No, they wouldn't. You can distribute the code (almost) under the terms of the GPL because (almost) everything that GPL permits, BSD also permits. However, BSD does not allow the copyright to be removed. Strictly, you must distribute under the terms of the GPL as well as the requirement the the copyright notice remains. If you distribute purely under the GPL then you are strictly violating the BSD license, but it's so similar to the combined license that most people don't split hairs about it.
As far as I can tell, the whole fuss is due to a confusion over whether the code was covered by both licenses simultaneously (in which case it's almost but not quite identical to the GPL, because the BSD part has to remain intact), or the recipient's choice (in which case it's pretty much BSD, and either license can be removed at will).
True, I remember being told that about 10 years ago (and I've used similar arguments much more recently, so I really should have remembered it). However, there's still the problem of rotating the feet - you can't just drop it anywhere and have it stable. Whether you're changing the length of one leg or rotating the whole thing, getting 4 legs stable is harder than 3.
For the sake of ignoring the joke altogether, the reason you don't get quadpods (tetrapods, surely?) is because all three legs of a tripod will always make contact with the ground. Add a fourth leg and either the ground needs to be completely flat, or you need to mess about with the length of the extra leg.
One or two legs, however, works fine. The photographer supports the camera, and only has to worry about movement in one or two dimensions, instead of three. I expect to be able to use my monopod with impunity, never mind the fact that the monopod + photographer combination has three feet.
An interesting story that I vaguely recall (it was a while back, probably about the time my own bank processed a £4.00 money order as £400) concerned a friend of my father, who was asked to pay his bank manager a visit. He was then offered a drink, and treated very politely while the manager admitted that they had accidentally deposited around £5000 in his account. This was probably 50 years ago, so a fair bit of money.
Apparently at the time, the bank could not withdraw money from customer accounts without permission. As it happens, he said fine, take it back, and they did. Evidently the banking laws have been relaxed somewhat since then (UK laws differ from the US ones, of course, and it could well be that they still aren't allowed to. On the occasions that they've made a mistake in my favour, I've been in the bank at the time, and notified them immediately, so I've never had a chance to find out).
If the 100,000 workers are genuine employees, and Ford is considered a single organisation, then that isn't distribution. If some of them are contractors, or Ford want to be seen as a number of distinct legal entities (for some reason), then it probably counts as distributing it.
Roughly speaking, they found that people who play a lot of racing games drive more aggressively in racing games. Instead of putting them behind the wheel of a real vehicle, they put them in a simulator. The possibility that knowing nobody could get hurt might be a factor apparently never even crossed their minds.
No link handy, but I'm pretty sure it was on Slashdot.
That isn't really an oversight, it's the way closures work. Most functional languages let you create closures explicitly so the problem doesn't arise. Javascript does it automatically, and usually when you don't expect it. In Javascript, you can do:
That creates a closure for each handler, with its own copy of i, so they will all get the values you want. I have no doubt there are other ways to do it, but this works for me.
I recall a couple of years ago the BBC said something along the lines of "if you stream TV clips then you need a TV license". I don't think there was talk of legislating it, however.
Note that the UK does have exceptions for TVs owned by businesses and used exclusively for prerecorded video. There are various forms to fill in, and it's checked fairly regularly. Something similar should apply to computers, although I'm not sure you can "neuter" a computer in the same way as a TV (unplugging the aerial, usually. Ripping out the tuner is a bit drastic).
Gold is a good choice for connectors for two reasons. The first is that it doesn't oxidise, and the second is that it's soft, so the area of the connection is larger. You'll get a better contact even if just one side is a gold connector, and this "adapter" should improve the overall connection (unless everything was already gold plated).
Of course, none of this changes the fact that it's a digital signal, and there's no need to improve the connection quality anyway. No doubt it has a few sterling reviews from audiophile magazines about how they could feel the difference (someday someone's going to do a study and find that the acoustics in a room improve when there's less money in it).
Oh, and as for the mouse, it just looks like a regular mouse to me.
Every so often, I get an email from someone I've never heard of, asking how I've been and why I never respond to email at some other account. Turns out there's someone else with my name, of a similar age (well, plus or minus 5 years, I guess), in the same country, and studying informatics of some form (AI rather than CS). Also, he appears to be impossible to find contact details for. I'm not making this up, and unless spammers have suddenly become much more intelligent and literate (and created a specialist website to back up their story), these are quite genuine requests.
