I'm curious, though, because after reading the GPLv2 your interpretation seems correct (you don't loose your rights permanently.) However, the GNU page on "Why GPLv3 is better than v2" states that, in fact, you do. I cannot see how that is a valid interpretation of the license. It only says that if you violate the license, your rights are automatically terminated. No where does it state that this is permanent (at least as far as I could see). In fact, it appears that merely grabbing a new version of the software would re-grant you license privileges. Is there some hidden implication to the "right to distribute" in the law that makes the termination permanent?
The whole bit about permanent loss of rights seems like an added interpretation to the license which just isn't there. It may be intended, but it isn't there. Does anyone know how the FSF or anyone else could claim that it is? And no, RMS saying that it does isn't enough: if it isn't it the license, the license doesn't do it. And IANAL, but it very much looks like it doesn't. Intention is irrelevant.
GPL 2 isn't clear on how to regain the right to distribute after a violation. That's an oversight GPL 3 corrects. IANAL either, so I don't know how likely it is that the GPL 2 would be interpreted to mean that the right to distribute is lost until the copyright holder grants permission to distribute again. That kind of uncertainty is where FUD thrives, so why not make it certain?
According to TFA, the FSF gets what they consider credible reports of violations and false or misguided claims of violations. That suggests that they do look into the claims. The author then complains that the FSF won't talk about specific claims. The problem with that is the FSF doesn't normally run around talking in public about violations - they negotiate with the violators to get them to comply. Part of negotiation is not to piss off the other party by airing their dirty laundry. It does not surprise me at all that the FSF isn't giving some blogger a story.
Also according to the FSF, they hold copyright on very little, if any, parts of Android, so they can't do anything official about violations. The main GPL component of Android is Linux, so Linux developers are the ones who can negotiate with violators. The FSF is simply pointing out that if Linux were under GPL 3, there would be a clear path to reinstatement of the right to distribute after a violation. They are not confirming the FUD that Google and all Android phone developers have lost their right to distribute Linux because of GPL violations.
Lesson: Never assign your code to someone who says "trust me." Not even the FSF. And be wary of clauses that allow them to change the license at will to a future version that may not be to your liking, or that they may interpret to say something it doesn't say.
So, how exactly is the FSF betraying authors who put GPL 2 or later as their license? Is there any author who chose GPL 2 or later and now feels betrayed? The purpose of the GPL has always been to guarantee the most freedom for the most people and the FSF has never strayed from that ideal, though they've certainly made mistakes. GPL 3 corrects several mistakes and shortcomings in GPL 2 while maintaining its principles. GPL 2 is a good license, but GPL 3 is an improvement. I can't think of any entity I would trust to assign my copyright for a Free software project other than the FSF. If you really want the code to be as free as possible for the most number of people forever, why not trust the FSF?
In Australia, teachers aren't allowed (and this is a rule rather than a law) to contact you electronically using any means other than your school-supplied mailbox. From a teacher's point of view it works out quite well, because they can often be harassed by students (anonymously, of course) and sometimes visa-versa. I do admit that it would be hard for relatives who are teachers/students in the same state, but I think that is a bit of a corner case and unlikely to be pursued by the government. This bill seems to be simply to protect one party in the case online relationships between students and teachers become abusive/a threat to privacy.
Perhaps a norm or school rule about such things would be reasonable depending on the local situation, but a state government should never be legislating something so specific. In Australia, can a teacher never call a student or speak to her face to face outside of school? When I was growing up, I often interacted with teachers outside of school. If people are so afraid of inappropriate relationships that the majority healthy ones between teachers and students are disallowed, that's a sad commentary on society indeed.
Anybody else feel like this is an incursion on freedom of speech?
I think it's ludicrous that a state legislature would waste its time on something so unnecessarily specific. The bill apparently doesn't prohibit teachers from communicating with students outside of school in general, though it's stupid to limit one specific type of communication and not others. It's not as if the legislatures have statistics showing more cases of inappropriate relationships conducted on websites than over the phone. However, because it is so specific and involves minors, I think it's a stretch to bring the First Amendment into it.
The title is a bit on the FUD style. PROPER virtualization is not criticized by Linus, but improper implementation, namely cheap OS-level virtualization wich could lead to lazy shortcuts to patches and features implementation.
