I was thinking of radio; I hadn't read the article (mea culpa) but assumed it referred to *all* broadcast media.
Do you really expect the regulation will be written in a fashion allowing you to do that? I expect it will require continuous real-time logging of the broadcast audio, not a playlist log. Most (pretty much all) stations already keep playlists logs. Those are easy. Real-time logging of the broadcast isn't as easy, or more correctly isn't cheap.
Again - I mostly referred to radio. TV, I assume that almost all stations actually have a record of what they air, due to the pervasive use of pre-recorded tape for nearly everything (live shows being the exception, and most of those are taped to be re-run at another time). Radio, however, doesn't have this - many shows are done live, they're rarely taped for later replay (although talk radio usually does tape).
I think that this is really quite unnecessary, but then again, I have an inherent distrust of the current FCC after their recent anti-nipple crusade. Actually, it began earlier than that (see the KBOO case for details).
Well, for example, there's little to no future value to a music station's broadcast of a particular playlist. Should that be kept for decades? Hell no.
Not usable for a lot of people who do serious Matlab work. The thing is, a significant portion of Matlab's value lies in the toolboxes; for example, I *need* Simulink 95% of the time. I often need features from the Fixed Point Blockset or from the Signal Processing Toolbox. These functions aren't available in Octave, and Octave (like so many Free apps) lacks equivalent support from manufacturers of data-acq hardware. Also, as far as I know, there's no Octave equivalent to GUIDE, which I have used pretty extensively in the past to do integrated data-collection and analysis apps entirely in MATLAB.
Fortunately, my employer bought MATLAB and toolkits for us.
I've been meaning to try out scilab, though; I'm told its pretty decent. Not Free, quite, but open source.
CD players have wow and flutter. Their motors are imperfect, and as such suffer analog imperfections like wow and flutter. This almost never affects the audio (yes, it *can*, but it is very rare - essentially, since CDs are self-clocking, you need to see an incredibly large amount of wow or flutter for it to miss/screw up enough data that the error correction can't handle it).
CD players often do, in fact, include a wow/flutter spec. Its usually an unimportant spec due to the nature of the medium and the design of the output stream, but a bad wow or flutter can induce jitter into the digital bitstream, and that induced jitter can, if severe enough, affect the actual samples clocked into the DAC.
Standard commercial grade chips are rated to operate at 0 to 70c. Industrial grade ICs are usually rated for -40 to +85. Military (sometimes extended industrial) ICs are rated for -55 to +125. Most automotive modules are designed to operate safely over the industrial range; underhood modules are designed for an even larger range, and a small subset of powertrain modules (the ones designed to sit in hot fluids) are designed for ridiculous ranges including temperatures of a couple hundred C.
Those are all ambient air temperatures; I don't know the junction/chip temps for commercial or military but most industrial ICs are rated for 125 or 150C at the junction.
Chips are not your main worry, usually - worry about moving parts, especially HDDs, which are significantly affected by heat.
Speaking for myself, during 15 minute drives, I may go through 50 or 60 songs, because I just set my player on random and hit skip until I hear a song I want to listen to. During a 1 hour drive, it's not unusual for me to cycle through 300 songs (out of a ~3000 song library), again due to skipping.
I need the storage even for short trips, personally. I'm aware I'm an odd one, but still - don't assume.
I have mine pretty much solely for quick and dirty remote recording of performances (legally, since they're nearly always mine or by request). I hate Sony for not enabling a MD-to-PC USB upload, because realtime transfer sucks.
The iPod has a very nice UI; the poster might find things like making playlists on the fly, proper support for playlists, integration with iTunes and iTMS, and such things to be worth the tradeoffs.
Wow, not WOW. It isn't an acronym, just a description of the sound.
CD players have wow and flutter, yes, but its pretty much a meaningless spec.
Grandparent - I remember wow and flutter, and I'm not even 25, so don't feel too old now. If only there were still decent turntables for sale for less than $600...
