From what I understand, it depends on the frequency. For instance, a microwave oven operates at whatever frequency best excites a water molecule, which leads to cooking by making the water in everything hot. That is incorrect, but you're forgiven because it is a common misconception that's even in a few encyclopedia's and such.
Microwaves work by producing an alternative electric field (using non-ionizing microwave radiation) that acts on molecules which have electric dipoles. Water is one of those, but so are many others, including fats and such. The process is called Dielectric Heating.
Basically, the molecule being heated is a dipole. It has a positive charge at one end, and a negative charge at the other. In an alternating electric field, it rotates as it tries to align itself with the field. This causes motion, which translates to heat. The heat spreads as the molecules hit other molecules and transfer the energy to them. Now, this process works really good on water because water is a very strong dipole, but it does not operate solely on water, and it doesn't have anything to do with water in particular.
See, the frequency doesn't actually have much to do with it. Normal kitchen microwaves operate at 2.4 Ghz or close to that. Industrial microwave devices tend to work at 915 Mhz. Also, if the frequency had something to do with it, then 2.4 Ghz would be the wrong one. The resonant frequency for water is somewhere in the 20 gigahertz range. The only reason 2.4 Ghz is used for microwaves is that it's a free bands of frequency (ISM frequency bands) that can be used worldwide.
Now, we know they aren't required to do it and we know there are no technical reasons for it... The reason for it is simple: They want to put more channels on the cables. The cables only have so much bandwidth, and 1 analog channel takes up the same amount of space as 5-10 digital channels.
Yes, it's absolutely about money, but not about "digital costs more". They want to be able to sell you pay-per-view, movies on demand, music stations, and all that other stuff. You don't want it? Then don't buy it. But don't get all annoyed because your 40 year old TV ain't gonna work without set top box anymore. The rest of us are happy with the switch to digital, because we want more choice in what we can watch and in the services we can get.
What will be interesting is to see how WordPress fairs once PHP 5 starts becoming more commonly used. Why is that going to be interesting? WordPress works perfectly under PHP 5. It just happens to also work under PHP 4.
This is a simple idea, agreed, however it's difficult to do with modern 3d games. A lot of the rendering is offloaded from the main processor to the video card.
So, when textures and other such data are loaded into the video card itself, it can't do much else at the same time, like rendering gameplay. So you need to stagger the loads of data to be "in the background" and with some cards, that's just not possible. On shared memory card schemes, where the card itself is reading data directly from the main RAM, this is simpler, but it's slower overall that way too.
You said "Businesses that actually interact with end-users". The end user is the customer who buys the shareware. The developer is the shareware author. The shareware author (developer) interacts with the end user, *and* the shareware author has a software company. Therefore, his software company is, by definition, a "business that actually interact with end-users".
So yes it is. No, again, it's not. At best, he's a middleman. He's a developer using one piece of software (your shareware) to develop another piece (whatever he develops). Therefore he's a developer.
If he's not using the shareware as part of his development cycle, then he's not a developer for the context of the discussion, and your example is completely obscure and pointless in the first place.
If it really is a 1% case I wouldn't be here replying to you. And yet it is, and yet you are. Amazing, that.
You can contrive all the nonsensical situations you like, it doesn't change the facts. Your case is still a 1% case. The rest of the world is busy making things, not pushing papers around in some white collar system.
If you don't want people to reply to extremely strong statements like "GPLv3 software is useless to anybody working in any form of business" then don't make such strong statements in the first place!!! The statement was meant to be strong. Fortunately, it's also true. That's the beauty of it, see?
You said "making GPLv3 code useless for virtually all forms of businesses that actually interact with end-users". "Businesses that actually interact with end-users" include, say, shareware authors. No, they don't. A developer is not an end-user. He's a developer.
Suppose that shareware author uses calendar software to manage his schedule, and that the calendar software he uses is GPLv3'ed. Now I have given you *one* example where GPLv3 software is not useless to a business that interacts with end-users, thereby making your statement, that it's "useless for all forms of businesses that actually interact with end-users", invalid. The fact that the shareware author uses the GPLv3 calendaring software does not force him to release his software under the GPL.