The article may be misleading, but it really seems like Linus really cares little for either KVM, which is more hardware-oriented, or Xen, which is more software-oriented. He has accepted both into Linux because they are good quality and many want them, but he doesn't personally care for either. I think it's odd that he used the word "evil" but I think he meant it purely tongue-in-cheek.
Where can I download the source to Android 3, 3.1, or 3.2?
Indeed, the source they're referring to could be some that has not yet been released under a Free/Open Source license. If Google is the copyright holder, they have no legal obligation to release it though this is harmful to the Android community. However, it seems unlikely that unreleased code implements some patent, but the released code doesn't.
A lot has changed since then but ARM has done nothing but help Linux. If your chip vendor has a poopy Linux implementation they'll sell less. If they have a great one (and great documentation) they'll sell more. TI's a pretty good example of an awesome ARM / Linux implementation, and.. there are less awesome examples..
How do you define "help Linux"? The popularity of Linux on ARM has produced a giant, acrimonious fork which is not helpful to the community in general. Obviously, this wouldn't have happened in the first place if Linux and ARM weren't good for each other, but for the community to function well, things need to change. Linus is hopeful that this will be resolved in four or five years as a result of his and others' efforts to fix the very problems he's complaining about. The problem is not so much "poopy" Linux forks on ARM devices as it is the fact that there are many good forks that don't fit together very well.
Is Linus Torvalds (implicitly, at least) criticizing ARM because it is open and therefore anyone can create their own version of it? As opposed to x86, which has a restricted licensing set (AMD/Intel/Via... Via still exists, right?)? Because that is, AFAICT, exactly why ARM is so varied: anyone can roll their own. With the result that many do.
ARM is not any more "open" than x86. To sell chips implementing modern versions of either instruction set, you must obtain a license from at least one company and nothing prevents you from extending that instruction set. Many companies have implemented (and often extened) each set over the years, though there are fewer implementing x86 now than ARM. There are probably fewer implementors of x86 because it is much more complex.
I think Linus is criticizing the lack of a common platform surrounding ARM rather than the instructions themselves. The instruction set of x86 chips has grown a lot, especially with x86_64, but the way you boot a PC hasn't changed much for example.
The embedded world doesn't have much trouble with this. For QNX, there's the kernel, which is the same for all CPUs with the same instructions set, and a "board support package", which has the driver programs for a given board or variant.
Linux is a monolithic kernel, and so it has to be hacked all over the place to deal with architecture variations. Linux lacks a clean conceptual model of operating system vs. board support.
Linux supported many architectures before ARM, so Linus's complaints don't come from a purely PC mindset. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Linux is and has long been a major part the embedded world. How many smart phones run QNX?
Modern currencies typically aren't backed by anything. They only have value because people trust they have value. This works just fine for established currencies and we've already seen it works surprisingly well even for extremely tiny currencies like bitcoin.
You're wrong.
Modern currencies are backed by the governments which issue them. More bluntly, modern currencies are backed by modern government's ability to tax the labor of their citizens and imprison them if they do not pay. You trust that the currency is worth something in part because of the trust that everyone places in the currency itself (the prices that people set for goods), but also because the government buys services and goods (labor and goods), sells rights and services (user fees, police service, defense), and transacts in that currency (meaning that citizens of that government pretty much need to transact in that currency, at least in part, as well).
BitCoin cannot imprison me if I do not pay it in bitcoins. BitCoin does not inconvenience me in the least if I refuse to accept it. BitCoin only marginally inconveniences me if I decide not to pay for goods using it. BitCoin is not "backed by anything" tangible, such as gold, or practical, such as a need to use it. There's your substantial contact with reality.
If you think US Dollars have value because the US Government can force people to accept them, you're very confused. I grew up in third world countries where they were always highly valued because they retained value better than the local currency. The value in a currency is simply the result of confidence. The more confidence people have in a currency system, the more value it has. The confidence may be inspired by economic power, military power or simply a shared delusion.
More simply, if you can trade something for something else of value, that thing has value. Since you can trade Bitcoins for US Dollars, they have value in exactly the same way Dollars do. If people have experience trading Bitcoins for other things of value, they will gain confidence in it. It's not inevitable that Bitcoins become acceptable payment for most things, but there's also nothing fundamental preventing that.
I am not sure. But everybody with a little bit of real understanding should know that bitcoin is a fucked idea. It wont work, for a number of reasons.
The most important one is that the creation of a bitcoin is *not* backed by anything. It burns computational power for nothing. But just using energy to produce it does not input *value* in the same way in which printing a bill or forging a coin does not produce any value.
