One definition of "evolution" is simply: "the change in the frequency of gene alleles in an interbreeding population from one generation to the next". This is observed unequivocally. It's a fact.
However, "evolution" can also mean: "the theory for explaining how generations of lifeforms change and adapt, through natural selection, mutation, and inheritance of traits". This is often called "evolution", but should properly be called "the theory of evolution by natural selection".
So, two concepts: one fact, one theory. Both, unfortunately, usually called "evolution".
quantium physics reliablity describes and predicts things?
You must be joking. It is the single most predictive science ever devised. In fact, it is the foundation of all physical science. Without quantum mechanics, we would have no fundamental understanding of light (photons), nor of matter (atoms).
What does archaeology predict?
Like any science, it predicts that which we do not yet know. Just because the unknowns in this case have already happened, does not mean that archaeology is not predictive.
Which is it slashdot? If that's true for MS's source, it's true for any source.
A: In case you haven't noticed, more than one person posts to/., so you can expect to see a variety of opinions and ideas posted in the comments. Some of these ideas may even be in conflict. Shocking, I know.
Second: There is no logical inconsistency here, anyway. As the GP said, the GPL is a license enforcing copyright. Therefore, merely looking at GPL code does not permanently "taint" your mind, it merely prevents wholesale cut-n-paste. These companies, however, are asserting much broader claims than mere copyright. MS would argue that, having viewed their code, you might try to reproduce the "methods and concepts" found therein. From a Copyright point of view, there is nothing wrong with such re-engineering. However, when they sue you, it will be for some other, totally different set of laws that make up the hydra called "IP", such as Patent law, or Trade Secret law.
"Free" Software in general, and the GPL in particular, is a clear infringement of software companies' Right to Profit, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
What do you mean, there's no such Right? You must be joking. Well, let's get rid of one the ones we aren't using anymore (how about "no unreasonable search and seizure"?), and slide the Right to Profit in there. Who's with me?
Or, if you don't like that answer: a citizen's revolt would not be in possession of a little gizmo that would cause the US military to instantly disband, if it was destroyed.
Thanks for the quotes, I stand corrected. I had heard many of these before, so I really should have remembered them.
Maybe the reason I didn't, is that the concept of a citizen militia posing a viable threat to the peerless might of the US military is such an anachronism. This isn't the 18th century anymore. However well-intentioned and well-regulated (ha), I'd say an uprising of US gun owners against the federal government and US military would stand about a hobbit's chance in Mordor.
Plus, what fraction of the (non-wacko) gun-owning citizenry is actually outraged at our current slide toward fascism? My general impression is that most of them are either apathetic toward the current administration's shenanigans, or are actively cheering it.
Yeah, whatever. At the time the second amendment was written, the militias were an *instrument* of the government, not a force to act against it.
We didn't have a standing army at that time, so the citizen militias were necessary for national defense and security. Now that we have a standing all-volunteer army, there is absolutely no need for citizen militias (which is why there aren't any).
Why do some people consider the prospect of armed citizens plunging the nation into anarchy and vigilantism to be compatible with the phrase "well-regulated militia"? Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?
And the rest of you bozos crying foul do too. Unless none of you actually read the article, in which case I'm even more flabbergasted by all the outrage.
Did no one notice that the entire article is about a proposal to require code from compaines who "semi-distribute" their binaries (not money!)? The whole notion that some sort of fee structure will be imposed on companies who use GPL code is totally absurd. To whom would the money be paid? It makes no sense, so why are you all jumping off the proverbial cliff rather than looking more closely at the article and figuring out what's really being said?
If you had done, you would have found that Mike Olsen (CEO of Sleepycat software, advisor to FSF, and interviewee) is concerned about a loophole in the GPL where code is not required of companies who distribute GPL software as "services" over the net. Code. Not money. Code. Got it?
The "money" quote is reproduced in its entirety here, with the relevant sections highlighted:
"If you look at the market,
Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
Mike Oslen is saying that these companies are already paying money to support Free Software, but that the new rules will allow them a new opportunity to pay with source code instead. That's what he says.
Personally I think it's kind of dumb, because thes companies are already able to contribute their code instead of their money, but whatever. The point is, y'all have it competely backwards.
Hey! You are coming to the opposite conclusion from this quote by highlighting the wrong part of it:
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
This CEO is saying that companies which have, up until now contributed to Free Software only with dollar contributions, will now have a new opportunity to contribute code instead.
