If you hoped that I'd give my opinion about the article, you'll be pleased. If you hoped that I was annoyed by the writing style, you'll be pleased again.
Come on, the excuse was great "in case you missed the useful information the first time". Come to think of that, this excuses all dupes, since they all have some use. I publicly apologize for all the times I've criticized dupes. They really did have a good purpose. I eagerly await a dupe of this dupe on Friday.
There's not much more an explanation than that people will pay that much for ink. If they wouldn't, such ink wouldn't be available since it wouldn't sell. I've done my part by giving away all my inkjet printers and vowing never to buy one again. Now I'm toner-only.
21 year veteran with mandatory raises is pry a nice chunk of change. My friend's girlfriend worked in dispatch and with OT pulled in enough to get a loan for a 300k house and a 50k car with no cosigner. I don't know what she makes but it is pry ridiculous for the amount of skill involved.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The headline has a nice double-meaning. It could be read as an interview with the founders of Adobe on Flash and Internet standards, or that Adobe is foundering on Flash and Internet standards. The latter is what I first read it as.
"In 1907, Einstein likely did not foresee a time when dust-sized particles of glass could be trapped and suspended in air by dual laser beam "optical tweezers.""
I'm sorry but: No freaking shit. In 1907 I doubt many people would have foreseen that
Warning: Do not attempt to foresee any more laser-related developments with remaining eye.
I guess it's sort of like how you can determine the position and velocity of (almost) anything by locking it still in some known place. I wonder whether Einstein meant in general, rather than in this specific case.
Natural law results in bullies getting the shit kicked out of them, so there aren't many bullies. Artificial law has to be perfect or it ends up protecting the bullies and punishing those who would otherwise keep order. To me it's sort of like security and voting; pencil and paper always wins, because it's dead-simple. Electronic voting is like artificial law above, always containing loopholes that the bad guys will exploit.
I'm not grasping why it treats user products differently from others. In all cases it seems you'd want to preserve end-user freedom to improve the product without needing permission from the original producer.
That's because he's had something to announce every year since 1998, duh! Along the same lines, the sun doesn't rise unless there is something worth lighting the world for. And sure enough, there's been something every day for the past millions of years. Amazing, isn't it?
I did read what I posted, to the best of my ability. The GPL v3 paragraphs aren't fully clear to me (I suppose you're going to put me down for not being able to get a clear understanding of them), so I went by my best reading, and by what the GPL v2 says.
Maybe you can take a moment to actually make clear how even the GPL v3 allows one to release something with source code, but not with a compiler, even if the compiler is a custom in-house program that isn't available anywhere. I'm not saying the GPL v3 doesn't allow this, just that it's not clear to me.
equipment to do all this is available on site ready to go you could not move that rapidly. For example with the "Top Kill" BP is having to carefully X-Ray the existing valve structure at a depth of 1 mile using robot subs to determine if the structure can withstand the pressure of pumping mud through the system.
Then so what? Move on to the next one! This guy has it right; we shouldn't worry about what's actually going on, we should do things quickly so that the general public will feel that the company is doing the best it can. If this results in even worse catastrophe, then so be it; at least we feel that it's the best that can be done. A good example is the government's response to the financial crash. Sure, it's making things worse, but we feel it's avoiding things being even worse, so we're satisfied.
Isn't this more about contract law? The buyer of the hardware saw that it used GPL software, which influenced his decision. Now the seller isn't upholding their end of the contract.
Is it a license violation to use GPL code in a Windows program that's built with Visual Studio, given the author is unlikely to provide a copy of Visual Studio on request? You cannot rebuild the application, even given the entire source code, without access to a non-GPL piece of software you don't have access to.
You might not like it. You might even think it's against the spirit of something or other. But it's not a GPL violation.
Yes it is, if the build tools aren't normally distributed with the major components of the OS. Your example most likely falls under the exceptions, standard development tools for the OS don't need to be distributed, but non-standard ones do:
GPL version 2, term 3. [...] However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
GPL version 3
1. Source Code.
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include anything, other
than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of
packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major
Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that
Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an
implementation is available to the public in source code form. A
"Major Component", in this context, means a major essential component
(kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system
(if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to
produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities. However, it does not include the work's
System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free
programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but
which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source
includes interface definition files associated with source files for
the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically
linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,
such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those
subprograms and other parts of the work.
[...]
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License [...]
This is pretty ridiculous. I read the Slashdot summary:
VP8 is now free, but if the quality is substandard, who cares? Well, it turns out that the quality isn't substandard, so that's not an issue, but neither is it twice the quality of H.264 at half the bandwidth. See for yourself.
Then go to the article, and read this at the top of the page:
First Look: H.264 and VP8 Compared
VP8 is now free, but if the quality is substandard, who cares? Well, it turns out that the quality isn't substandard, so that's not an issue, but neither is it twice the quality of H.264 at half the bandwidth. See for yourself.
And then I go down to the article below that:
VP8 is now free, but if the quality is substandard, who cares? Well, it turns out that the quality isn't substandard, so that's not an issue, but neither is it twice the quality of H.264 at half the bandwidth. See for yourself, below.
To set the table, Sorenson Media was kind enough to encode these comparison files for me to both H.264 and VP8 using their Squish encoding tool. [...]
I've been saying for a while now that the last few decades have seen the devolution of language. I'm not a linguist, as I'm probably about to demonstrate, but the development of written language went (very) roughly like: pictograms -> consonants -> vowels -> punctuation
Each level adding a bit more subtlety and complexity while reducing ambiguity.