It only links the the will to back this money to whoever puts his name on it.
There would be a number of ways to introduce a valid digital currency, but bitcoin is just a senseless ponzi-scheme for wannabe hackers.
This is pretty funny. The funniest thing is that people think currencies such as the US dollar are backed by something tangible. This hasn't been the case since 1971. All currencies, including state-controlled ones as well as "virtual" ones like those in MMORPGS and Bitcoin only have value because of confidence. The US Dollar has value because people trust the US government's financial stability. If people have confidence in the Bitcoin infrastructure, Bitcoins have value. This is already the case.
Bitcoin mining is part of the system designed to provide incentive for providing infrastructure. Eventually, all possible bitcoins will be mined and infrastructure will have to paid for differently. The idea is that by then, the Bitcoin economy will be robust enough to sustain itself without the incentive of mining.
If the Bitcoin economy becomes robust, the value of a Bitcoin should be much more stable than that of a typical currency because it has a built-in limit. Unlike the US dollar, for example, no one entity can decide to allow Bitcoins to be created at a greater rate. Once the overall limit of Bitcoins is reached, there will probably be deflation, which is why one can deal in tiny fractions of a Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a fascinating technical, social and political experiment. I think it seems very promising, but I won't try to predict whether it will move beyond the experimental stage or reach the same level of acceptance as the US Dollar or other state-controlled currencies. I will mock anyone who says that's impossible, since nobody understands the hive-mind which is the global economy.
It seems that was intended as humor, but since it's modded "Insightful" someone seems confused. Whether a bitcoin is real or not has nothing do with who or what created it. It's either correct or it's not. Whether it is correct is decided by consensus of all nodes in the network.
gets sucked into steam.. sorry but i rather not be treated as a pirate first and a customer second. sadly most games including many indie titles have now jumped onto this bandwagon. used to be a pretty avid gamer, not so much anymore. steam pushed me away because i did not want to trade being treated well as a customer for the 'oh shiny' aspect of being able to piss off my isp for downloading multi-gig games and a in game chat function with other people playing other games.
Sadly though this also means that the release of the doom3 source code will most likely be the last time id releases their engine source code to the community. like it or not steam is a drm platform first and foremost. So by tying in steam into id tech 5 means that the release of the source code will be a no go because it might allow others to de-steam other titles easier.
Do you have any basis for such broad assumptions? All of the games which Id has already released source for are available on Steam, which debunks your conspiracy theory immediately. Though Steam does include DRM, it's the least intrusive type I've encountered. It has never added any restrictions on what I want to do with a game beyond the restrictions inherent in them being distributed only as binaries.
One thing it does prevent is easily transferring a game you've paid for to someone else, though I haven't wanted to do that so far. OTOH, I have installed many mods on games in Steam, including ones that change the main executable and haven't had any interference from Steam. Also, just because a game uses Steam doesn't prevent it from being distributed on DVDs, which would keep your ISP happy (though I'm not sure why that's such a concern to you). I'm not happy that Steam has DRM, but I'm also not happy that the games are proprietary and I don't have the source for them (except the older Id ones obviously). In my experience, Steam doesn't practically reduce my freedom beyond the games' proprietariness.
Isn't that jumping the gun just a little bit? Have you seen any statements from id that custom maps will be impossible? Don't you think they would put some sort of effort into making their games easy to make content for?
For modders, Carmack stated that they were going to release the 64-bit version of tools though there is going to be a limit to what people can do with it because there is a lot of infrastructure involved with the mega-textured worlds. Expect to build new gaming characteristics and multiplayer modes, but not much more than that for now. Keeping in mind there is over a 1TB of source material to build RAGE, they can’t possibly put that all up for download.
Even if he's right, do we really want the GPL to be a revokable license where an tiny mistake that might throw you out of compliance requires a Herculean effort to re-establish rights? That would make all GPL code nuclear hot for any and all commercial interests which would probably see 80-90% of all code development on GPL projects dry up.
That's just one of the ways GPL v3 improves on earlier versions. Of course many Linus and other Linux contributors remain irrationally opposed to it. From the GPL v3
However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
So if the American Colonies had been subject to the same restrictions to free speech that we have now, would the Revolution have even taken place? Did the entire process in fact take place without the lives of a single British citizen or politician being publicly threatened? Is it possible these current restrictions exist precisely to protect the ruling class and prevent or forestall the organization of some future revolution? If a ruling class becomes so criminally tyrannical that the only practical means to change the system they control is by killing the people who control it, don't restrictions on free speech that criminalize discussions of those actions also restrict the ability to carry them out?
