Actually the "funky goofy solar system" neither confirms nor disproves either theory. It is simply another data point. Up until recently we had only one system to observe and we are now finding out that other systems are different from ours. Why this is a suprise, I do not know.
Writing an image library can take some time. The image library may be needed to simply put some pictures on the user interface. The meat of the system probably has nothing to do with images. Why should the company be forced to release this when they can get a better license, and free up a developer to work on the meat instead of the fluff? $30,000 is a small amount if the project budget is tens of millions of dollars or if you don't want your developers reinventing the wheel.
With most companies "we don't wan't to open EVERYTHING we write" usually translates to "We just want to leach without giving anything back".
No, more often than not, the GPL software is a small component of a larger system (i.e. code to handle graphics formats). The GPL'ed code is not changed or improved, but somehow the communitiy expects to get all the other irrelevant code for free. This is what turns companies off to it.
You don't have to open everything. Just the stuff that is a derrivative of the GPLed program.
You do if it is statically linked. Of course you can decouple the GPL code from your application, but you might take a penalty somewhere (in size, speed, or complexity). Most companies are not going to hassle with that and just pay someone $30,000 to write the widget.
The problem is that Google is collecting money for this activity. The only way I can see for the plaintiff to have a case is if they documented the abuse by logging IP information and showed that Google was unwilling to offer a partial refund on the false clicks. Other than that, it looks like a 'tough luck' for the plaintiff.
Somebody still has to keep those powerlines in good order. Unless they develop the household Mr. Fusion, then they'll just have to deliver Deuterium to your door.
It's a mule alright. I bought it because I thought I'd head out to Montana for some big game. The trip never happened so the deer here in Florida are seriously outgunned.
I agree with you on the have it and not need it. In the same breath, I cannot conceive of a need. There is no such thing as bulletproof, and standard ball ammunition (7.62 NATO) can deal with any threat, real or percieved.
Besides, AP ammo is hard on your equipment (even with coatings) and flies differently. Overall, I'd rather have some good match-grade hollow points for dealing with terrorists, body armor or not. AP just isn't really useful.
The fact is, armor and armor piercing is all relative and does not have a clear boundary. If there is no boundary, then it is difficult to introduce law, because law is black and white. It doesn't handle grey very well.
I'll leave you with one last thought, sure to cause quite a stir (if anyone reads down this far): Would 9/11 have happened if any and all passengers could have pulled a gun on the hijackers? The hijackers might have tried, but they'd certainly have been stopped.
Meathead : "What are you gonna do about airplane hijackers?"
Archie Bunker : "First, youse arm all your passengers... "
This has nothing to do with AP ammo. Invoking 9/11 to protect your right to buy it is like invoking 9/11 to start a war with an unrelated country.
I'm gonna catch flak for that one;-). For the record I support the war, not because of supposed terrorism links or WMDs, but because Sadaam wasn't complying with the terms of his 1991 surrender agreement and deserved to be thumped.
It's never moral to defend yourself from a body armor wearing hostage taker?
Heh.
1) It is not likely to happen. The only body armor wearing hostage takers tend to be the local swat teams (if you are on the wrong side of the law).
2) AP ammo is not common (ie it's not at the local sporting goods store). You have to order it. This implies that you know in advance you are going to be attacked by a body armor wearing hostage taker. Since shipping it takes time, this implies that you have time to alert the proper authorities instead of being a vigilante (frowned upon by most DA's).
3) Body armor is not bulletproof. Most will only stop pistol ammo. Some will stop military "ball" rifle ammo. But I'll put my.378 Weatherby against your body armor any day. Should my Weatherby be considered "armor piercing"?
First, most of the AP ordinance is simply military surplus. That is it was designed and built for the military and the military has since sold their excess inventory. If you look at the manufacture dates, they are generally "early eighties" production.
Second, most sellers of this surplus ammo do not advertise it as a way to kill policemen. They simply sell it, without indicating the use. It is simply inventory.
Third, human life is already protected. The tools that end it are allowed for those circumstances where it is legal to do so. Similairly, copyright is protected and those tools that allow you to reproduce the work for fair use are also allowed. But searching for and downloading copyrighted files from other peoples' computers can hardly be considered fair use.
Buying AP ammo and using to kill someone will most definitely be used as evidence in your murder trial to support a premeditated act, and the punishment will be harsher. It would be difficult to claim self defense if you have AP ammo in the magazine.