In your other post you said "GPLv3 software is useless to anybody working in any form of business". My previous example makes that statement invalid as well. In fact I have given you multiple examples in which a company uses GPLv3 software, which means that the GPLv3 software in question is *useful* to that business. Oh for fuck's sake...
Fine, for the 1% of cases in the world where my generalization was incorrect, it was incorrect. You got me! My generalization is not universal, it only applies to the vast majority of actual real-world cases! Whoops! Sorry about that!
When you're ready to have an actual conversation instead of pedantically arguing semantics, I'll pay attention. Until then, you're just going to go on my foe/ignore list. Buh bye.
I tried to understand what the hell you're talking about, but can't see how anything of what you said applies to what I said in the first place.
Use of GPLv3 software to produce something else is no different than use of Microsoft software or anything else to produce something else. I never said otherwise.
You're saying "making GPLv3 code useless for virtually all forms of businesses that actually interact with end-users", but this is false, what you actually mean is "I can't copy & paste other peoples' code without adhering to their license terms, so GPLv3 must be useless for all possible situations". That's ridiculous. Of course it's ridiculous. You made it up specifically to sound ridiculous, even though it has absolutely no bearing on anything at all that I ever said. Nice try at setting up a strawman though.
Read the license and know what you can do and cannot do. It's as simple as that. Yes, it is. And the GPLv3 does not allow you to use GPLv3 code in devices that you sell to other people, which is why it's fairly useless. Not everybody is a software developer, not everybody is using GPLv3'd software to produce other software or any damn thing else.
It's actually very simple, and it's also what I was saying in the first place. I don't know what the hell you were thinking, but clearly, you were wrong.
Why? The regular GPL only applies to distribution, not usage. How do you sell a product without distributing it?
The GPLv3 makes it impossible to sell a product that uses code licensed with it, making GPLv3 code useless for virtually all forms of businesses that actually interact with end-users.
What could happen is that you'll have a license violation. You can choose how you want to solve this violation: 1. Relicense your application under a compatible license. Again: this is completely up to you! Nobody can force you to relicense your software. 2. Remove any dependencies on the library in question, by rewriting (parts of) your code. 3. Ask the copyright holders of the library in question whether they'll grant you a commercial license, possibly for a fee. 4. Don't use any GPL'd software, ever. This is the simplest way, and why GPLv3 software will never gain adoption by any company actually interested in protection of their assets. The use of GPLv3 software opens any private company to possible liability for license violations; moreso than use of any other form of software licensing (including GPLv2).
GPLv3 software is useless to anybody working in any form of business.
If you don't like the idea, well then don't use AGPL licensed software. Write your own or use software under a different license. Which is exactly the problem with it, and why very few web applications will use the AGPL. It places additional burden on the users of that software, which web app developers usually don't want to do. Furthermore, most web applications have more than enough developers for them, trying to get the users to, who often barely understand how to install the software, involved in development is a losing game.
The AGPL is needed by nobody. Sorta like the GPLv3, in that respect. Both licenses actually make the projects using them *less* appealing to users.
Importance is not dictated by the number of people who listen. Extremely important information and opinions can go unheard. Nonsense. First off, ideas and opinions do not exist outside the human mind. They are not freely roaming the landscape, in search of truth and fun. An idea that is not heard ceases to exist and therefore has no importance of any kind.
What is important is what everybody hears. Why? Because they heard it. The number of people who know about an idea, whether they agree with it or not, is the only rational measurement of the import of the idea.
Free speech protection and various rights, privileges, and related laws help ensure opinions are not silenced. Who's looking to silence anybody here? Say whatever you like. But that doesn't mean people have to listen to you.
If the power that be came down on Micheal Giest (prominent columnist/copy right blogger/law professor) or another notable person in the blogsphere he should be afforded the same protection as if he was a columnist for the Phoenix star. Why? If he said something defamatory, then he should be held accountable for that. Freedom of speech is not absolute.
They publish their opinions for others to see. You can publish your opinion all you like and nobody can stop you. As long as it is obviously your opinion, and not slander or libel.
What is the difference between a blogger and the independent press? Numbers, obviously. What the blogger writes is of less import because fewer people see it. It has less impact. It enters fewer minds.