Only a completely inept government would allow open attempts to overthrow it violently. That is independent of whether it is a generally repressive one or not, since it can't enforce anyone's power or rights if any group could overthrow it on a whim. Of course, those who want it to be overthrown will prefer that it not try to prevent that, but those in favor of it will prefer the opposite. A government which cannot protect itself from violent overthrow is not of any value to anyone. Of course, an anarchist would prefer such pointless governments.
It's odd that of the movies mentioned, none was the most obviously appropriate. The prototype demonstrated is much more similar to the power loaders in Aliens than anything in the Iron Man and Avatar movies.
Without oil we have no modern civilization. Even if you could somehow replace all the energy produce from oil, you will still need it for: pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, plastics and others various organics chemicals. The modern world depends on oil even more than it dose on software.
Oil has been pretty important, but it's a bit of a stretch to say it's necessary for modern civilization. Automobiles didn't originally depend on it and plastics have been made from things other than petroleum. Many areas of technology would have developed quite differently and probably more slowly without petroleum, but perhaps more long-term sustainable energy sources would be more prevalent today.
The last time I tinkered with Django, I tried writing a simple CRUD app for an existing database at my job. After wasting a few hours learning how the ORM package works and setting up my models, I came to realize that Django does not support database tables with composite primary keys. In other words, it doesn't work with almost any legacy database that you will find in any enterprise shop on the planet. It wasn't worth re-working the schema, so I had to retreat back to Spring MVC and wrestle its XML.
I'll give Django credit, though. It's still several steps ahead of Ruby on Rails, which my last experiment taught me doesn't support more than one database per app!
I make a point to take one these "dynamic language" frameworks for a spin every 6-12 months... because I keep hearing that they are leapfrogging Java, and Oracle is destroying the universe anyway, and my career will be over soon if I don't migrate my skillset. So far I'm just not seeing it, though. These frameworks may be useful for simple non-commerce apps, stood up in a hurry by junior-level devs... but none of them seem remotely ready for any of the realities I deal with day-to-day when working for large companies or handling commerce.
I haven't used any of the frameworks reviewed since where I work we have our own Python web framework. However, the thing that immediately struck me when reading the reviews is that several of the web frameworks have there own database abstraction libraries and/or ORMs, which seems wrong. Why should the DB access be tied to a web framework? I'd rather choose a framework that's good at the web stuff and a framework that's good at the DB stuff and not have one come with the other. I've been dabbling with SQLAlchemy which does support composite primary and foreign keys, unlike the ORM I have to use every day (much to my annoyance) and is not tied to any web framework.
EVE is built on IronPython. I'd say that's pretty impressive and worth a comparison when talking about web targeted python
IronPython is an implementation of the Python language, not a web framework. The six reviewed frameworks probably run on IronPython if one is so inclined.
Lets be honest here, soon we wont have desktops like we have had for the last 20. We are right back to the micro, mini and mainframe paradigm, but now the micro-comps will be MIDs (consumption), mini-comps will be dedicated workstations (production), mainframes are the cloud (storage, processing). Linux is never going to be loved by the masses. People love marketing, Linux is pretty much the opposite of sexy marketing.
I'm going to assume that by "Linux" you mean "GNU/Linux on the Desktop" since Motorola, Google, Samsung and others have been putting huge amounts of ad money into marketing Android.
...about porting Linux apps to the Cloud? TFA talks about how OpenOffice/LibreOffice will never make it to the cloud in time to be competitive vs Google Docs/Office Live...but if the Linux/FOSS crowd wants their software to remain open, why would they use such applications in the cloud? Would providing the app via the cloud into a browser be considered "distribution" of the application or binary, and if so would the cloud provider be required to provide their modified source to interested parties? If not, I see no reason why OSS advocates would even want to use such applications in the cloud...and without those who are most feverishly supportive of Open Source, what real market would "Cloud LibreOffice" or "GIMPCloud" have?
You seem to think all "OSS advocates" are feverish and prefer Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. In fact, the Free and Open Source communities often use permissive licenses and there are many successful projects under such licenses.
You are astute to wonder about the effectiveness of Copyleft for web (cloud) applications. For authors wanting to apply the principle of Copyleft to web apps, there is the AGPL.