What's to guarantee that the person a company finds on Myspace or Livejournal - I don't know much about Facebook - is the same person they're actually considering employing? I'd be quite upset to find I'm suddenly employed and expected to be an expert in genetic algorithms, when my total experience with them is a couple of lectures several years ago. Names aren't unique, and sometimes there are enough similarities that I'm contacted by people who believe they know me personally.
There seems to be too much focus on trying to teach kids programming in this thread. In my experience, most kids who grew up in the 80s weren't taught to program. They learnt it themselves, mostly by osmosis from typing in programs. After all, children are designed to learn, much faster than adults do. Of course, it helped that every computing magazine had pages of listings.
As for linear vs OO, I'm not convinced either is any harder. You can take an OO language, ignore classes (except where absolutely necessary), and use it as a procedural language. As long as you provide a language that isn't deliberately obscure or crippled, I don't think it really matters exactly what it is.
A powerful motivator in the 8-bit days was that almost everything was written in BASIC, including much of the commercial software. The tools provided were capable of producing commercial quality software. If, instead, you give kids some dumbed-down language that couldn't potentially write Microsoft Office, you're going to lose some interest because it isn't "real programming".
Web 2.0, while I don't like the buzzword, is great for this. A typical Web 2.0 page uses PHP, Javascript and SQL, all of which are relatively easy to learn. I don't like PHP much either, so you could replace it with whatever today's favorite language is, but it gets the job done. The development process is simple as well. Edit the script, save it, click refresh.
When software consists of huge monolithic apps like Office, the boundary to writing anything interesting or useful is just too high. The way things are going with the web, however, I'd hope to find the next generation of kids is just as fluent in, say Javascript, as mine was with BASIC.
(Obviously, the majority of kids in a generation don't give a toss about programming. When I say "most", assume I mean most of the ones that do.)
The loot dropped by creatures doesn't change much. People, however, change drastically. At level 1, bandits wear worn-out leather armour; at level 20 they wear mithril, elven and glass - every time. At level 1, marauders (basically heavy armour wearing bandits) wear iron; at level 20 they wear ebony and daedric.
This comes as a shock to someone who played Morrowind, where there was exactly one full set of daedric armour (unless you started killing peaceful NPCs), and you needed both expansions to get it all. Oblivion gives no feeling that anything's really rare or unique.
Personally I'm not as impressed by Oblivion as I was by Morrowind. Once the modders get at it, though, it should be much better.
One notable exception: the Dark Brotherhood quest line is very well done.
You could sell them exactly the same data stream on a different format and they would insist it looks better
In fact, you could downsample, recompress at minimum bitrate, and they would still insist it's a richer experience, and more accurately reflects the director's intentions
So long as you put a few glowing glass things in the top of the box (needn't actually be vacuum tubes, so long as they look similar), they'll be happy.
OK, I admit it, I'm just cynical because I can't afford the latest and greatest technology.
I've yet to see any game that allows you to influence the world to any great extent beyond pre-scripted events (aside from trivial examples of natural selection). I'd love to see it, and from what I've heard, Oblivion should be closer than anything else. Like lots of the features of Daggerfall, however, I expect it to be either removed or massively cut back.
The freedom in Morrowind largely comes from the fact that the game doesn't push you hard in any direction. There are enough quests to play the game even if you don't give a toss about Dagoth Ur.
As for scope, most of that comes from third-party mods, some of which have better storylines than the original game. As long as Oblivion still has the contruction kit, it's guaranteed not to suck completely, at least after a couple of patches. I admit to being a Bethesda fanboy (at least for their RPGs), but if the first release doesn't crash every five minutes with no warning, it's just not a Bethesda game.
While the thief may have a laugh that the owner thinks it's worth stealing, is it worth his effort to steal it?
Especially when the car next to it has no club, and no alarm. The whole point of these security measures is to make some other target more attractive. If someone really wants to steal your car, as opposed to just any car, they will.
Security measures can't prevent theft, they can only make it more likely, and any lock is better than none for that.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they wouldn't. You can distribute the code (almost) under the terms of the GPL because (almost) everything that GPL permits, BSD also permits. However, BSD does not allow the copyright to be removed. Strictly, you must distribute under the terms of the GPL as well as the requirement the the copyright notice remains. If you distribute purely under the GPL then you are strictly violating the BSD license, but it's so similar to the combined license that most people don't split hairs about it.
As far as I can tell, the whole fuss is due to a confusion over whether the code was covered by both licenses simultaneously (in which case it's almost but not quite identical to the GPL, because the BSD part has to remain intact), or the recipient's choice (in which case it's pretty much BSD, and either license can be removed at will).