All of the outrage in this thread is totally misplaced. Speechless indeed.
Seriously? I tried it for a few days recently and found it maddening that every time I so much as looked at the mouse my focus shifted.
That's why God invented the checkbox option. At least give me the option of ffm, if I want it. Anyway, I should say that there is *limited* ffm in OSX: between windows of the same app, for example, and between X apps. For that I am grateful. And I do appreciate that the "menubar at top of screen" paradigm makes true, global ffm much less appealing.
Um? I'm pretty sure every filesystem I've used in the past decade or so has been at least case-preserving. Actual case sensitivity is more down to taste.
Hmm, well I disagree. I think "case preserving" is worse than not recognizing mixed-case at all, because the user is fooled into *thinking* that it's case-sensitive, which could result in data loss. For example, I have a large dataset that I subdivided into a 50x50 grid, labelling the data file for each grid cell with a two-letter ID code. Among the 2500 data files were sets of four like this: AA.dat, Aa.dat, aA.dat, aa.dat, which represent completely different cells in the grid. When I copied the data over to OSX, I was quite suprised when the directory only contained 676 files (having been led to believe that the FS was case-sensitive by its "case preserving" behavior). It's not just a matter of taste. It's a usability bug.
[xfce] loads in less than 5 seconds (as opposed to 30+ for either kde or gnome)
So I'm gonna guess that the last version of KDE you used was, what? 2.1? I just installed xfce after reading the comments here, and it does not start up significantly faster than KDE. Other than the crash that took out my entire session after 5 minutes, and the occasional corrupted rendering in listboxes, I guess it was fine.
Please. Konqueror gives Finder a pants-down spanking as a file manager. IOslaves rule.
useable (system-wide) drag and drop
Agreed, there is balkanization in copy/paste methods in KDE. But OSX is not entirely consistent either, if you use any X apps.
homogenized toolkits (none of this "three apps, three different looks" bullshit)
You've got to be kidding me. GarageBand? QuickTimePlayer? Hello?
a friendlier clipboard (I got a powerbook here, this whole THREE BUTTON MOUSE!!!!! thing is killin' me!)
"we mock what we don't understand":)
a non-shitty default aesthetic that doesn't compell me to change everything out of its sheer ugliness
Well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. First thing I did on my powerbook was install ShapeShifter in order to excorcise every horrible, evil brushed-metal pixel from the UI.
Here's some things you somehow forgot to mention (I'll spare you the use of all caps):
+ Native virtual desktops: yes, expose is nifty, but come on.
+ Focus follows mouse: no civilized human should be without this.
+ A file system that can distinguish between uppercase and lowercase letters.
Not one of the linked titles contains the full text of the book! Each shows only a few pages. From the "About Google Print" page:
(you can view the entirety of public domain books or, for books under copyright, just a few pages or in some cases, only the titles bibliographic data and brief snippets)
However, it seems to consider every title to be "under copyright". I mean, Romeo and Juliet is centuries old, and surely in the public domain. If it's considered copyrighted, then just about everything will be.
Anyway, if you want free e-texts, Project Gutenberg is a great resource.
Well, I haven't R'd the FA, but it seems to me to just be an odd way of phrasing something obvious.
First of all, if a company (or anyone else) is simply *using* GPL'd software, they are under no obligation to do anything at all.
Assuming he meant to say "If companies are modifying GPL'd software for internal use only...", then I suppose you could say that each employee who uses the software needs to have access to the source code.
However, I wonder if a company could argue the following: since in many ways the law treats a corporation as a "fictional person", then even internal use by hundreds of employees does not constitute "distribution". In fact, I seem to recall the GPL itself saying something like this...could be wrong though.
Re:National Weather Service Alert
on
KDE 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
You're probably right. Oh, and I forgot enlightenment too.
Slashdot Mirror
Is evolution fact or theory? Answer the question.
That's easy! It's both fact and theory.
One definition of "evolution" is simply: "the change in the frequency of gene alleles in an interbreeding population from one generation to the next". This is observed unequivocally. It's a fact.
However, "evolution" can also mean: "the theory for explaining how generations of lifeforms change and adapt, through natural selection, mutation, and inheritance of traits". This is often called "evolution", but should properly be called "the theory of evolution by natural selection".
So, two concepts: one fact, one theory. Both, unfortunately, usually called "evolution".
quantium physics reliablity describes and predicts things?