Linux does not have a shot at the desktop and never will. That is some/. nerd fantasy.
If by "have a shot" you mean dominate in the way Microsoft does, then of course it's a fantasy. If "have a shot" means that many people find it useful then that's already the case.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious, though, because after reading the GPLv2 your interpretation seems correct (you don't loose your rights permanently.) However, the GNU page on "Why GPLv3 is better than v2" states that, in fact, you do. I cannot see how that is a valid interpretation of the license. It only says that if you violate the license, your rights are automatically terminated. No where does it state that this is permanent (at least as far as I could see). In fact, it appears that merely grabbing a new version of the software would re-grant you license privileges. Is there some hidden implication to the "right to distribute" in the law that makes the termination permanent?
The whole bit about permanent loss of rights seems like an added interpretation to the license which just isn't there. It may be intended, but it isn't there. Does anyone know how the FSF or anyone else could claim that it is? And no, RMS saying that it does isn't enough: if it isn't it the license, the license doesn't do it. And IANAL, but it very much looks like it doesn't. Intention is irrelevant.
GPL 2 isn't clear on how to regain the right to distribute after a violation. That's an oversight GPL 3 corrects. IANAL either, so I don't know how likely it is that the GPL 2 would be interpreted to mean that the right to distribute is lost until the copyright holder grants permission to distribute again. That kind of uncertainty is where FUD thrives, so why not make it certain?
According to TFA, the FSF gets what they consider credible reports of violations and false or misguided claims of violations. That suggests that they do look into the claims. The author then complains that the FSF won't talk about specific claims. The problem with that is the FSF doesn't normally run around talking in public about violations - they negotiate with the violators to get them to comply. Part of negotiation is not to piss off the other party by airing their dirty laundry. It does not surprise me at all that the FSF isn't giving some blogger a story.
Also according to the FSF, they hold copyright on very little, if any, parts of Android, so they can't do anything official about violations. The main GPL component of Android is Linux, so Linux developers are the ones who can negotiate with violators. The FSF is simply pointing out that if Linux were under GPL 3, there would be a clear path to reinstatement of the right to distribute after a violation. They are not confirming the FUD that Google and all Android phone developers have lost their right to distribute Linux because of GPL violations.
Lesson: Never assign your code to someone who says "trust me." Not even the FSF. And be wary of clauses that allow them to change the license at will to a future version that may not be to your liking, or that they may interpret to say something it doesn't say.
So, how exactly is the FSF betraying authors who put GPL 2 or later as their license? Is there any author who chose GPL 2 or later and now feels betrayed? The purpose of the GPL has always been to guarantee the most freedom for the most people and the FSF has never strayed from that ideal, though they've certainly made mistakes. GPL 3 corrects several mistakes and shortcomings in GPL 2 while maintaining its principles. GPL 2 is a good license, but GPL 3 is an improvement. I can't think of any entity I would trust to assign my copyright for a Free software project other than the FSF. If you really want the code to be as free as possible for the most number of people forever, why not trust the FSF?
In Australia, teachers aren't allowed (and this is a rule rather than a law) to contact you electronically using any means other than your school-supplied mailbox. From a teacher's point of view it works out quite well, because they can often be harassed by students (anonymously, of course) and sometimes visa-versa. I do admit that it would be hard for relatives who are teachers/students in the same state, but I think that is a bit of a corner case and unlikely to be pursued by the government. This bill seems to be simply to protect one party in the case online relationships between students and teachers become abusive/a threat to privacy.
Perhaps a norm or school rule about such things would be reasonable depending on the local situation, but a state government should never be legislating something so specific. In Australia, can a teacher never call a student or speak to her face to face outside of school? When I was growing up, I often interacted with teachers outside of school. If people are so afraid of inappropriate relationships that the majority healthy ones between teachers and students are disallowed, that's a sad commentary on society indeed.
Anybody else feel like this is an incursion on freedom of speech?
I think it's ludicrous that a state legislature would waste its time on something so unnecessarily specific. The bill apparently doesn't prohibit teachers from communicating with students outside of school in general, though it's stupid to limit one specific type of communication and not others. It's not as if the legislatures have statistics showing more cases of inappropriate relationships conducted on websites than over the phone. However, because it is so specific and involves minors, I think it's a stretch to bring the First Amendment into it.