Ooh, I remember the year of the Linux desktop.
In fact, I seem to remember about 10 years of the Linux desktop, and not seeing a lot of Linux desktops.
Monkeys read Slashdot?!?
Humans learn anything from Slashdot?
Just a finger? He was lucky.
True, I remember being told that about 10 years ago (and I've used similar arguments much more recently, so I really should have remembered it). However, there's still the problem of rotating the feet - you can't just drop it anywhere and have it stable. Whether you're changing the length of one leg or rotating the whole thing, getting 4 legs stable is harder than 3.
It is a nice proof, though.
For the sake of ignoring the joke altogether, the reason you don't get quadpods (tetrapods, surely?) is because all three legs of a tripod will always make contact with the ground. Add a fourth leg and either the ground needs to be completely flat, or you need to mess about with the length of the extra leg.
One or two legs, however, works fine. The photographer supports the camera, and only has to worry about movement in one or two dimensions, instead of three. I expect to be able to use my monopod with impunity, never mind the fact that the monopod + photographer combination has three feet.
An interesting story that I vaguely recall (it was a while back, probably about the time my own bank processed a £4.00 money order as £400) concerned a friend of my father, who was asked to pay his bank manager a visit. He was then offered a drink, and treated very politely while the manager admitted that they had accidentally deposited around £5000 in his account. This was probably 50 years ago, so a fair bit of money.
Apparently at the time, the bank could not withdraw money from customer accounts without permission. As it happens, he said fine, take it back, and they did. Evidently the banking laws have been relaxed somewhat since then (UK laws differ from the US ones, of course, and it could well be that they still aren't allowed to. On the occasions that they've made a mistake in my favour, I've been in the bank at the time, and notified them immediately, so I've never had a chance to find out).
If the 100,000 workers are genuine employees, and Ford is considered a single organisation, then that isn't distribution. If some of them are contractors, or Ford want to be seen as a number of distinct legal entities (for some reason), then it probably counts as distributing it.
Roughly speaking, they found that people who play a lot of racing games drive more aggressively in racing games. Instead of putting them behind the wheel of a real vehicle, they put them in a simulator. The possibility that knowing nobody could get hurt might be a factor apparently never even crossed their minds.
No link handy, but I'm pretty sure it was on Slashdot.
That isn't really an oversight, it's the way closures work. Most functional languages let you create closures explicitly so the problem doesn't arise. Javascript does it automatically, and usually when you don't expect it. In Javascript, you can do:
That creates a closure for each handler, with its own copy of i, so they will all get the values you want. I have no doubt there are other ways to do it, but this works for me.
More or less my first reaction as well, although I was thinking of chest hair rather than ... something else.
I think he's probably referring to two different rules: one about being clean-shaven, and the other about the length of hair (on the head).
I recall a couple of years ago the BBC said something along the lines of "if you stream TV clips then you need a TV license". I don't think there was talk of legislating it, however.
Note that the UK does have exceptions for TVs owned by businesses and used exclusively for prerecorded video. There are various forms to fill in, and it's checked fairly regularly. Something similar should apply to computers, although I'm not sure you can "neuter" a computer in the same way as a TV (unplugging the aerial, usually. Ripping out the tuner is a bit drastic).
Gold is a good choice for connectors for two reasons. The first is that it doesn't oxidise, and the second is that it's soft, so the area of the connection is larger. You'll get a better contact even if just one side is a gold connector, and this "adapter" should improve the overall connection (unless everything was already gold plated).
Of course, none of this changes the fact that it's a digital signal, and there's no need to improve the connection quality anyway. No doubt it has a few sterling reviews from audiophile magazines about how they could feel the difference (someday someone's going to do a study and find that the acoustics in a room improve when there's less money in it).
Oh, and as for the mouse, it just looks like a regular mouse to me.
slashdot is not just junk news, but i can inderstand why you'de feel that way.
Indeed it's not. Don't forget the duplicates of junk news, blatent trolls (Dvorak, anyone?), dupes of blatent trolls, adverts, triplicates of junk news...
Every so often, I get an email from someone I've never heard of, asking how I've been and why I never respond to email at some other account. Turns out there's someone else with my name, of a similar age (well, plus or minus 5 years, I guess), in the same country, and studying informatics of some form (AI rather than CS). Also, he appears to be impossible to find contact details for. I'm not making this up, and unless spammers have suddenly become much more intelligent and literate (and created a specialist website to back up their story), these are quite genuine requests.