Qaddafi practically is a war criminal. Let's not forget the Libyan hit squads sent against Libyan dissidents in the 80s, the Black September Massacre he is believed to have financed, his actions in the Lockerbie case, the 86 Berlin bombing he is reported to have controlled, and the Fletcher murder.
As to your other claims, about Palestinians... it's an argument I won't get into, but you're wrong. Sorry.
However, proprietary OSes are generally not distributable by anyone other than the author. As such, the effect is to restrain the author and only the author.
And again, what purpose is served by this exception to the exception, other than to annoy users and generally minimize use of free software by users? Wouldn't the free software community be better off allowing MS to distribute, for example, an open media player with the OS? All the work MS puts into WMP would then go into a free player. This stance limits the amount of participation a proprietary vendor is likely to put into GPLed applications, a goal that the FSF certainly should not be championing.
Way to change my statement. My question does NOT say anything about distributor, which you would notice if you re-read it. If a proprietary OS allows redistribution of the OS binaries (say, a free-beer licensed OS) but not the source, the GPL restrains distribution. I think that's equally ridiculous as restraining the author.
I understand the GPL's desire to not allow proprietary libraries to internalize extensions to GPLed software, preventing the free community from benefiting from those extensions. However, I think that the exemption specifically referring to "libraries normally distributed with the OS" is sufficient; I see no point in preventing the GPLed application from being distributed at the same time as those libraries if and only if those libraries are a standard OS component. As far as I can tell, this allows distribution of GPLed apps with the OS without allowing the loophole the FSF is worried about - making improvements in the proprietary library to avoid exposing them. More correctly, it doesn't make the loophole any bigger than it currently is; MS could internalize changes to a default system library and distribute the GPLed app seperately. The only difference in removing the "unless the library is being distributed at the same time" exception from the current case while maintaining the "standard system libraries" is that an application could be distributed with the OS, instead of requiring that it happen seperately. The loophole for internalizing code into proprietary libraries is no bigger, because "standard system libraries" would imply those libraries used in the release version of the OS, and not custom libraries. True, you could patch or include patched versions of those libraries in the normal update process, but that problem is in the current exemption as well.
Basically - what benefit is there to the free software community in the exception to the exception, that wouldn't be present if the exception were removed? I fail to see anything of note.
(Thanks for not arguing the GPL is viral thing - far too many people will. I have *nothing* against the GPL, for the most part, but recognition that it is, in fact, viral is rare from other pro-GPL types. Having not re-read the entire thread before that post, I must have assumed you were one of the ones who won't recognize that fact. Didn't mean it as a straw man, and will not mention it again.)
Although I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation, set it aside.
How exactly is it rational to allow distribution of a GPLed program except by the author of a proprietary OS with that OS? How is it rational for a license that *specifically* does not enforce ANY method of distribution to enjoin one particular entity against one particular method? How can you argue that the GPL isn't viral when in this case it is DESIGNED to be viral - you can't distribute an OS with GPLed software that links into the OS unless you GPL the linked portions of the OS. However, you can distribute them seperately. What the fuck good is that?
I'd rather educate people not to get their science from fiction than try to correct their miseducation once they've already gotten the notion from the fiction in the first place.
And honestly, fusion is already screwed with the anti-nuclear lobby, because "it's nuclear". Most of the rest of the world doesn't have any notions, and are unlikely to gain them from Spiderman. The only notion most people have of fusion is "That thing we keep hearing is 20 years away".
Some notes: the implicit permission could be construed as effectively equivalent to FSF's suggested exemption language, which *specifically* states that the GPL will not apply to the external non-free library.
The FSF absolutely does agree. To quote: "If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly." Further, it states the issue is one of form, not function - how do you describe it, not how does it work. This suggests to me that they do, in fact, think that programs that run on top of an OS but make some calls to OS libraries are seperate.
I think this aspect of the GPL is ridiculous, due to its totally counter-intuitive and illogical nature. I have a fair amount of respect for the GPL as a logical and even somewhat intuitive license. That's what bothers me about this.
I don't at all think that the GPL prohibits distribution of Windows executables; I think your interpretation of it would, but fortunately I think your interpretation is wrong.