The "don't tase me bro" guy may be a nutter but you ought to hear what he says before you write him off. Why? I heard part of what he said. The problem is that it was the insane part, which invalidated pretty much anything else he had to say. I formed my own opinion of him, categorized him as a nut, and went on with my life. Do you behave any differently, or do you mean to sit there and honestly tell me that you take the time to read and fully understand every single person's opinion on every subject before forming a judgment about the person as a whole?
Minority opinions and minority insights should be afforded the same protection as majority opinions and insights. Opinions are always protected. Because they are opinions. It's speech in general we're talking about here, not all speech is opinion.
Rush Limbaugh is not right because 13.5 million Americans listen to him, he is right or wrong based on the content of his speech. I am not wrong simply because only 0-100 people see my post, I am right or wrong based on the content of my text. Who said anything about "right" vs. "wrong"? This is about protecting people's right to speak, while also not protecting their right to defame.
"Press" protection generally means protecting ones sources. This is different than this case, where the person was basically accused of defamation.
...the "don't tase me bro" guy is just as valid of an opinion as... You can say that he has the right to speak, sure, but that's not the same thing. Frankly, he's a damned looney nutter, and so no, his opinion is not valid. In my own opinion, of course.
What do you define as "press protection" anyway? Why should he get such treatment? Because he has an opinion? That's no good, everybody has an opinion. No, press protection generally is, in fact, a matter of numbers. If somebody has enough people listening to them, then they have more of a right to speak (actually, more of a right to NOT speak, since that's what "press protection" generally does) than other people.
Sorry, but that's a simple fact. When more people listen to you, what you say is more important. You can curse the darkness all you like, it's when you talk into the lights that you make a difference.
Not all domains have NS glue records, however. True, but he's talking about checking the existence of a domain, in which case making a query to the root servers will return the nameserver for that domain, if it exists. Okay, so it may not need glue records in particular, but it must have nameserver records in the root, because that is what defines the domain's very existence.
Meh... The major reason people don't use direct deposit is that they don't have checking accounts. This applies to rather a lot of the population making the lower amounts in our society, generally speaking. Those generally wouldn't be the checks you want to forge.
While I know that his main scheme was check forgery, I've gotta say that that really shows off how dated he is. I mean, nobody uses checks anymore.
I haven't written a check of any kind for 4 years. And for the previous 4 years before that, I only wrote one per month (apartment charged extra for credit). I mean, if somebody tried to give me a personal check, then I probably wouldn't accept it unless I knew them *very* well. Why can't they transfer their money online like everybody else. Paypal has mobile service now, you know...
Our company recently switched to check scanners across the whole country. When you write a check at any of our stores, the check gets scanned and read, VOID printed across it, and then handed back to you. The transaction has been converted to an electronic one, and the money has left your account probably before you leave the store. Assuming, of course, that it's accepted at all, since it checks the check itself and the account and such to verify that it hasn't been flagged for fraud. Check fraud was so rampant that when the system was implemented, fully half the checks we received were rejected entirely as fraud. Many people were arrested based on the security footage gained.
While this is all anecdotal, what I'm saying is that people using checks are automatically suspicious nowadays. You can make a really convincing looking check, sure, but people don't even use *real* checks anymore, so you'd still have a hard time passing it.
Very cool. Do you know if Divx hardware players will play back xvid-encoded files, too? Very generally speaking, yes, they will, because the decoders are identical. The difference is in the way that the compression is implemented, not in the format of the data.
I should really save this so I can just paste it each time I say it.
What right does Tivo have to put DRM in *my* hardware in order to make it impossible to modify *my* software any way I see fit? For that matter, how does Tivo count as a user of *my* hardware and *my* software simply because they *sold* it to me? What right do you have to tell Tivo what they can put into the hardware before they sell it to you?
You can do anything you like to that hardware. They can attempt (not force, mind you) to prevent you from doing so. And since they're selling a service to go with their hardware, they can absolutely deny you use of that service with the modified software you want to run on your purchased Tivo hardware.
Tivo is not the bad guy. They use open source code, adhered to the terms rigidly, adhered to the spirit of it by releasing their kernel changes and such, and now you're bitching at them for it? Yeah, that's a real good way to promote open source.
The GPLv3 will be the death of open source. Why? Because it's impossible for any hardware company doing anything that is actually *innovative* to use the code that is licensed under it.
