> Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work."
Exact citation from the GPL required. (But not expected, as you pulled that out of your arse.) I've worked for half a dozen companies that have made money selling work done under the GPL.
The difference is that Apple's says ~ you must not remove (our) restrictions on what the end user may do, and the FSF's says ~ you must not add (any) restrictions to what the end user may do.
Anyone equating the two is one main short of a C program.
That's trivial, just go back the example that has been used for what seems like 2 decades: Microsoft using BSD-licenced code whilst using anti-competitive tactics to (try to) make free software less viable.
But under the GPL they could sell it to their competitors for 40 grand; undercutting you, and putting them in nett profit if they find 2 such customers.
Energy density and power density are what are useful to know. Charge density is as finite as both of those, but charge density isn't the thing which decides what applications these things are good for, one of the other two, or cost, is always the important limitting practical factor.
For random examples (and they were random, they were the first google hits for ``advances in supercapacitor technology'' and ``advances in battery technology''), look at the following pages, and count how often "energy", "power", and "charge" are found before the word density http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster
Short-cut for the lazy - "charge density" = 0 hits.
"for any given application" is where your argument falls down. We're not looking at a given application in isolation, we're comparing a new one with an old one. And in that case every single factor that's (a) relevant; and (b) different *must* be taken into consideration. Which is why those of us who want energy measured in units of energy refuse to shut up about the voltage.
But *only* when accompanied by the number of volts. The fact that this is suspiciously absent implies that the number of volts is low. The fact that it's described as "energy density" is bad science reporting, as it's a lie.
""" Afraid of heights? Spend significant amounts of free time in high places, chew coca leaves while there and only reward yourself with chewing them while in those high places.[...] Also chew during sex and other tightly bound positive experiences so you don't form a negative association with coca leaves. """
The coca leaves are clearly an unnecessary intermediate.
Just have a wank off every high skyscraper/tower/cliff/bridge you go to.
Even restricting to stuff that you eat/drink - coffee, chocolate, and cola can easily give alcohol a run for their money when it comes to either physical or psychological addiction.
I feel that salty snacks probably are too (yup, personal gut feel, that is;-) ), but can't say I remember a pubmed on it.
But the 4th disappears in a puff of smoke the second a warrant appears, surely. And the 1st evaporates into nothing in many situations too (fraud, perjury, crowded theatres). There's nothing odd about exceptions to rights.
> If you're going to let someone continue to rape you, and you're not actually going to do anything about it, then you really have no right to complain IMO.
"You're not actually here for the movies, are you?"
And a human who looks at a bike and says "that's a nice collection of different parts" isn't doing "useful recognition" either, in the eyes of most people.
Were I do be developing an AI for echo location, it would vastly simplify things if the speed of sound were as quick as possible. That means there's less to remember, and less lag between what you perceive and reality.
+1 Insightful (I do have a bunch left, but I'd rather comment)
This is the problem with these surveys, they're asking people who are unqualified to make judgements what they "reckon". [ cue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y.] Would we show these people MR scans, and ask them if a malignent growth is happening? Their reckons are frankly little more than a distraction.
However, as someone who is critical about how a lot of the most public-facing science that is being done in this field (insert rants about publish-or-perish, funding, and bandwagons), the distraction does point towards the scientists needing to clean up their act. Too many fluffy almost-unfalsifiable claims, too much mutually-contradictory "scare precision". The only thing that makes the scientists look relatively trustworthy is that the so many of the deniers look like loons.
RFID readers radiate loads, they radiate so much that RFID chips can power up from the induced current, and radiate stuff back.
You don't need the merchant to have RFID tags in order to tell you what he's offering - if he's unable to communicate that to you using any of the other multitude of ways that humans have communicated to each other over the last few thousand years, then he's probably not a merchant I'd have any interest in dealing with.
> You clearly think that there is only one *C*PU in your desktop
Emphasis mine. There generally was only one *C*PU, but there may have been other ALU's or peripherals controllers (which includes graphics chips). Processors, yes, but not CPU's in the context of those systems. My mobile phone has at least 5 fully-functional ARM processors on it (not cores, processors), for example, but only one of those is the CPU.
Slashdot Mirror
The Xcode on my POWER architecture Mac is gcc-based. I say "-based" as it had apple's own quirky extensions for vector types, IIRC.
> Releasing something under GPL says "I did it for free, and you can use it and tweak it, but you can't make money off my work."
Exact citation from the GPL required. (But not expected, as you pulled that out of your arse.) I've worked for half a dozen companies that have made money selling work done under the GPL.
The difference is that Apple's says ~ you must not remove (our) restrictions on what the end user may do, and the FSF's says ~ you must not add (any) restrictions to what the end user may do.
Anyone equating the two is one main short of a C program.
That's trivial, just go back the example that has been used for what seems like 2 decades: Microsoft using BSD-licenced code whilst using anti-competitive tactics to (try to) make free software less viable.