If containment is breached, fusion fizzles. However, you still have some amount of exceedingly hot mass, which is no longer contained. Depending on the amount of mass and the temperature, you're going to get a certain level of destruction from the reaction mass as it expands. And since its a confined high pressure, high temperature gas, it is GOING to expand. It isn't an explosion, per se, but the effects are similar enough to be termed the same.
The correct objections to make would be - a *self-sustaining* non-controlled fusion reaction can only occur in the presence of an amount of fusable mass significantly greater than that of Jupiter. A controlled fusion reaction destabilizing, or losing the control that keeps it fusing, is unlikely to cause a tremendous amount of damage; however, it would have significant local effect.
Also, re: drowning - the question would be, is the energy released by fusing 4 hydrogen and 2 oxygen together sufficient to "pay" for the energy cost of seperating the water into its component molecules in the first place? I suspect it is, but I'm too lazy to do the calculations.
You're the one who can't take a joke. And, being that you're a hippie, I figured I might need some extra emphasis to get it through the layers of dirt over your eardrums.
No, the GPL does NOT exempt you from that. I specifically refer to, from FSF.org's FAQ - "Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them." The GPL's own site says that. You may not distribute a Windows executable that doesn't fall under mere aggregation under the GPL under your interpretations, because YOU CAN'T RELEASE THE WINDOWS LIBRARY UNDER THE GPL. No one but Microsoft could. You can distribute source and have the user compile it, but your license to distribute is invalid because you can't license the linked libraries under a GPL-compatible license.
Now, under my (and, by the way, FSF's) interpretation, most programs do NOT link so closely to system libraries as to become a single program with that library. Further, we can talk about things like the implicit permission exemption, which says that if the program was written to require the presence of non-free libraries to compile and run, the authors made an implicit exception for linking to those non-free libraries, removing any obligation to consider those libraries as a part of the whole which must be released.
But really, you fail to see the true problem here, still. My major issue is: Microsoft can legally distribute executable A without source code for library B. However, they can only do this if they don't distribute it on the CD with library B. How absurd is it that a license requires that executable A and B must be distributed seperately, even if they're effectively in the same package (SCO Skunkworks CD, for example)? How absurd is it that MS can distribute GPLed utilities as part of Services for Unix... but only if they don't put SFU on the same CD as a library it calls against?
Either your interpretation is wrong, or the GPL is fucking ridiculous. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
OF COURSE my criticism of hippies is skin deep. It's making fun of them, its joking, there's no depth to it because IT ISN'T FUCKING IMPORTANT. It's just talking shit because I can. You know, like normal people with social lives and social skills do?
No offense, but you are never, ever going to have sex if you don't remove the gigantic LOG you have jammed up your ass.
It depends, as the whole point has been, on how its bundled. If you're going to argue that legally, linking a GPLed program into Windows makes them more than mere aggregation, then the program's distributor CANNOT legally distribute it under the GPL. They can of couse distribute it, because they own the copyright, but even if they claim its distributed under the GPL, it is not in fact distributed under the GPL, as exercising the GPL is illegal in that case.
Again - I would argue that most applications form mere aggregation. Further, most applications don't directly link into the Windows kernel; they make calls to it through various libraries. At *most*, MS might be required to release the source to those libraries; as much of that source is already released as part of the MS compilers, I can't imagine they would have an issue doing that.
Thanks for reminding me that the current interpretation of the GPL is fucking ridiculous, by the way. It's legal for MS to distribute it, but only if they don't distribute it on the same CD? What the fuck is that? There's no logic there, and most of the GPL is pretty logical. Anything that isn't is an offense against the spirit of the license, and should be looked at.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, you mean Russians designed Beagle?
I was thinking of radio; I hadn't read the article (mea culpa) but assumed it referred to *all* broadcast media.
Do you really expect the regulation will be written in a fashion allowing you to do that? I expect it will require continuous real-time logging of the broadcast audio, not a playlist log. Most (pretty much all) stations already keep playlists logs. Those are easy. Real-time logging of the broadcast isn't as easy, or more correctly isn't cheap.