The $_SERVER variables are not sent out by WordPress, they're sent by Akismet during its spam-checking process. Akismet is a plugin that is bundled with WordPress which helps prevent comment spam. Activating it requires an account on WordPress.com as well, so it's not something you can turn on by accident.
The reason it sends those variables is that it does so when somebody submits a comment to your blog. Those variables and the comment are sent to the Akismet servers which send back a pass/fail for spam identification. The variables allow Akismet to more easily identify mass spammers across a wide range of blogs.
Citation, please? The video seemed pretty clear-cut to me, with respect to him ranting & asking too many questions. WTFV. He didn't rant for a minute about freemasonry. He asked the question, "were you a member of the Skull & Bones society with Bush". The rant was about election fraud, not freemason conspiracy theory. Perhaps you should have watched the unedited videos.
Furthermore, those "thugs" did the absolute correct thing. He was being removed from the auditorium for trespassing and causing a disturbance. He resisted, committed assault on at least two uniformed officers, and got his ass tased for it.
He *should* have gone to jail for assault. Had I been one of those officers, I would have pressed charges.
Watch the videos. Read the reports by people who were there. The police follow him in directly from the entrance, where he came in. He was not there for the speech at all, he was there to make a scene.
Is a protest a protest if no one is there to hear it? Yes. And it's no longer a protest when you interfere with everybody else's rights to do it. Then it's not only annoying, it's no longer protected speech.
You have the right to speak. You do not have the right to force others to listen to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Microwaves work by producing an alternative electric field (using non-ionizing microwave radiation) that acts on molecules which have electric dipoles. Water is one of those, but so are many others, including fats and such. The process is called Dielectric Heating.
Basically, the molecule being heated is a dipole. It has a positive charge at one end, and a negative charge at the other. In an alternating electric field, it rotates as it tries to align itself with the field. This causes motion, which translates to heat. The heat spreads as the molecules hit other molecules and transfer the energy to them. Now, this process works really good on water because water is a very strong dipole, but it does not operate solely on water, and it doesn't have anything to do with water in particular.
See, the frequency doesn't actually have much to do with it. Normal kitchen microwaves operate at 2.4 Ghz or close to that. Industrial microwave devices tend to work at 915 Mhz. Also, if the frequency had something to do with it, then 2.4 Ghz would be the wrong one. The resonant frequency for water is somewhere in the 20 gigahertz range. The only reason 2.4 Ghz is used for microwaves is that it's a free bands of frequency (ISM frequency bands) that can be used worldwide.
So, there you go. Now you know.
Yes, it's absolutely about money, but not about "digital costs more". They want to be able to sell you pay-per-view, movies on demand, music stations, and all that other stuff. You don't want it? Then don't buy it. But don't get all annoyed because your 40 year old TV ain't gonna work without set top box anymore. The rest of us are happy with the switch to digital, because we want more choice in what we can watch and in the services we can get.
This is a simple idea, agreed, however it's difficult to do with modern 3d games. A lot of the rendering is offloaded from the main processor to the video card.
So, when textures and other such data are loaded into the video card itself, it can't do much else at the same time, like rendering gameplay. So you need to stagger the loads of data to be "in the background" and with some cards, that's just not possible. On shared memory card schemes, where the card itself is reading data directly from the main RAM, this is simpler, but it's slower overall that way too.
So yes it is. No, again, it's not. At best, he's a middleman. He's a developer using one piece of software (your shareware) to develop another piece (whatever he develops). Therefore he's a developer.
If he's not using the shareware as part of his development cycle, then he's not a developer for the context of the discussion, and your example is completely obscure and pointless in the first place. If it really is a 1% case I wouldn't be here replying to you. And yet it is, and yet you are. Amazing, that.
You can contrive all the nonsensical situations you like, it doesn't change the facts. Your case is still a 1% case. The rest of the world is busy making things, not pushing papers around in some white collar system. If you don't want people to reply to extremely strong statements like "GPLv3 software is useless to anybody working in any form of business" then don't make such strong statements in the first place!!! The statement was meant to be strong. Fortunately, it's also true. That's the beauty of it, see?
Go back to your cave.