The title is a bit on the FUD style. PROPER virtualization is not criticized by Linus, but improper implementation, namely cheap OS-level virtualization wich could lead to lazy shortcuts to patches and features implementation.
The article may be misleading, but it really seems like Linus really cares little for either KVM, which is more hardware-oriented, or Xen, which is more software-oriented. He has accepted both into Linux because they are good quality and many want them, but he doesn't personally care for either. I think it's odd that he used the word "evil" but I think he meant it purely tongue-in-cheek.
Where can I download the source to Android 3, 3.1, or 3.2?
Indeed, the source they're referring to could be some that has not yet been released under a Free/Open Source license. If Google is the copyright holder, they have no legal obligation to release it though this is harmful to the Android community. However, it seems unlikely that unreleased code implements some patent, but the released code doesn't.
A lot has changed since then but ARM has done nothing but help Linux. If your chip vendor has a poopy Linux implementation they'll sell less. If they have a great one (and great documentation) they'll sell more. TI's a pretty good example of an awesome ARM / Linux implementation, and.. there are less awesome examples..
How do you define "help Linux"? The popularity of Linux on ARM has produced a giant, acrimonious fork which is not helpful to the community in general. Obviously, this wouldn't have happened in the first place if Linux and ARM weren't good for each other, but for the community to function well, things need to change. Linus is hopeful that this will be resolved in four or five years as a result of his and others' efforts to fix the very problems he's complaining about. The problem is not so much "poopy" Linux forks on ARM devices as it is the fact that there are many good forks that don't fit together very well.
Is Linus Torvalds (implicitly, at least) criticizing ARM because it is open and therefore anyone can create their own version of it? As opposed to x86, which has a restricted licensing set (AMD/Intel/Via... Via still exists, right?)? Because that is, AFAICT, exactly why ARM is so varied: anyone can roll their own. With the result that many do.
ARM is not any more "open" than x86. To sell chips implementing modern versions of either instruction set, you must obtain a license from at least one company and nothing prevents you from extending that instruction set. Many companies have implemented (and often extened) each set over the years, though there are fewer implementing x86 now than ARM. There are probably fewer implementors of x86 because it is much more complex.
I think Linus is criticizing the lack of a common platform surrounding ARM rather than the instructions themselves. The instruction set of x86 chips has grown a lot, especially with x86_64, but the way you boot a PC hasn't changed much for example.
The embedded world doesn't have much trouble with this. For QNX, there's the kernel, which is the same for all CPUs with the same instructions set, and a "board support package", which has the driver programs for a given board or variant.
Linux is a monolithic kernel, and so it has to be hacked all over the place to deal with architecture variations. Linux lacks a clean conceptual model of operating system vs. board support.
Linux supported many architectures before ARM, so Linus's complaints don't come from a purely PC mindset. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Linux is and has long been a major part the embedded world. How many smart phones run QNX?
You're wrong.
Modern currencies are backed by the governments which issue them. More bluntly, modern currencies are backed by modern government's ability to tax the labor of their citizens and imprison them if they do not pay. You trust that the currency is worth something in part because of the trust that everyone places in the currency itself (the prices that people set for goods), but also because the government buys services and goods (labor and goods), sells rights and services (user fees, police service, defense), and transacts in that currency (meaning that citizens of that government pretty much need to transact in that currency, at least in part, as well).
BitCoin cannot imprison me if I do not pay it in bitcoins. BitCoin does not inconvenience me in the least if I refuse to accept it. BitCoin only marginally inconveniences me if I decide not to pay for goods using it. BitCoin is not "backed by anything" tangible, such as gold, or practical, such as a need to use it. There's your substantial contact with reality.
If you think US Dollars have value because the US Government can force people to accept them, you're very confused. I grew up in third world countries where they were always highly valued because they retained value better than the local currency. The value in a currency is simply the result of confidence. The more confidence people have in a currency system, the more value it has. The confidence may be inspired by economic power, military power or simply a shared delusion.
More simply, if you can trade something for something else of value, that thing has value. Since you can trade Bitcoins for US Dollars, they have value in exactly the same way Dollars do. If people have experience trading Bitcoins for other things of value, they will gain confidence in it. It's not inevitable that Bitcoins become acceptable payment for most things, but there's also nothing fundamental preventing that.
I am not sure. But everybody with a little bit of real understanding should know that bitcoin is a fucked idea. It wont work, for a number of reasons.