Again - I mostly referred to radio. TV, I assume that almost all stations actually have a record of what they air, due to the pervasive use of pre-recorded tape for nearly everything (live shows being the exception, and most of those are taped to be re-run at another time). Radio, however, doesn't have this - many shows are done live, they're rarely taped for later replay (although talk radio usually does tape).
I think that this is really quite unnecessary, but then again, I have an inherent distrust of the current FCC after their recent anti-nipple crusade. Actually, it began earlier than that (see the KBOO case for details).
Well, for example, there's little to no future value to a music station's broadcast of a particular playlist. Should that be kept for decades? Hell no.
Not usable for a lot of people who do serious Matlab work. The thing is, a significant portion of Matlab's value lies in the toolboxes; for example, I *need* Simulink 95% of the time. I often need features from the Fixed Point Blockset or from the Signal Processing Toolbox. These functions aren't available in Octave, and Octave (like so many Free apps) lacks equivalent support from manufacturers of data-acq hardware. Also, as far as I know, there's no Octave equivalent to GUIDE, which I have used pretty extensively in the past to do integrated data-collection and analysis apps entirely in MATLAB.
Fortunately, my employer bought MATLAB and toolkits for us.
I've been meaning to try out scilab, though; I'm told its pretty decent. Not Free, quite, but open source.
CD players have wow and flutter. Their motors are imperfect, and as such suffer analog imperfections like wow and flutter. This almost never affects the audio (yes, it *can*, but it is very rare - essentially, since CDs are self-clocking, you need to see an incredibly large amount of wow or flutter for it to miss/screw up enough data that the error correction can't handle it).
CD players often do, in fact, include a wow/flutter spec. Its usually an unimportant spec due to the nature of the medium and the design of the output stream, but a bad wow or flutter can induce jitter into the digital bitstream, and that induced jitter can, if severe enough, affect the actual samples clocked into the DAC.
I meant exactly what I said.
Standard commercial grade chips are rated to operate at 0 to 70c. Industrial grade ICs are usually rated for -40 to +85. Military (sometimes extended industrial) ICs are rated for -55 to +125. Most automotive modules are designed to operate safely over the industrial range; underhood modules are designed for an even larger range, and a small subset of powertrain modules (the ones designed to sit in hot fluids) are designed for ridiculous ranges including temperatures of a couple hundred C.
Those are all ambient air temperatures; I don't know the junction/chip temps for commercial or military but most industrial ICs are rated for 125 or 150C at the junction.
Chips are not your main worry, usually - worry about moving parts, especially HDDs, which are significantly affected by heat.
Speaking for myself, during 15 minute drives, I may go through 50 or 60 songs, because I just set my player on random and hit skip until I hear a song I want to listen to. During a 1 hour drive, it's not unusual for me to cycle through 300 songs (out of a ~3000 song library), again due to skipping.
I need the storage even for short trips, personally. I'm aware I'm an odd one, but still - don't assume.
There are non-Sony MD players.
I have mine pretty much solely for quick and dirty remote recording of performances (legally, since they're nearly always mine or by request). I hate Sony for not enabling a MD-to-PC USB upload, because realtime transfer sucks.
The iPod has a very nice UI; the poster might find things like making playlists on the fly, proper support for playlists, integration with iTunes and iTMS, and such things to be worth the tradeoffs.
Wow, not WOW. It isn't an acronym, just a description of the sound.
CD players have wow and flutter, yes, but its pretty much a meaningless spec.
Grandparent - I remember wow and flutter, and I'm not even 25, so don't feel too old now. If only there were still decent turntables for sale for less than $600...
I think I speak for many of us when I say:
No, no I haven't.
I don't know.
Every computer Go program I've played against has kicked my ass, and I'm certainly a human.
Qaddafi practically is a war criminal. Let's not forget the Libyan hit squads sent against Libyan dissidents in the 80s, the Black September Massacre he is believed to have financed, his actions in the Lockerbie case, the 86 Berlin bombing he is reported to have controlled, and the Fletcher murder.
