Bullshit, I work at time for a publisher, most libraries get deep discounts, and they (and you) are very free to lend out books. Go look up first sale doctrine. Lending out or sale is NOT a restricted public performance. Copyright certainly does NOT give publishers rights to any license they want.
I'm afraid its far worse than this, ad I should hope you know that.
for GW to be more than a theory (and I mean the accelerating man made kind we are bombarded with), the models predicting it must start PREDICTING.
So far they are at pretty solid zero - the stories of what should happen changes every year or so as reality unfolds.
A Scientific theory that cannot predict should never last long - it is the next closest thing to proving it wrong.
Of course, none of that addresses the 'Faith' belief in such things, and the environmental movement is not exactly against the attention they now have.
Taxation is THE largest industry on the planet, and CO2 tax is the latest game they have to play - and many people are for it! who needs religion or war!
Next, go and do some reading about who invented carbon trading, and find out why - there is a lot of big business in them there hills.
And lastly of course you think those oil/etc businesses are at all threatened by these things? thay are sitting there rubbing their hands together waiting for the flood of govt handouts to buy them away from 'bad' business practices.
THIS is why we see so little support of research showing there is no global warming - far from the BS GW supporters like to pull most of the big business support is FOR GW these days, due to the subsidies and govt. support they are up for.
Idiot, first you claim to want to avoid politics, then put a crazy political barrow...
The very most aggressive estimates of sea level rise over the next hundred years is in the order of 3 feet, the average is closer to a foot, and those figures are from strong global warming proponents.
Also note that the figures used to show ANY unexpected sea level rise are from satellite, whereas the ground based (and significantly more robust..) systems do not show the same data.. oops.
Of course global climate change proponents are also now saying that cooling in the Antarctic is 'expected' as part of global warming, which of course would result in sea levels drops - luckily either way the figures are not high.
Of course, dont go letting facts get in the way of your fear.
The question to ask is what good are the public getting in return for giving up such freedoms, AND paying for the giving up of such freedoms (dont forget who pay for the FBI, Police, etc), and paying for the protection of the revinue to copyright owning entities.
Now, this is supposed to be the entering in to the public domain (as in becoming free..) of creative content at the end of the copyright period - a fair and equitable arrangement one could say - we protect their profits for a period, and at the end of that, we gain the advantage of their creativity openly.
However, that was in the days of limited copyright periods, these days thanks both to DRM (an unbroken DRM means an item cannot become free after its legal protection stops) and changes to copyright periods (a lot of things we have already paid to protect should be public now, and are not..) we, the people, have lost our end of the 'bargain'.
Perhaps it is time for the copyright owners to be carrying the full costs of enforcing their copyrights, since they don't feel the public should be allowed future advantage of their content?
I wonder what the yearly government costs of copyright enforcement is, it seems more and more public resource is bring piled in to protecting it..
Or perhaps the people (that is, government) should simply cease on their end of the bargain in return, and in light of technological DRM, revoke copyright laws, as they were enacted to protect otherwise unprotectable items (such as books) - does DRM mean we shouldn't have to suffer copyright laws?
Once upon a time there was balance, an equitable deal between the state and copyright holders - the copyright holders have long since stopped holding up their end of the bargain....
No, thats the effective range, doofus, at which it is expected to be able to kill an enemy aircraft, not a big fat blimp.
That is also the service ceiling of the MiG-21, not the best it could to off the end of a power climb.
And even then, if it happened to be carrying either of its rates sets of AAMs, the atol (range 6.5 km) or aphid (later editions range 10km) then that blimp is in a world of pain, so to say.
Basically, it would be quite an easy kill, for a rather old piece of junk.
Here are some (de-weaponised I would hope..) for sale: http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/Mig21%20jets%20for%20sale.htm http://www.warbirdrelics.com/mig_21.htm http://www.avitop.com/aircraft/aircraft.asp?id=555
And if that doesnt convince you, then just look at a MiG-25, service ceiling (again not highest atainable altitude) of 68,000 feet. Iraq for example had some, Iran has some, as does Syria...
Very wrong, off the top of a maximum rate climb it could come damn close to skipping over the top of the blimp, but it couldnt stay up there is any useful manner.
The 3000m range is not vertical, however it is also an effective kill range against things a lot more solid than a blimp - you dont need a lot of energy left in the rounds (which also happen to be explosive..) to take donw a blimp.
