted to seize their paperwork and the wood in question.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
A better question is why not just lay the plumbing for an automatic fire suppression system throughout every compartment.
Because its a warship. There is a significant risk that such plumbing will be damaged by the "event" causing the fire.
Stairs, Ladders
Humans navigate ladders as quadrupeds not bipeds.
A robot can get closer to the source of some fires than crew members, even crew members completely outfitted in firefighting gear.
Plus since we are talking warships there are also issues of live ordinance. There was at least one, maybe more, fires on board aircraft carriers in the 1960s where a dozen or so crew members fighting a fire on deck were killed when an aircraft's bombs cooked off and detonated.
Sorry, but kinetic energy is only removed from the bullet in two ways: 1) Shooting up - This means actually hitting something higher than you, ...
Wrong. Shooting "up" is exactly what I referred to as "more ballistic" trajectories. This is how you hit a target on land that is in the "shadow" of terrain. To get over that terrain and hit a target a behind it you either have to use a slower launch or an extremely elevated launch. In either case you don't have the huge momentum needed for a kinetic weapon.
Basically if you launch at full speed there is a "shadow" behind that hill that can extend for many tens of miles because of the shallow ballistic curve for such a shot.
if the bullet goes up and comes down, the KE -> PE -> KE stuff all evens out.
Absolutely wrong. Upward acceleration is due launch energy. Downward acceleration is due to gravity and air resistance creates a terminal velocity that limits downward velocity. Fire a shot upwards with a rail gun and the project falls at the same speed as if it were dropped from a balloon. It does *not* come down at the same speed it went up at, it does *not* have the same kinetic energy.
2) Air resistance - This is an actual drag force and takes energy from the bullet and puts it into the air.
So basically, no, the KE of the bullet should still be sufficient.
Sorry, no. Howitzers can elevate to 70 degrees for a reason (previously mentioned indirect fire and terrain shadows), and with such shots most of the forward momentum is lost. Rail guns have the same problem. Employing rail guns as you assume would make a reverse slope defense untouchable.
But lasers and rail gun will eventually replace all the artillery style weapons that ships used to have. The lasers take out the fast moving airborne stuff, kinetic weapons take out the rest.
No, consider indirect fire. To hit a target in the "shadow" of terrain you need a highly ballistic trajectory. That mean a much slower launch for shorter range targets. And for more difficult shots, say a target on a reverse slope, you need a trajectory where the projectile will be coming down somewhat close to the vertical and its speed will be its gravitational terminal velocity. Explosive warheads will still be needed.
In other words kinetic weapons need relatively "flat" trajectories, works well for targets at sea but not so well for many targets on land.
Oh boy, physics 101 failure. The escape velocity of earth at sea level is roughly 11200 m/s. Anything less will fall back to earth with roughly the same speed. The rail guns the US Navy are looking for have a muzzle velocity in the region of 6000m/s which is well below escape velocity. They are looking for a range in 200nmi or 370km which is well over the horizon.
Who said anything about escape velocity? A ballistic trajectory does not mean "intercontinental ballistic". You do realize that current shells, rifle bullets and the long range shot you describe are ballistic in nature?
The fact remains that targets in the "shadow" of terrain will require a ballistic trajectory to hit it. So launch speed will need to be reduced, or a highly parabolic trajectory will be needed and the impact speed will be due to gravity not launch speed. So the speed necessary for a kinetic weapon is lost. Old fashioned explosive warheads will be needed for such indirect fire.
current depleted uranium ordinances aren't railgun-line-of-sight deals and yet still cause enormous damage... It doesn't have to be going *that* fast to do damage (e.g. take a few pounds of aluminum and send it at a ship at say 2x the speed of sound, and it will do lots of damage even without any explosives---and yet still be traveling in a parabolic curve).
Indirect fire is not really over the horizon ship to ship, its more things behind obstacles on land. For example the reverse slope of terrain.
For line of sight type shots and shots with a relatively low ballistic trajectory kinetic can keep its high speed. For shorter ranged shots with a more ballistic trajectory the launch speed would need to be greatly reduced. Note that if the shot is sufficiently high (perhaps a target on a reverse slope) the projectile is coming down at a gravity induced speed, not at a launch induced speed.
and big naval guns are not used as mortars, so the fact that a rail gun is not a mortar replacement is not news. what's your point?
Its not just mortars. Big land guns do it too. There is no reason a naval railgun can not go up to 70 degree elevations like a howitzer.
The modern US Navy wishes to project force inland far farther than pre-WW2 battleship designs (which is the most recent) called for. That means more than ship to ship and bombarding a beach.