As to your other claims, about Palestinians... it's an argument I won't get into, but you're wrong. Sorry.
While the amount of verified and correct knowledge on Wikipedia dwarfs /.!
Oh, wait...
However, proprietary OSes are generally not distributable by anyone other than the author. As such, the effect is to restrain the author and only the author.
And again, what purpose is served by this exception to the exception, other than to annoy users and generally minimize use of free software by users? Wouldn't the free software community be better off allowing MS to distribute, for example, an open media player with the OS? All the work MS puts into WMP would then go into a free player. This stance limits the amount of participation a proprietary vendor is likely to put into GPLed applications, a goal that the FSF certainly should not be championing.
Way to change my statement. My question does NOT say anything about distributor, which you would notice if you re-read it. If a proprietary OS allows redistribution of the OS binaries (say, a free-beer licensed OS) but not the source, the GPL restrains distribution. I think that's equally ridiculous as restraining the author.
I understand the GPL's desire to not allow proprietary libraries to internalize extensions to GPLed software, preventing the free community from benefiting from those extensions. However, I think that the exemption specifically referring to "libraries normally distributed with the OS" is sufficient; I see no point in preventing the GPLed application from being distributed at the same time as those libraries if and only if those libraries are a standard OS component. As far as I can tell, this allows distribution of GPLed apps with the OS without allowing the loophole the FSF is worried about - making improvements in the proprietary library to avoid exposing them. More correctly, it doesn't make the loophole any bigger than it currently is; MS could internalize changes to a default system library and distribute the GPLed app seperately. The only difference in removing the "unless the library is being distributed at the same time" exception from the current case while maintaining the "standard system libraries" is that an application could be distributed with the OS, instead of requiring that it happen seperately. The loophole for internalizing code into proprietary libraries is no bigger, because "standard system libraries" would imply those libraries used in the release version of the OS, and not custom libraries. True, you could patch or include patched versions of those libraries in the normal update process, but that problem is in the current exemption as well.
Basically - what benefit is there to the free software community in the exception to the exception, that wouldn't be present if the exception were removed? I fail to see anything of note.
(Thanks for not arguing the GPL is viral thing - far too many people will. I have *nothing* against the GPL, for the most part, but recognition that it is, in fact, viral is rare from other pro-GPL types. Having not re-read the entire thread before that post, I must have assumed you were one of the ones who won't recognize that fact. Didn't mean it as a straw man, and will not mention it again.)
Let me know when you make some friends. I'll give you a hint - it helps if you stop taking offense at everything anyone says.
Although I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation, set it aside.
How exactly is it rational to allow distribution of a GPLed program except by the author of a proprietary OS with that OS? How is it rational for a license that *specifically* does not enforce ANY method of distribution to enjoin one particular entity against one particular method? How can you argue that the GPL isn't viral when in this case it is DESIGNED to be viral - you can't distribute an OS with GPLed software that links into the OS unless you GPL the linked portions of the OS. However, you can distribute them seperately. What the fuck good is that?
Exception 3 is a bunch of bullshit, basically.
I'd rather educate people not to get their science from fiction than try to correct their miseducation once they've already gotten the notion from the fiction in the first place.
And honestly, fusion is already screwed with the anti-nuclear lobby, because "it's nuclear". Most of the rest of the world doesn't have any notions, and are unlikely to gain them from Spiderman. The only notion most people have of fusion is "That thing we keep hearing is 20 years away".
Some notes: the implicit permission could be construed as effectively equivalent to FSF's suggested exemption language, which *specifically* states that the GPL will not apply to the external non-free library.
The FSF absolutely does agree. To quote: "If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly." Further, it states the issue is one of form, not function - how do you describe it, not how does it work. This suggests to me that they do, in fact, think that programs that run on top of an OS but make some calls to OS libraries are seperate.
I think this aspect of the GPL is ridiculous, due to its totally counter-intuitive and illogical nature. I have a fair amount of respect for the GPL as a logical and even somewhat intuitive license. That's what bothers me about this.