In your other post you said "GPLv3 software is useless to anybody working in any form of business". My previous example makes that statement invalid as well. In fact I have given you multiple examples in which a company uses GPLv3 software, which means that the GPLv3 software in question is *useful* to that business. Oh for fuck's sake...
Fine, for the 1% of cases in the world where my generalization was incorrect, it was incorrect. You got me! My generalization is not universal, it only applies to the vast majority of actual real-world cases! Whoops! Sorry about that!
When you're ready to have an actual conversation instead of pedantically arguing semantics, I'll pay attention. Until then, you're just going to go on my foe/ignore list. Buh bye.
Use of GPLv3 software to produce something else is no different than use of Microsoft software or anything else to produce something else. I never said otherwise. You're saying "making GPLv3 code useless for virtually all forms of businesses that actually interact with end-users", but this is false, what you actually mean is "I can't copy & paste other peoples' code without adhering to their license terms, so GPLv3 must be useless for all possible situations". That's ridiculous. Of course it's ridiculous. You made it up specifically to sound ridiculous, even though it has absolutely no bearing on anything at all that I ever said. Nice try at setting up a strawman though. Read the license and know what you can do and cannot do. It's as simple as that. Yes, it is. And the GPLv3 does not allow you to use GPLv3 code in devices that you sell to other people, which is why it's fairly useless. Not everybody is a software developer, not everybody is using GPLv3'd software to produce other software or any damn thing else.
It's actually very simple, and it's also what I was saying in the first place. I don't know what the hell you were thinking, but clearly, you were wrong.
The GPLv3 makes it impossible to sell a product that uses code licensed with it, making GPLv3 code useless for virtually all forms of businesses that actually interact with end-users.
1. Relicense your application under a compatible license. Again: this is completely up to you! Nobody can force you to relicense your software.
2. Remove any dependencies on the library in question, by rewriting (parts of) your code.
3. Ask the copyright holders of the library in question whether they'll grant you a commercial license, possibly for a fee. 4. Don't use any GPL'd software, ever. This is the simplest way, and why GPLv3 software will never gain adoption by any company actually interested in protection of their assets. The use of GPLv3 software opens any private company to possible liability for license violations; moreso than use of any other form of software licensing (including GPLv2).
GPLv3 software is useless to anybody working in any form of business.
The AGPL is needed by nobody. Sorta like the GPLv3, in that respect. Both licenses actually make the projects using them *less* appealing to users.
So, the measurement is in hbps (half bibles per second)?
What is important is what everybody hears. Why? Because they heard it. The number of people who know about an idea, whether they agree with it or not, is the only rational measurement of the import of the idea. Free speech protection and various rights, privileges, and related laws help ensure opinions are not silenced. Who's looking to silence anybody here? Say whatever you like. But that doesn't mean people have to listen to you. If the power that be came down on Micheal Giest (prominent columnist/copy right blogger/law professor) or another notable person in the blogsphere he should be afforded the same protection as if he was a columnist for the Phoenix star. Why? If he said something defamatory, then he should be held accountable for that. Freedom of speech is not absolute. They publish their opinions for others to see. You can publish your opinion all you like and nobody can stop you. As long as it is obviously your opinion, and not slander or libel. What is the difference between a blogger and the independent press? Numbers, obviously. What the blogger writes is of less import because fewer people see it. It has less impact. It enters fewer minds. The "don't tase me bro" guy may be a nutter but you ought to hear what he says before you write him off. Why? I heard part of what he said. The problem is that it was the insane part, which invalidated pretty much anything else he had to say. I formed my own opinion of him, categorized him as a nut, and went on with my life. Do you behave any differently, or do you mean to sit there and honestly tell me that you take the time to read and fully understand every single person's opinion on every subject before forming a judgment about the person as a whole? Minority opinions and minority insights should be afforded the same protection as majority opinions and insights. Opinions are always protected. Because they are opinions. It's speech in general we're talking about here, not all speech is opinion. Rush Limbaugh is not right because 13.5 million Americans listen to him, he is right or wrong based on the content of his speech. I am not wrong simply because only 0-100 people see my post, I am right or wrong based on the content of my text. Who said anything about "right" vs. "wrong"? This is about protecting people's right to speak, while also not protecting their right to defame.
"Press" protection generally means protecting ones sources. This is different than this case, where the person was basically accused of defamation.