And on top of all of that, this is a very old and basic piece of equipment, hardly the BEST thing that could be fielded in let us say the middle east.
What exactly do you think happens when GCC changes behavior (as it has done in the past, many times) within the C spec?
Perhaps we better freeze on version x.y.z of GCC?
The same would apply to for example assumptions with branch prediction - gcc can and quite probably one day will change behavior - do you really want major features of the kernel to change behavior when this happens? The good effect this will have when addressed properly (and remember what you are referencing above is a small group making a starting attempt to achieve this outcome..) is that anything worthwhile AND compiler specific will become clearly marked and optional to the compiling process - therefore increasing the total quality of the kernel. Such assumptions should NEVER be simple spread through the code unmarked.
By supporting a range of compilers we help make the kernel MORE robust to such changes, and these are both highly competent compilers, so the 'intersection' of features is actually most of the C/C++ specs..
Of course you obviously have zero experience of such things. You seem to think 'better' means more highly tuned code - try maintaining a major project for more than 6 months, and you may well learn a thing or two.
pgcc, and more importantly egcs, were the only things that broke the complete stagnation and navel-gazing of gcc that was threatening to cause its death. with the hard work and risk taken by the developers of both, gcc would not be nearly as strong as it is now.
Again, you dont seem to know what you are talking about, do you perhaps measure compiler 'goodness' by Dhrystone mips?
It depends, if the system is distributed, the hotspots (ie performance bottlenecks) could quite easily be in network latency and throughput, something that could be reasonably impacted here.
Of course if its not, you are 100% right, however dont underestimate the proportion of cpu time the kernel spends in some situations (databases and distributed apps, for example).
Its their compiler, they are damn well allowed to do what they want - call me when AMD pour that kind of resource into having their own compiler.
Of course, developers are also free to therefore ignore the compiler, and hence this situation righted itself pretty quickly and naturally.
I wonder, do you consider RMSs current moves on GCC to also be 'malicious' since it in effect could result in lower performance for end users than is possible, and defined along political lines?
IMHO This is a great development, for one important reason.
Portability of the kernel.
GCC is a great compiler, but relying on it excessively is a bad thing for the quality of kernel code, the wider range of compilers used, the more portable and robust the code should become.
I know there will be the usual torrent of its-just-not-open-enough rants, but my reasoning has nothing to do with that, it is simply healthy for the kernel to be compilable across more compilers.
It also could have interesting implications with respect to the current GCC licensing 'changes' enforcing GPL on the new plugin structures, etc.
GCC is a wonderful compiler however it has in the past had problems with political motivations rather than technical, and moves like this could help protect against those in the future (some of us still remember the gcc->pgcc->egcs->gcc debarcle).
Of course no discussion of compilers should happen without also mentioning LLVM, another valuable project.
How would they get the phone? I suspect a teacher making a physical search of a female student would end up arrested and without work faster than you can possibly imagine.
Children learn quickly when adults have limitations such as these..
spanking and other physical punishment was stopped (at many many levels) and child behaviour has grown significantly worse.
Care to tell us why? it should have got better by your measurements.
IE: I call BS, there are a mountain of researchers out there who are more than happy to push one particular cart here. There are also a large number of good responsible parents who know the realities.
I would also suggest that a leading cause of behaviour problems is the desperate need to convince children that they are 'empowered', which of course most children interpret as 'allowed to do whatever they want'.
Having quite some experience with social services locally (and not saying this extends globally, but hey it might) it is interesting to see that most punishment/development/result studies are specifically biased to 'high risk' children, and VERY few are done on low risk children - nothing works better than a nicely skewed sample base.
My parents spanked me (rarely) which I was especially bad, and I strongly thank them for it. I have also never hit ANY person since being a young teenager, in anger or for any other reason.
If we cannot find any others, then we are the first (in our area, whatever) - the reason we experience this question is also because we are the first, therefore the certainty is one;)
Well, thats not a good description, but read up on it.
Its similar to people who say 'whats the chance that we just happened to evolve on a planet thats nice and greeen and wet' - its one, because we have!
The other defendable possibility of course, is the TRUTH (caps intentional) - side reference, but the theory that we all exist in a simulation of some super-evolved race that have already taken over everything, in this particular case they just want to see how a simulated race on its own behaves.