Was your second paragraph made of a lone sentence fragment an example of this devolution?
This won't work at all. How will we be able to look down on these people for using short, concise symbols to represent long words, when that's proper use of the language? Let's keep normal texting around, so we can look down on people who use short abbreviations of words.
If a barrel of oil is worth $70, your cleanup effort is going to have to be pretty damn cheap in order to make a profit on extracting a barrel of oil mixed in with hundreds of barrels of sea water.
The problem is that many people have been taught that https means it's a secure connection to whatever the URL suggests, not merely a secure connection to someone, not necessarily what the URL suggests. The reason people were taught to look for https is that it's in a more standard location than the lock icon; some browsers used to put the lock in the lower-left corner of the window, others at the top by the status bar or even in the window title bar.
There's no reason for a browser to throw up nasty error dialogs when it encounters a self-signed certificate. Instead, browsers should silently accept such certificates and record the public key fingerprint. Browsers shouldn't turn on the lock icon when using a self-signed cert, or do anything else to make the user think they're browsing on a secure connection, because they're really not, but they should go ahead and encrypt the traffic.
I'm with you as long as they also do NOT display https, just http. But then, how do you do that without breaking the protocols? Either you have to try https for all http URLs, or hide the s, or something messy.
Slashdot Mirror
If you hoped that I'd give my opinion about the article, you'll be pleased. If you hoped that I was annoyed by the writing style, you'll be pleased again.
Come on, the excuse was great "in case you missed the useful information the first time". Come to think of that, this excuses all dupes, since they all have some use. I publicly apologize for all the times I've criticized dupes. They really did have a good purpose. I eagerly await a dupe of this dupe on Friday.
Agreed, but I prefer spaces, since people expand tabs to varying number of spaces, most commonly 2, 3, 4, or 8.
There's not much more an explanation than that people will pay that much for ink. If they wouldn't, such ink wouldn't be available since it wouldn't sell. I've done my part by giving away all my inkjet printers and vowing never to buy one again. Now I'm toner-only.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The headline has a nice double-meaning. It could be read as an interview with the founders of Adobe on Flash and Internet standards, or that Adobe is foundering on Flash and Internet standards. The latter is what I first read it as.
Warning: Do not attempt to foresee any more laser-related developments with remaining eye.
Oh yeah, best post to Slashdot in weeks. Bravo man, well-played!
I guess it's sort of like how you can determine the position and velocity of (almost) anything by locking it still in some known place. I wonder whether Einstein meant in general, rather than in this specific case.
Natural law results in bullies getting the shit kicked out of them, so there aren't many bullies. Artificial law has to be perfect or it ends up protecting the bullies and punishing those who would otherwise keep order. To me it's sort of like security and voting; pencil and paper always wins, because it's dead-simple. Electronic voting is like artificial law above, always containing loopholes that the bad guys will exploit.
I'm not grasping why it treats user products differently from others. In all cases it seems you'd want to preserve end-user freedom to improve the product without needing permission from the original producer.
I don't know, the iPhone looks pretty big to me, at least in some pictures.
That's because he's had something to announce every year since 1998, duh! Along the same lines, the sun doesn't rise unless there is something worth lighting the world for. And sure enough, there's been something every day for the past millions of years. Amazing, isn't it?
Maybe you can take a moment to actually make clear how even the GPL v3 allows one to release something with source code, but not with a compiler, even if the compiler is a custom in-house program that isn't available anywhere. I'm not saying the GPL v3 doesn't allow this, just that it's not clear to me.
Then so what? Move on to the next one! This guy has it right; we shouldn't worry about what's actually going on, we should do things quickly so that the general public will feel that the company is doing the best it can. If this results in even worse catastrophe, then so be it; at least we feel that it's the best that can be done. A good example is the government's response to the financial crash. Sure, it's making things worse, but we feel it's avoiding things being even worse, so we're satisfied.
Isn't this more about contract law? The buyer of the hardware saw that it used GPL software, which influenced his decision. Now the seller isn't upholding their end of the contract.
Yes it is, if the build tools aren't normally distributed with the major components of the OS. Your example most likely falls under the exceptions, standard development tools for the OS don't need to be distributed, but non-standard ones do:
Yeah, just watch out for some company with submarine patents on organized religion. Now there's a patent troll I highly approve of!
This is pretty ridiculous. I read the Slashdot summary:
Then go to the article, and read this at the top of the page:
And then I go down to the article below that:
Was your second paragraph made of a lone sentence fragment an example of this devolution?
This won't work at all. How will we be able to look down on these people for using short, concise symbols to represent long words, when that's proper use of the language? Let's keep normal texting around, so we can look down on people who use short abbreviations of words.
If a barrel of oil is worth $70, your cleanup effort is going to have to be pretty damn cheap in order to make a profit on extracting a barrel of oil mixed in with hundreds of barrels of sea water.
The problem is that many people have been taught that https means it's a secure connection to whatever the URL suggests, not merely a secure connection to someone, not necessarily what the URL suggests. The reason people were taught to look for https is that it's in a more standard location than the lock icon; some browsers used to put the lock in the lower-left corner of the window, others at the top by the status bar or even in the window title bar.
I'm with you as long as they also do NOT display https, just http. But then, how do you do that without breaking the protocols? Either you have to try https for all http URLs, or hide the s, or something messy.
What's the error mean "Certificate is signed by an unknown authority?" Oh well, I'll search for my SSN and CC# anyway...