...the "don't tase me bro" guy is just as valid of an opinion as... You can say that he has the right to speak, sure, but that's not the same thing. Frankly, he's a damned looney nutter, and so no, his opinion is not valid. In my own opinion, of course.What do you define as "press protection" anyway? Why should he get such treatment? Because he has an opinion? That's no good, everybody has an opinion. No, press protection generally is, in fact, a matter of numbers. If somebody has enough people listening to them, then they have more of a right to speak (actually, more of a right to NOT speak, since that's what "press protection" generally does) than other people.
Sorry, but that's a simple fact. When more people listen to you, what you say is more important. You can curse the darkness all you like, it's when you talk into the lights that you make a difference.
Meh... The major reason people don't use direct deposit is that they don't have checking accounts. This applies to rather a lot of the population making the lower amounts in our society, generally speaking. Those generally wouldn't be the checks you want to forge.
Or to just stop using passwords. Why can't I login with a USB key that has some piece of information which is signed using my private key on it?
While I know that his main scheme was check forgery, I've gotta say that that really shows off how dated he is. I mean, nobody uses checks anymore.
I haven't written a check of any kind for 4 years. And for the previous 4 years before that, I only wrote one per month (apartment charged extra for credit). I mean, if somebody tried to give me a personal check, then I probably wouldn't accept it unless I knew them *very* well. Why can't they transfer their money online like everybody else. Paypal has mobile service now, you know...
Our company recently switched to check scanners across the whole country. When you write a check at any of our stores, the check gets scanned and read, VOID printed across it, and then handed back to you. The transaction has been converted to an electronic one, and the money has left your account probably before you leave the store. Assuming, of course, that it's accepted at all, since it checks the check itself and the account and such to verify that it hasn't been flagged for fraud. Check fraud was so rampant that when the system was implemented, fully half the checks we received were rejected entirely as fraud. Many people were arrested based on the security footage gained.
While this is all anecdotal, what I'm saying is that people using checks are automatically suspicious nowadays. You can make a really convincing looking check, sure, but people don't even use *real* checks anymore, so you'd still have a hard time passing it.
What right does Tivo have to put DRM in *my* hardware in order to make it impossible to modify *my* software any way I see fit? For that matter, how does Tivo count as a user of *my* hardware and *my* software simply because they *sold* it to me? What right do you have to tell Tivo what they can put into the hardware before they sell it to you?
You can do anything you like to that hardware. They can attempt (not force, mind you) to prevent you from doing so. And since they're selling a service to go with their hardware, they can absolutely deny you use of that service with the modified software you want to run on your purchased Tivo hardware.
Tivo is not the bad guy. They use open source code, adhered to the terms rigidly, adhered to the spirit of it by releasing their kernel changes and such, and now you're bitching at them for it? Yeah, that's a real good way to promote open source.
The GPLv3 will be the death of open source. Why? Because it's impossible for any hardware company doing anything that is actually *innovative* to use the code that is licensed under it.
Perhaps you meant this URL instead?
http://www.artlum.com/dilbert.gif
The $_SERVER variables are not sent out by WordPress, they're sent by Akismet during its spam-checking process. Akismet is a plugin that is bundled with WordPress which helps prevent comment spam. Activating it requires an account on WordPress.com as well, so it's not something you can turn on by accident.
The reason it sends those variables is that it does so when somebody submits a comment to your blog. Those variables and the comment are sent to the Akismet servers which send back a pass/fail for spam identification. The variables allow Akismet to more easily identify mass spammers across a wide range of blogs.
Calling them "thugs" doesn't make it true.
Furthermore, those "thugs" did the absolute correct thing. He was being removed from the auditorium for trespassing and causing a disturbance. He resisted, committed assault on at least two uniformed officers, and got his ass tased for it.
He *should* have gone to jail for assault. Had I been one of those officers, I would have pressed charges.
Watch the videos. Read the reports by people who were there. The police follow him in directly from the entrance, where he came in. He was not there for the speech at all, he was there to make a scene.
Is a protest a protest if no one is there to hear it? Yes. And it's no longer a protest when you interfere with everybody else's rights to do it. Then it's not only annoying, it's no longer protected speech.
You have the right to speak.
You do not have the right to force others to listen to you.