But the convention center and associated hotels are about 10 miles away from the downtown area, where the WiFi was located.
This was targeted at local people and their efforts to "revive" the downtown area. It is slowly coming along, with more development, but it will take some time before enough people work, play, and live in the downtown area.
I mean, if they can't even make a simple booster rocket on a modified SLBM fire correctly, how are they supposed to get MIRVs up to a height to fall (albeit haphazardly) on US soil?
But mentioning Google gets your submission accepted. You could probably put up a financial market report and make a tenuous link to Google and get it accepted by the editors.
This is only bad for the software developers. Many CS folks use software instead of creating it. You can still make money doing this and Open source gives you a very broad portfolio of applications to choose from.
There are many businesses here that need to get jobs done, and software packages (free or otherwise) almost always need to be tweaked and customized before money will change hands. If you want to do software in the US, this is where you should aim for. Either that or try to get hooked up to a research organization.
But "software development" is largely a "grunt job" for most business applications, and will be sent to the lowest bidder.
Valid point. I was thinking that the concept of a southern pole being at a 90 degree angle in relation to the path of travel of a celesteral body, but hey.
Poles are relative to the axis of rotation, not the plane of the orbit.
Uranus is tilted something like 87 degrees, so twice a (Uranus) year the poles line up with the path of travel.
I never said Uranus so many times in one discussion. Not even as a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the "funky goofy solar system" neither confirms nor disproves either theory. It is simply another data point. Up until recently we had only one system to observe and we are now finding out that other systems are different from ours. Why this is a suprise, I do not know.
Writing an image library can take some time. The image library may be needed to simply put some pictures on the user interface. The meat of the system probably has nothing to do with images. Why should the company be forced to release this when they can get a better license, and free up a developer to work on the meat instead of the fluff? $30,000 is a small amount if the project budget is tens of millions of dollars or if you don't want your developers reinventing the wheel.
With most companies "we don't wan't to open EVERYTHING we write" usually translates to "We just want to leach without giving anything back".
No, more often than not, the GPL software is a small component of a larger system (i.e. code to handle graphics formats). The GPL'ed code is not changed or improved, but somehow the communitiy expects to get all the other irrelevant code for free. This is what turns companies off to it.
You don't have to open everything. Just the stuff that is a derrivative of the GPLed program.
You do if it is statically linked. Of course you can decouple the GPL code from your application, but you might take a penalty somewhere (in size, speed, or complexity). Most companies are not going to hassle with that and just pay someone $30,000 to write the widget.
He should have the local tourist board and convention center link to his "Prostitution" map.
"Where not to pick up girls."
AMD has plenty of other business besides PC microprocessors. This is just the most high profile business.
The problem is that Google is collecting money for this activity. The only way I can see for the plaintiff to have a case is if they documented the abuse by logging IP information and showed that Google was unwilling to offer a partial refund on the false clicks. Other than that, it looks like a 'tough luck' for the plaintiff.
Somebody still has to keep those powerlines in good order. Unless they develop the household Mr. Fusion, then they'll just have to deliver Deuterium to your door.
Never underestimate the power of hamsters
About 60mW according to the builders of the Hamster powered night light.
It's a mule alright. I bought it because I thought I'd head out to Montana for some big game. The trip never happened so the deer here in Florida are seriously outgunned.
I agree with you on the have it and not need it. In the same breath, I cannot conceive of a need. There is no such thing as bulletproof, and standard ball ammunition (7.62 NATO) can deal with any threat, real or percieved.
... "
;-). For the record I support the war, not because of supposed terrorism links or WMDs, but because Sadaam wasn't complying with the terms of his 1991 surrender agreement and deserved to be thumped.
Besides, AP ammo is hard on your equipment (even with coatings) and flies differently. Overall, I'd rather have some good match-grade hollow points for dealing with terrorists, body armor or not. AP just isn't really useful.
The fact is, armor and armor piercing is all relative and does not have a clear boundary. If there is no boundary, then it is difficult to introduce law, because law is black and white. It doesn't handle grey very well.
I'll leave you with one last thought, sure to cause quite a stir (if anyone reads down this far): Would 9/11 have happened if any and all passengers could have pulled a gun on the hijackers? The hijackers might have tried, but they'd certainly have been stopped.
Meathead : "What are you gonna do about airplane hijackers?"