But under the GPL they could sell it to their competitors for 40 grand; undercutting you, and putting them in nett profit if they find 2 such customers.
Energy density and power density are what are useful to know. Charge density is as finite as both of those, but charge density isn't the thing which decides what applications these things are good for, one of the other two, or cost, is always the important limitting practical factor.
For random examples (and they were random, they were the first google hits for ``advances in supercapacitor technology'' and ``advances in battery technology''), look at the following pages, and count how often "energy", "power", and "charge" are found before the word density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster
Short-cut for the lazy - "charge density" = 0 hits.
Have you never seen buses in pedestrianised areas where private vehicles are not allowed? Have you never seen a *bus station*, for pity's sake?
Oh, it takes about 3 seconds for a heavy vehicle ruin a curb. Wearing down is not the expected failure mode.
Why do I get the impression that you don't even know what these "bus" things you mention are, as you seem desperately naive about them?
"for any given application" is where your argument falls down. We're not looking at a given application in isolation, we're comparing a new one with an old one. And in that case every single factor that's (a) relevant; and (b) different *must* be taken into consideration. Which is why those of us who want energy measured in units of energy refuse to shut up about the voltage.
But *only* when accompanied by the number of volts. The fact that this is suspiciously absent implies that the number of volts is low. The fact that it's described as "energy density" is bad science reporting, as it's a lie.
The existence of a word that's phonetically spelt does not imply that the language is phonetic.
French is romance, and french is far from phonetic. (And much of the reason english is far from phonetic is because of the french influence.)
> Writing systems based on an alphabet are, by definition, phoenetic.
Since when has "phonetic" completely changed meaning? Written English is based on an alphabet, but is not a phonetic language at all.
"""
Afraid of heights? Spend significant amounts of free time in high places, chew coca leaves while there and only reward yourself with chewing them while in those high places.[...]
Also chew during sex and other tightly bound positive experiences so you don't form a negative association with coca leaves.
"""
The coca leaves are clearly an unnecessary intermediate.
Just have a wank off every high skyscraper/tower/cliff/bridge you go to.
Even restricting to stuff that you eat/drink - coffee, chocolate, and cola can easily give alcohol a run for their money when it comes to either physical or psychological addiction.
;-) ), but can't say I remember a pubmed on it.
I feel that salty snacks probably are too (yup, personal gut feel, that is
But the 4th disappears in a puff of smoke the second a warrant appears, surely.
And the 1st evaporates into nothing in many situations too (fraud, perjury, crowded theatres). There's nothing odd about exceptions to rights.
> If you're going to let someone continue to rape you, and you're not actually going to do anything about it, then you really have no right to complain IMO.
"You're not actually here for the movies, are you?"
And a human who looks at a bike and says "that's a nice collection of different parts" isn't doing "useful recognition" either, in the eyes of most people.
Were I do be developing an AI for echo location, it would vastly simplify things if the speed of sound were as quick as possible. That means there's less to remember, and less lag between what you perceive and reality.
> sorry pigs, try being cuter
/Babe/ should be compulsory viewing as part of the school curriculum?
So
+1 Insightful (I do have a bunch left, but I'd rather comment)
.] Would we show these people MR scans, and ask them if a malignent growth is happening? Their reckons are frankly little more than a distraction.
This is the problem with these surveys, they're asking people who are unqualified to make judgements what they "reckon". [ cue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y
However, as someone who is critical about how a lot of the most public-facing science that is being done in this field (insert rants about publish-or-perish, funding, and bandwagons), the distraction does point towards the scientists needing to clean up their act. Too many fluffy almost-unfalsifiable claims, too much mutually-contradictory "scare precision". The only thing that makes the scientists look relatively trustworthy is that the so many of the deniers look like loons.
RFID readers radiate loads, they radiate so much that RFID chips can power up from the induced current, and radiate stuff back.
You don't need the merchant to have RFID tags in order to tell you what he's offering - if he's unable to communicate that to you using any of the other multitude of ways that humans have communicated to each other over the last few thousand years, then he's probably not a merchant I'd have any interest in dealing with.
Why aren't the peaks and troughs for the 16-19 year olds reflected in the 20-24 year old curve 5 years later?
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/photos/000/745/cache/74518_600x450-cb1387302373.jpg
There ought to be a lagged correlation between those statistics, but they're in almost perfect lock-step. Suspicious, to say the least.
> You clearly think that there is only one *C*PU in your desktop
Emphasis mine. There generally was only one *C*PU, but there may have been other ALU's or peripherals controllers (which includes graphics chips). Processors, yes, but not CPU's in the context of those systems. My mobile phone has at least 5 fully-functional ARM processors on it (not cores, processors), for example, but only one of those is the CPU.
I agree with Schneier, they should feel so shitty they become further whistleblowers.
To decimate was to reduce *by* one tenth, not *to* one tenth.
You must appreciate, however, that some people see '++' as a disadvantage (watch TFV for example).