You must be joking. It is the single most predictive science ever devised. In fact, it is the foundation of all physical science. Without quantum mechanics, we would have no fundamental understanding of light (photons), nor of matter (atoms).
What does archaeology predict?
Like any science, it predicts that which we do not yet know. Just because the unknowns in this case have already happened, does not mean that archaeology is not predictive.
D'oh!
tell him/her it's named "superversion"
Which is it slashdot? If that's true for MS's source, it's true for any source.
/., so you can expect to see a variety of opinions and ideas posted in the comments. Some of these ideas may even be in conflict. Shocking, I know.
A: In case you haven't noticed, more than one person posts to
Second: There is no logical inconsistency here, anyway. As the GP said, the GPL is a license enforcing copyright. Therefore, merely looking at GPL code does not permanently "taint" your mind, it merely prevents wholesale cut-n-paste. These companies, however, are asserting much broader claims than mere copyright. MS would argue that, having viewed their code, you might try to reproduce the "methods and concepts" found therein. From a Copyright point of view, there is nothing wrong with such re-engineering. However, when they sue you, it will be for some other, totally different set of laws that make up the hydra called "IP", such as Patent law, or Trade Secret law.
"Free" Software in general, and the GPL in particular, is a clear infringement of software companies' Right to Profit, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
What do you mean, there's no such Right? You must be joking. Well, let's get rid of one the ones we aren't using anymore (how about "no unreasonable search and seizure"?), and slide the Right to Profit in there. Who's with me?
Something i've been waiting for for years.
Too bad you don't use KDE then, or you'd have been enjoying this feature for the past 5 years.
There's a reason it's called "fantasy".
Or, if you don't like that answer: a citizen's revolt would not be in possession of a little gizmo that would cause the US military to instantly disband, if it was destroyed.
Thanks for the quotes, I stand corrected. I had heard many of these before, so I really should have remembered them.
Maybe the reason I didn't, is that the concept of a citizen militia posing a viable threat to the peerless might of the US military is such an anachronism. This isn't the 18th century anymore. However well-intentioned and well-regulated (ha), I'd say an uprising of US gun owners against the federal government and US military would stand about a hobbit's chance in Mordor.
Plus, what fraction of the (non-wacko) gun-owning citizenry is actually outraged at our current slide toward fascism? My general impression is that most of them are either apathetic toward the current administration's shenanigans, or are actively cheering it.
I stand corrected. Thanks for an informative post.
Yeah, whatever. At the time the second amendment was written, the militias were an *instrument* of the government, not a force to act against it.
We didn't have a standing army at that time, so the citizen militias were necessary for national defense and security. Now that we have a standing all-volunteer army, there is absolutely no need for citizen militias (which is why there aren't any).
Why do some people consider the prospect of armed citizens plunging the nation into anarchy and vigilantism to be compatible with the phrase "well-regulated militia"? Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?
Note that the linked article actually uses "complimentary". I wonder if the job ad itself did too...
Actually, we know the Question, don't we? Marvin read it in Arthur's brain waves, and offered to tell everyone what it was, but no one was interested.
Later, he told it to a mattress, right before the Krikkit robots stole his leg for the wicket key. The Question is this:
"What number am I thinking of?"
Did no one notice that the entire article is about a proposal to require code from compaines who "semi-distribute" their binaries (not money!)? The whole notion that some sort of fee structure will be imposed on companies who use GPL code is totally absurd. To whom would the money be paid? It makes no sense, so why are you all jumping off the proverbial cliff rather than looking more closely at the article and figuring out what's really being said?
If you had done, you would have found that Mike Olsen (CEO of Sleepycat software, advisor to FSF, and interviewee) is concerned about a loophole in the GPL where code is not required of companies who distribute GPL software as "services" over the net. Code. Not money. Code. Got it?
The "money" quote is reproduced in its entirety here, with the relevant sections highlighted:
Mike Oslen is saying that these companies are already paying money to support Free Software, but that the new rules will allow them a new opportunity to pay with source code instead. That's what he says.
Personally I think it's kind of dumb, because thes companies are already able to contribute their code instead of their money, but whatever. The point is, y'all have it competely backwards.
Hey! You are coming to the opposite conclusion from this quote by highlighting the wrong part of it:
"If you look at the market, Yahoo, eBay, IBM, Amazon, Google have all sunk millions into the GPL infrastructure," Olson said. "Not only are we changing the rules, we are changing them retroactively. With the new way, it lets the customer pay with either their source code or with their wallet."