What's to guarantee that the person a company finds on Myspace or Livejournal - I don't know much about Facebook - is the same person they're actually considering employing? I'd be quite upset to find I'm suddenly employed and expected to be an expert in genetic algorithms, when my total experience with them is a couple of lectures several years ago. Names aren't unique, and sometimes there are enough similarities that I'm contacted by people who believe they know me personally.
I don't know about everyone else here, but I'd sooner watch the overweight nerds, thanks.
I'd bring popcorn as well. Hell, you could make a comedy act of it.
You know, with a couple of modifications, that's virtually the whole premise of Big Brother.
There seems to be too much focus on trying to teach kids programming in this thread. In my experience, most kids who grew up in the 80s weren't taught to program. They learnt it themselves, mostly by osmosis from typing in programs. After all, children are designed to learn, much faster than adults do. Of course, it helped that every computing magazine had pages of listings.
As for linear vs OO, I'm not convinced either is any harder. You can take an OO language, ignore classes (except where absolutely necessary), and use it as a procedural language. As long as you provide a language that isn't deliberately obscure or crippled, I don't think it really matters exactly what it is.
A powerful motivator in the 8-bit days was that almost everything was written in BASIC, including much of the commercial software. The tools provided were capable of producing commercial quality software. If, instead, you give kids some dumbed-down language that couldn't potentially write Microsoft Office, you're going to lose some interest because it isn't "real programming".
Web 2.0, while I don't like the buzzword, is great for this. A typical Web 2.0 page uses PHP, Javascript and SQL, all of which are relatively easy to learn. I don't like PHP much either, so you could replace it with whatever today's favorite language is, but it gets the job done. The development process is simple as well. Edit the script, save it, click refresh.
When software consists of huge monolithic apps like Office, the boundary to writing anything interesting or useful is just too high. The way things are going with the web, however, I'd hope to find the next generation of kids is just as fluent in, say Javascript, as mine was with BASIC.
(Obviously, the majority of kids in a generation don't give a toss about programming. When I say "most", assume I mean most of the ones that do.)
Saving up for a digital whiteboard. Right.
This is Bill Gates we're talking about. Obviously you mean a digital whiteboard company.
Spoken like someone who's never lived in Scotland.
The loot dropped by creatures doesn't change much. People, however, change drastically. At level 1, bandits wear worn-out leather armour; at level 20 they wear mithril, elven and glass - every time. At level 1, marauders (basically heavy armour wearing bandits) wear iron; at level 20 they wear ebony and daedric.
This comes as a shock to someone who played Morrowind, where there was exactly one full set of daedric armour (unless you started killing peaceful NPCs), and you needed both expansions to get it all. Oblivion gives no feeling that anything's really rare or unique.
Personally I'm not as impressed by Oblivion as I was by Morrowind. Once the modders get at it, though, it should be much better.
One notable exception: the Dark Brotherhood quest line is very well done.
I agree that he may have made a slight error stating the formula, but it all works correctly if you replace "group" with "committee".
And if videophiles are anything like audiophiles:
So long as you put a few glowing glass things in the top of the box (needn't actually be vacuum tubes, so long as they look similar), they'll be happy.
OK, I admit it, I'm just cynical because I can't afford the latest and greatest technology.
I've yet to see any game that allows you to influence the world to any great extent beyond pre-scripted events (aside from trivial examples of natural selection). I'd love to see it, and from what I've heard, Oblivion should be closer than anything else. Like lots of the features of Daggerfall, however, I expect it to be either removed or massively cut back.
The freedom in Morrowind largely comes from the fact that the game doesn't push you hard in any direction. There are enough quests to play the game even if you don't give a toss about Dagoth Ur.
As for scope, most of that comes from third-party mods, some of which have better storylines than the original game. As long as Oblivion still has the contruction kit, it's guaranteed not to suck completely, at least after a couple of patches. I admit to being a Bethesda fanboy (at least for their RPGs), but if the first release doesn't crash every five minutes with no warning, it's just not a Bethesda game.
While the thief may have a laugh that the owner thinks it's worth stealing, is it worth his effort to steal it?
Especially when the car next to it has no club, and no alarm. The whole point of these security measures is to make some other target more attractive. If someone really wants to steal your car, as opposed to just any car, they will.
Security measures can't prevent theft, they can only make it more likely, and any lock is better than none for that.