Archie Bunker : "First, youse arm all your passengers
This has nothing to do with AP ammo. Invoking 9/11 to protect your right to buy it is like invoking 9/11 to start a war with an unrelated country.
I'm gonna catch flak for that one
It's never moral to defend yourself from a body armor wearing hostage taker?
.378 Weatherby against your body armor any day. Should my Weatherby be considered "armor piercing"?
Heh.
1) It is not likely to happen. The only body armor wearing hostage takers tend to be the local swat teams (if you are on the wrong side of the law).
2) AP ammo is not common (ie it's not at the local sporting goods store). You have to order it. This implies that you know in advance you are going to be attacked by a body armor wearing hostage taker. Since shipping it takes time, this implies that you have time to alert the proper authorities instead of being a vigilante (frowned upon by most DA's).
3) Body armor is not bulletproof. Most will only stop pistol ammo. Some will stop military "ball" rifle ammo. But I'll put my
Fun discussion.
I wish my mortgage holder and grocer would get more into the spirit of Open Source.
First, most of the AP ordinance is simply military surplus. That is it was designed and built for the military and the military has since sold their excess inventory. If you look at the manufacture dates, they are generally "early eighties" production.
Second, most sellers of this surplus ammo do not advertise it as a way to kill policemen. They simply sell it, without indicating the use. It is simply inventory.
Third, human life is already protected. The tools that end it are allowed for those circumstances where it is legal to do so. Similairly, copyright is protected and those tools that allow you to reproduce the work for fair use are also allowed. But searching for and downloading copyrighted files from other peoples' computers can hardly be considered fair use.
Buying AP ammo and using to kill someone will most definitely be used as evidence in your murder trial to support a premeditated act, and the punishment will be harsher. It would be difficult to claim self defense if you have AP ammo in the magazine.
Pencils are bad for space. Graphite dust floating around and in electronics is a catastrophe waiting to happen.
Customer: What's a PI Buck?
Seller: It is like money for our service.
Customer: OK, gimme 100 PI Bucks.
(cha ching) Customer goes to download a file.
Message on screen: Sorry, this agent does not accept PI Bucks. Please use Mastercard, Visa, AMEX, or Discover.
But the convention center and associated hotels are about 10 miles away from the downtown area, where the WiFi was located.
This was targeted at local people and their efforts to "revive" the downtown area. It is slowly coming along, with more development, but it will take some time before enough people work, play, and live in the downtown area.
Note: I live about 40 miles north of Orlando.
Yeah, I'm sure they would love a hot meal!
Unrelated except for the fact that the booster is designed to get the sail into space.
I mean, if they can't even make a simple booster rocket on a modified SLBM fire correctly, how are they supposed to get MIRVs up to a height to fall (albeit haphazardly) on US soil?
That's what Canada was for.
Cosmos 1 was funded by the insurance money from the previous failure...
Explorer : I want to buy some insurance for a satellite that I plan on launching on a Soviet...er....Russian ICBM.
Insurance Agent : What dollar value is your craft valued at?
Explorer : The launch vehicle and orbiter total to about 4 million dollars. So what's the premium going to look like?
Insurance Agent : 4 million dollars.
But mentioning Google gets your submission accepted. You could probably put up a financial market report and make a tenuous link to Google and get it accepted by the editors.
This is only bad for the software developers. Many CS folks use software instead of creating it. You can still make money doing this and Open source gives you a very broad portfolio of applications to choose from.
There are many businesses here that need to get jobs done, and software packages (free or otherwise) almost always need to be tweaked and customized before money will change hands. If you want to do software in the US, this is where you should aim for. Either that or try to get hooked up to a research organization.
But "software development" is largely a "grunt job" for most business applications, and will be sent to the lowest bidder.
Valid point. I was thinking that the concept of a southern pole being at a 90 degree angle in relation to the path of travel of a celesteral body, but hey.
Poles are relative to the axis of rotation, not the plane of the orbit.
Uranus is tilted something like 87 degrees, so twice a (Uranus) year the poles line up with the path of travel.
I never said Uranus so many times in one discussion. Not even as a joke.
Insurance likely doesn't cover "acts of god" either.
How does an athiest deal with this clause in the insurance? Do they get into theological debates with the insurance adjuster?
Most americans wouldn't know where the EEUU is, so you might want to clear that up.