You really need to catch up on how many localities jam GPS coverage, often for a few city blocks..
Hint: Not all poor GPS reception in cities is because of building geometry/coverage...
Its considered a 'security risk' on the theory that packed bombs could be GPS detonated in the right location (and not allowing for the fact that all they have to do it get some moron to push a button at the right time instead.)
It is simple to set up a cell inside a prison that cellphones will connect to, which will then ID all calls, the details of the phone, and with a little RDF even its approximate location.
So it would be quite simple to clear dis-allowed cellphones from inside a prison, of course they dont - this should give you some idea of the scale of the problems in the prison system.
Why not make it the law that all non-registered cellphones using the prinsons cell site coverage are automatically logged (phone details AND voice recorded..) - surely that would make the value of the phones almost nothing.
Of course again, there goes a big source of lets call it 'power' from the bad prison associates, so it will not happen.
Its not just the men locking doors and doing searches who can be corrupt, in fact I would suggest its not even mainly them..
I couldnt agree more, but again this is nothing to do with electronic voting.
It is the question of should there be a 'None of the above' protest option available - which does actually exist in some electoral systems.
There is one nice system that blocks any party/person who receives less %age of the vote that the 'abstain' vote from being represented, although this is not often used in general elections.
a nice big red button marked 'no confidence in any of these idiots' would be a most sensible addition to any voting system!
Quite, reading through this reasonably carefully it would appear that 2% of the votes 'Were not counted at all' which from my election experience would mean that 2% of the issued/recorded voters whom entered a booth did not then result in a vote in the system.
The obvious reason for this would be that either a machine or machines were not transfered to the centralised count - something that should stick out in the paperwork like a sore thumb..
OR
2% of people did not understand/complete the voting procedure correctly - which would not be unusual at all.
It is quite common, although rather surprising, to get paper voting papers that have not been marked in any way - one can only guess that the voter got in to the booth, could not find the person/issue/whatever they thought they wanted to vote for, and didnt bother. You also get voters who do quite obviously stupid and incorrect things in marking their paper ballots, like circling the name of the candidate they support, rather than marking the box.
I would not be at all surprised with a 2% missing vote from the combination of people who just didnt finalising their vote on purpose, and people who did not correctly complete whatever the procedure was.
Neither of these is a particularly 'electronic voting' type fault - it happens all the time in paper based systems. If the numbers are much higher than tghe old style voting, then it could mean the new system is not clear or understandable enough.
Of course IF the problem is simply missing voting machine counts, then that is a whole different kettle of fish, and requires investigation.
So long as people can vote in 'privacy and anonymity' then it is damn near impossible to actually get all their votes..
That a load of rubbish, it is perfecty legal to use GCC to link a build in gcc library with a non GPL library, because the libraries in gcc are NOT GPL!, they are LPGL!
Otherwise GCC would be significantly less useful.
What they are doing here is trying to be viral, plain and simple - use FUD to scare developers that unless they force GPL plugins, somehow everyone will get tained - this is exactly as true as making it illegal to link any non-GPL library using GCC.
The big issue with this is that it would stop for example Intel from releasing a plugin vectoriser for their CPUs unless they GPL it, or NVidia from adding a non-GPL CUDA code generator, etc, etc.
It is another attempt by GNU to 'own' software, which is becoming increasingly clear as their aim - which one would have though would have been the opposite.
Perhaps they should remove LGPL from their libraries, lets see just how long GCC lasts...
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit, I work at time for a publisher, most libraries get deep discounts, and they (and you) are very free to lend out books. Go look up first sale doctrine. Lending out or sale is NOT a restricted public performance.
Copyright certainly does NOT give publishers rights to any license they want.
I'm afraid its far worse than this, ad I should hope you know that.
for GW to be more than a theory (and I mean the accelerating man made kind we are bombarded with), the models predicting it must start PREDICTING.
So far they are at pretty solid zero - the stories of what should happen changes every year or so as reality unfolds.
A Scientific theory that cannot predict should never last long - it is the next closest thing to proving it wrong.
Of course, none of that addresses the 'Faith' belief in such things, and the environmental movement is not exactly against the attention they now have.
Oh how sweetly innocent.
Taxation is THE largest industry on the planet, and CO2 tax is the latest game they have to play - and many people are for it! who needs religion or war!