This CEO is saying that companies which have, up until now contributed to Free Software only with dollar contributions, will now have a new opportunity to contribute code instead.
All of the outrage in this thread is totally misplaced. Speechless indeed.
Anyway, I'm sorry it crashed on you, maybe a little too agressive in your optimizations?
:)
Despite being a Gentoo user, I don't use aggressive optimization flags
Seriously? I tried it for a few days recently and found it maddening that every time I so much as looked at the mouse my focus shifted.
That's why God invented the checkbox option. At least give me the option of ffm, if I want it. Anyway, I should say that there is *limited* ffm in OSX: between windows of the same app, for example, and between X apps. For that I am grateful. And I do appreciate that the "menubar at top of screen" paradigm makes true, global ffm much less appealing.
Um? I'm pretty sure every filesystem I've used in the past decade or so has been at least case-preserving. Actual case sensitivity is more down to taste.
Hmm, well I disagree. I think "case preserving" is worse than not recognizing mixed-case at all, because the user is fooled into *thinking* that it's case-sensitive, which could result in data loss. For example, I have a large dataset that I subdivided into a 50x50 grid, labelling the data file for each grid cell with a two-letter ID code. Among the 2500 data files were sets of four like this: AA.dat, Aa.dat, aA.dat, aa.dat, which represent completely different cells in the grid. When I copied the data over to OSX, I was quite suprised when the directory only contained 676 files (having been led to believe that the FS was case-sensitive by its "case preserving" behavior). It's not just a matter of taste. It's a usability bug.
Here (gentoo box, amd64, kde-3.4, xfce-4.2), they both take slightly less than 10 seconds. Maybe it's because I am using kdm?
[xfce] loads in less than 5 seconds (as opposed to 30+ for either kde or gnome)
So I'm gonna guess that the last version of KDE you used was, what? 2.1? I just installed xfce after reading the comments here, and it does not start up significantly faster than KDE. Other than the crash that took out my entire session after 5 minutes, and the occasional corrupted rendering in listboxes, I guess it was fine.
a decent file browser
:)
Please. Konqueror gives Finder a pants-down spanking as a file manager. IOslaves rule.
useable (system-wide) drag and drop
Agreed, there is balkanization in copy/paste methods in KDE. But OSX is not entirely consistent either, if you use any X apps.
homogenized toolkits (none of this "three apps, three different looks" bullshit)
You've got to be kidding me. GarageBand? QuickTimePlayer? Hello?
a friendlier clipboard (I got a powerbook here, this whole THREE BUTTON MOUSE!!!!! thing is killin' me!)
"we mock what we don't understand"
a non-shitty default aesthetic that doesn't compell me to change everything out of its sheer ugliness
Well, I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. First thing I did on my powerbook was install ShapeShifter in order to excorcise every horrible, evil brushed-metal pixel from the UI.
Here's some things you somehow forgot to mention (I'll spare you the use of all caps):
+ Native virtual desktops: yes, expose is nifty, but come on.
+ Focus follows mouse: no civilized human should be without this.
+ A file system that can distinguish between uppercase and lowercase letters.
c'mon, who gives a fsck?
Not one of the linked titles contains the full text of the book! Each shows only a few pages.
From the "About Google Print" page:
(you can view the entirety of public domain books or, for books under copyright, just a few pages or in some cases, only the titles bibliographic data and brief snippets)
However, it seems to consider every title to be "under copyright". I mean, Romeo and Juliet is centuries old, and surely in the public domain. If it's considered copyrighted, then just about everything will be.
Anyway, if you want free e-texts, Project Gutenberg is a great resource.
Well, I haven't R'd the FA, but it seems to me to just be an odd way of phrasing something obvious.
First of all, if a company (or anyone else) is simply *using* GPL'd software, they are under no obligation to do anything at all.
Assuming he meant to say "If companies are modifying GPL'd software for internal use only...", then I suppose you could say that each employee who uses the software needs to have access to the source code.
However, I wonder if a company could argue the following: since in many ways the law treats a corporation as a "fictional person", then even internal use by hundreds of employees does not constitute "distribution". In fact, I seem to recall the GPL itself saying something like this...could be wrong though.
You're probably right. Oh, and I forgot enlightenment too.
(psst...KDE runs fine on BSD...it's not linux-specific)