I don't at all think that the GPL prohibits distribution of Windows executables; I think your interpretation of it would, but fortunately I think your interpretation is wrong.
No it isn't.
It's a very, very old engineering saying. It was around before programmable computers were. I have never, ever met an engineer who doesn't know it.
It applies to just about everything.
Especially girls.
If containment is breached, fusion fizzles. However, you still have some amount of exceedingly hot mass, which is no longer contained. Depending on the amount of mass and the temperature, you're going to get a certain level of destruction from the reaction mass as it expands. And since its a confined high pressure, high temperature gas, it is GOING to expand. It isn't an explosion, per se, but the effects are similar enough to be termed the same.
The correct objections to make would be - a *self-sustaining* non-controlled fusion reaction can only occur in the presence of an amount of fusable mass significantly greater than that of Jupiter. A controlled fusion reaction destabilizing, or losing the control that keeps it fusing, is unlikely to cause a tremendous amount of damage; however, it would have significant local effect.
Also, re: drowning - the question would be, is the energy released by fusing 4 hydrogen and 2 oxygen together sufficient to "pay" for the energy cost of seperating the water into its component molecules in the first place? I suspect it is, but I'm too lazy to do the calculations.
You're the one who can't take a joke. And, being that you're a hippie, I figured I might need some extra emphasis to get it through the layers of dirt over your eardrums.
No, the GPL does NOT exempt you from that. I specifically refer to, from FSF.org's FAQ - "Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them." The GPL's own site says that. You may not distribute a Windows executable that doesn't fall under mere aggregation under the GPL under your interpretations, because YOU CAN'T RELEASE THE WINDOWS LIBRARY UNDER THE GPL. No one but Microsoft could. You can distribute source and have the user compile it, but your license to distribute is invalid because you can't license the linked libraries under a GPL-compatible license.
Now, under my (and, by the way, FSF's) interpretation, most programs do NOT link so closely to system libraries as to become a single program with that library. Further, we can talk about things like the implicit permission exemption, which says that if the program was written to require the presence of non-free libraries to compile and run, the authors made an implicit exception for linking to those non-free libraries, removing any obligation to consider those libraries as a part of the whole which must be released.
But really, you fail to see the true problem here, still. My major issue is: Microsoft can legally distribute executable A without source code for library B. However, they can only do this if they don't distribute it on the CD with library B. How absurd is it that a license requires that executable A and B must be distributed seperately, even if they're effectively in the same package (SCO Skunkworks CD, for example)? How absurd is it that MS can distribute GPLed utilities as part of Services for Unix... but only if they don't put SFU on the same CD as a library it calls against?
Either your interpretation is wrong, or the GPL is fucking ridiculous. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
OF COURSE my criticism of hippies is skin deep. It's making fun of them, its joking, there's no depth to it because IT ISN'T FUCKING IMPORTANT. It's just talking shit because I can. You know, like normal people with social lives and social skills do?
No offense, but you are never, ever going to have sex if you don't remove the gigantic LOG you have jammed up your ass.
IT'S A FUCKING INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD.
IT'S A FUCKING JOKE.
FUCKING RELAX.
It depends, as the whole point has been, on how its bundled. If you're going to argue that legally, linking a GPLed program into Windows makes them more than mere aggregation, then the program's distributor CANNOT legally distribute it under the GPL. They can of couse distribute it, because they own the copyright, but even if they claim its distributed under the GPL, it is not in fact distributed under the GPL, as exercising the GPL is illegal in that case.
Again - I would argue that most applications form mere aggregation. Further, most applications don't directly link into the Windows kernel; they make calls to it through various libraries. At *most*, MS might be required to release the source to those libraries; as much of that source is already released as part of the MS compilers, I can't imagine they would have an issue doing that.
Thanks for reminding me that the current interpretation of the GPL is fucking ridiculous, by the way. It's legal for MS to distribute it, but only if they don't distribute it on the same CD? What the fuck is that? There's no logic there, and most of the GPL is pretty logical. Anything that isn't is an offense against the spirit of the license, and should be looked at.