Next, go and do some reading about who invented carbon trading, and find out why - there is a lot of big business in them there hills.
And lastly of course you think those oil/etc businesses are at all threatened by these things? thay are sitting there rubbing their hands together waiting for the flood of govt handouts to buy them away from 'bad' business practices.
THIS is why we see so little support of research showing there is no global warming - far from the BS GW supporters like to pull most of the big business support is FOR GW these days, due to the subsidies and govt. support they are up for.
Come on, its pretty basic stuff.
Idiot, first you claim to want to avoid politics, then put a crazy political barrow...
The very most aggressive estimates of sea level rise over the next hundred years is in the order of 3 feet, the average is closer to a foot, and those figures are from strong global warming proponents.
Also note that the figures used to show ANY unexpected sea level rise are from satellite, whereas the ground based (and significantly more robust..) systems do not show the same data.. oops.
Of course global climate change proponents are also now saying that cooling in the Antarctic is 'expected' as part of global warming, which of course would result in sea levels drops - luckily either way the figures are not high.
Of course, dont go letting facts get in the way of your fear.
This is not the question to ask.
The question to ask is what good are the public getting in return for giving up such freedoms, AND paying for the giving up of such freedoms (dont forget who pay for the FBI, Police, etc), and paying for the protection of the revinue to copyright owning entities.
Now, this is supposed to be the entering in to the public domain (as in becoming free..) of creative content at the end of the copyright period - a fair and equitable arrangement one could say - we protect their profits for a period, and at the end of that, we gain the advantage of their creativity openly.
However, that was in the days of limited copyright periods, these days thanks both to DRM (an unbroken DRM means an item cannot become free after its legal protection stops) and changes to copyright periods (a lot of things we have already paid to protect should be public now, and are not..) we, the people, have lost our end of the 'bargain'.
Perhaps it is time for the copyright owners to be carrying the full costs of enforcing their copyrights, since they don't feel the public should be allowed future advantage of their content?
I wonder what the yearly government costs of copyright enforcement is, it seems more and more public resource is bring piled in to protecting it..
Or perhaps the people (that is, government) should simply cease on their end of the bargain in return, and in light of technological DRM, revoke copyright laws, as they were enacted to protect otherwise unprotectable items (such as books) - does DRM mean we shouldn't have to suffer copyright laws?
Once upon a time there was balance, an equitable deal between the state and copyright holders - the copyright holders have long since stopped holding up their end of the bargain....
No, his facts are documented and people can go and investigate them and form their own opinions.
You on the other hand offer no facts and unfounded accusations.
You present yourself as an idiot, whereas he presents himself as well informed. Hmmm.
No, thats the effective range, doofus, at which it is expected to be able to kill an enemy aircraft, not a big fat blimp.
That is also the service ceiling of the MiG-21, not the best it could to off the end of a power climb.
And even then, if it happened to be carrying either of its rates sets of AAMs, the atol (range 6.5 km) or aphid (later editions range 10km) then that blimp is in a world of pain, so to say.
Basically, it would be quite an easy kill, for a rather old piece of junk.
Here are some (de-weaponised I would hope..) for sale:
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/Mig21%20jets%20for%20sale.htm
http://www.warbirdrelics.com/mig_21.htm
http://www.avitop.com/aircraft/aircraft.asp?id=555
And if that doesnt convince you, then just look at a MiG-25, service ceiling (again not highest atainable altitude) of 68,000 feet. Iraq for example had some, Iran has some, as does Syria...
Very wrong, off the top of a maximum rate climb it could come damn close to skipping over the top of the blimp, but it couldnt stay up there is any useful manner.
The 3000m range is not vertical, however it is also an effective kill range against things a lot more solid than a blimp - you dont need a lot of energy left in the rounds (which also happen to be explosive..) to take donw a blimp.
And on top of all of that, this is a very old and basic piece of equipment, hardly the BEST thing that could be fielded in let us say the middle east.
Who needs that, the good old Mig 21 has a service ceiling of 17500m, and its GP-9 gun pod has a known effective range of 3000m.
17500+3000=20500m, or 67,000 feet....
and that is one hell of a big target.
So it is easily hitable by anyone with even a historic jet airforce. It would be safe from foot soldiers and shoulder launched missiles.
http://members.tripod.com/YUModelClub/yugoslav_air_force/mig21/mig21var.htm
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw2788.html
Would be just the thing for monitoring the home populous though.
Oh, wait a second, I see the problem here.
You are a moron.
What exactly do you think happens when GCC changes behavior (as it has done in the past, many times) within the C spec?
Perhaps we better freeze on version x.y.z of GCC?
The same would apply to for example assumptions with branch prediction - gcc can and quite probably one day will change behavior - do you really want major features of the kernel to change behavior when this happens?
The good effect this will have when addressed properly (and remember what you are referencing above is a small group making a starting attempt to achieve this outcome..) is that anything worthwhile AND compiler specific will become clearly marked and optional to the compiling process - therefore increasing the total quality of the kernel. Such assumptions should NEVER be simple spread through the code unmarked.
By supporting a range of compilers we help make the kernel MORE robust to such changes, and these are both highly competent compilers, so the 'intersection' of features is actually most of the C/C++ specs..
Of course you obviously have zero experience of such things. You seem to think 'better' means more highly tuned code - try maintaining a major project for more than 6 months, and you may well learn a thing or two.
pgcc, and more importantly egcs, were the only things that broke the complete stagnation and navel-gazing of gcc that was threatening to cause its death. with the hard work and risk taken by the developers of both, gcc would not be nearly as strong as it is now.
Again, you dont seem to know what you are talking about, do you perhaps measure compiler 'goodness' by Dhrystone mips?
It depends, if the system is distributed, the hotspots (ie performance bottlenecks) could quite easily be in network latency and throughput, something that could be reasonably impacted here.
Of course if its not, you are 100% right, however dont underestimate the proportion of cpu time the kernel spends in some situations (databases and distributed apps, for example).
I call BS, there are cases where GCC can beat ICC, however there are many more where ICC is significantly better.
My bet, either you are full of BS, or you 'tried' a rather specific and limited codebase.
I also suspect your codebase was developed under gcc and then just thrown at icc? hmmmm?
ICC is a VERY impressive compiler, GCC is a quite good compiler. we are lucky to have both (and then a few other options as well).
Its their compiler, they are damn well allowed to do what they want - call me when AMD pour that kind of resource into having their own compiler.
Of course, developers are also free to therefore ignore the compiler, and hence this situation righted itself pretty quickly and naturally.
I wonder, do you consider RMSs current moves on GCC to also be 'malicious' since it in effect could result in lower performance for end users than is possible, and defined along political lines?
IMHO This is a great development, for one important reason.
Portability of the kernel.
GCC is a great compiler, but relying on it excessively is a bad thing for the quality of kernel code, the wider range of compilers used, the more portable and robust the code should become.
I know there will be the usual torrent of its-just-not-open-enough rants, but my reasoning has nothing to do with that, it is simply healthy for the kernel to be compilable across more compilers.
It also could have interesting implications with respect to the current GCC licensing 'changes' enforcing GPL on the new plugin structures, etc.
GCC is a wonderful compiler however it has in the past had problems with political motivations rather than technical, and moves like this could help protect against those in the future (some of us still remember the gcc->pgcc->egcs->gcc debarcle).
Of course no discussion of compilers should happen without also mentioning LLVM, another valuable project.
How would they get the phone? I suspect a teacher making a physical search of a female student would end up arrested and without work faster than you can possibly imagine.
Children learn quickly when adults have limitations such as these..
spanking and other physical punishment was stopped (at many many levels) and child behaviour has grown significantly worse.
Care to tell us why? it should have got better by your measurements.
IE: I call BS, there are a mountain of researchers out there who are more than happy to push one particular cart here. There are also a large number of good responsible parents who know the realities.
I would also suggest that a leading cause of behaviour problems is the desperate need to convince children that they are 'empowered', which of course most children interpret as 'allowed to do whatever they want'.
Having quite some experience with social services locally (and not saying this extends globally, but hey it might) it is interesting to see that most punishment/development/result studies are specifically biased to 'high risk' children, and VERY few are done on low risk children - nothing works better than a nicely skewed sample base.
My parents spanked me (rarely) which I was especially bad, and I strongly thank them for it. I have also never hit ANY person since being a young teenager, in anger or for any other reason.
Anthropic Principle ;)
If we cannot find any others, then we are the first (in our area, whatever) - the reason we experience this question is also because we are the first, therefore the certainty is one ;)
Well, thats not a good description, but read up on it.
Its similar to people who say 'whats the chance that we just happened to evolve on a planet thats nice and greeen and wet' - its one, because we have!
The other defendable possibility of course, is the TRUTH (caps intentional) - side reference, but the theory that we all exist in a simulation of some super-evolved race that have already taken over everything, in this particular case they just want to see how a simulated race on its own behaves.
The kind of intelligence that makes complex machines has evolved on Earth exactly once
since we were watching.
There fixed it for you.
Its called the Anthropic Principle, and it can explain a number of things.
So, why not give them the right to get the cellular companies to disable cell towers?
Cell towers are also quite highly directional (they carry sets of antennas) so it can even be moderately selective.
If, of course we are talking a major terrorist level of activity.
My suspicion is however that it is more wanted for day-to-day police work - not quite the same thing though, is it..
Rarely used?
You really need to catch up on how many localities jam GPS coverage, often for a few city blocks..
Hint: Not all poor GPS reception in cities is because of building geometry/coverage...
Its considered a 'security risk' on the theory that packed bombs could be GPS detonated in the right location (and not allowing for the fact that all they have to do it get some moron to push a button at the right time instead.)
It is simple to set up a cell inside a prison that cellphones will connect to, which will then ID all calls, the details of the phone, and with a little RDF even its approximate location.
So it would be quite simple to clear dis-allowed cellphones from inside a prison, of course they dont - this should give you some idea of the scale of the problems in the prison system.
Why not make it the law that all non-registered cellphones using the prinsons cell site coverage are automatically logged (phone details AND voice recorded..) - surely that would make the value of the phones almost nothing.
Of course again, there goes a big source of lets call it 'power' from the bad prison associates, so it will not happen.
Its not just the men locking doors and doing searches who can be corrupt, in fact I would suggest its not even mainly them..
I couldnt agree more, but again this is nothing to do with electronic voting.
It is the question of should there be a 'None of the above' protest option available - which does actually exist in some electoral systems.
There is one nice system that blocks any party/person who receives less %age of the vote that the 'abstain' vote from being represented, although this is not often used in general elections.
a nice big red button marked 'no confidence in any of these idiots' would be a most sensible addition to any voting system!
Quite, reading through this reasonably carefully it would appear that 2% of the votes 'Were not counted at all' which from my election experience would mean that 2% of the issued/recorded voters whom entered a booth did not then result in a vote in the system.
The obvious reason for this would be that either a machine or machines were not transfered to the centralised count - something that should stick out in the paperwork like a sore thumb..
OR
2% of people did not understand/complete the voting procedure correctly - which would not be unusual at all.
It is quite common, although rather surprising, to get paper voting papers that have not been marked in any way - one can only guess that the voter got in to the booth, could not find the person/issue/whatever they thought they wanted to vote for, and didnt bother. You also get voters who do quite obviously stupid and incorrect things in marking their paper ballots, like circling the name of the candidate they support, rather than marking the box.
I would not be at all surprised with a 2% missing vote from the combination of people who just didnt finalising their vote on purpose, and people who did not correctly complete whatever the procedure was.
Neither of these is a particularly 'electronic voting' type fault - it happens all the time in paper based systems. If the numbers are much higher than tghe old style voting, then it could mean the new system is not clear or understandable enough.
Of course IF the problem is simply missing voting machine counts, then that is a whole different kettle of fish, and requires investigation.
So long as people can vote in 'privacy and anonymity' then it is damn near impossible to actually get all their votes..
You know, I just cannot tell if this is trolling or humour - it just about defines the line between the two ;)
That a load of rubbish, it is perfecty legal to use GCC to link a build in gcc library with a non GPL library, because the libraries in gcc are NOT GPL!, they are LPGL!
Otherwise GCC would be significantly less useful.
What they are doing here is trying to be viral, plain and simple - use FUD to scare developers that unless they force GPL plugins, somehow everyone will get tained - this is exactly as true as making it illegal to link any non-GPL library using GCC.
The big issue with this is that it would stop for example Intel from releasing a plugin vectoriser for their CPUs unless they GPL it, or NVidia from adding a non-GPL CUDA code generator, etc, etc.
It is another attempt by GNU to 'own' software, which is becoming increasingly clear as their aim - which one would have though would have been the opposite.
Perhaps they should remove LGPL from their libraries, lets see just how long GCC lasts...