The most important one is that the creation of a bitcoin is *not* backed by anything. It burns computational power for nothing. But just using energy to produce it does not input *value* in the same way in which printing a bill or forging a coin does not produce any value.
It only links the the will to back this money to whoever puts his name on it.
There would be a number of ways to introduce a valid digital currency, but bitcoin is just a senseless ponzi-scheme for wannabe hackers.
This is pretty funny. The funniest thing is that people think currencies such as the US dollar are backed by something tangible. This hasn't been the case since 1971. All currencies, including state-controlled ones as well as "virtual" ones like those in MMORPGS and Bitcoin only have value because of confidence. The US Dollar has value because people trust the US government's financial stability. If people have confidence in the Bitcoin infrastructure, Bitcoins have value. This is already the case.
Bitcoin mining is part of the system designed to provide incentive for providing infrastructure. Eventually, all possible bitcoins will be mined and infrastructure will have to paid for differently. The idea is that by then, the Bitcoin economy will be robust enough to sustain itself without the incentive of mining.
If the Bitcoin economy becomes robust, the value of a Bitcoin should be much more stable than that of a typical currency because it has a built-in limit. Unlike the US dollar, for example, no one entity can decide to allow Bitcoins to be created at a greater rate. Once the overall limit of Bitcoins is reached, there will probably be deflation, which is why one can deal in tiny fractions of a Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is a fascinating technical, social and political experiment. I think it seems very promising, but I won't try to predict whether it will move beyond the experimental stage or reach the same level of acceptance as the US Dollar or other state-controlled currencies. I will mock anyone who says that's impossible, since nobody understands the hive-mind which is the global economy.
Would these count as counterfeit bitcoins? ;^)
It seems that was intended as humor, but since it's modded "Insightful" someone seems confused. Whether a bitcoin is real or not has nothing do with who or what created it. It's either correct or it's not. Whether it is correct is decided by consensus of all nodes in the network.
gets sucked into steam.. sorry but i rather not be treated as a pirate first and a customer second. sadly most games including many indie titles have now jumped onto this bandwagon.
used to be a pretty avid gamer, not so much anymore. steam pushed me away because i did not want to trade being treated well as a customer for the 'oh shiny' aspect of being able to piss off my isp for downloading multi-gig games and a in game chat function with other people playing other games.
Sadly though this also means that the release of the doom3 source code will most likely be the last time id releases their engine source code to the community. like it or not steam is a drm platform first and foremost. So by tying in steam into id tech 5 means that the release of the source code will be a no go because it might allow others to de-steam other titles easier.
Do you have any basis for such broad assumptions? All of the games which Id has already released source for are available on Steam, which debunks your conspiracy theory immediately. Though Steam does include DRM, it's the least intrusive type I've encountered. It has never added any restrictions on what I want to do with a game beyond the restrictions inherent in them being distributed only as binaries.
One thing it does prevent is easily transferring a game you've paid for to someone else, though I haven't wanted to do that so far. OTOH, I have installed many mods on games in Steam, including ones that change the main executable and haven't had any interference from Steam. Also, just because a game uses Steam doesn't prevent it from being distributed on DVDs, which would keep your ISP happy (though I'm not sure why that's such a concern to you). I'm not happy that Steam has DRM, but I'm also not happy that the games are proprietary and I don't have the source for them (except the older Id ones obviously). In my experience, Steam doesn't practically reduce my freedom beyond the games' proprietariness.
Isn't that jumping the gun just a little bit? Have you seen any statements from id that custom maps will be impossible? Don't you think they would put some sort of effort into making their games easy to make content for?
This interview with Carmack:
For modders, Carmack stated that they were going to release the 64-bit version of tools though there is going to be a limit to what people can do with it because there is a lot of infrastructure involved with the mega-textured worlds. Expect to build new gaming characteristics and multiplayer modes, but not much more than that for now. Keeping in mind there is over a 1TB of source material to build RAGE, they can’t possibly put that all up for download.
Even if he's right, do we really want the GPL to be a revokable license where an tiny mistake that might throw you out of compliance requires a Herculean effort to re-establish rights? That would make all GPL code nuclear hot for any and all commercial interests which would probably see 80-90% of all code development on GPL projects dry up.
That's just one of the ways GPL v3 improves on earlier versions. Of course many Linus and other Linux contributors remain irrationally opposed to it. From the GPL v3
However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your
license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a)
provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and
finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright
holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means
prior to 60 days after the cessation.
So if the American Colonies had been subject to the same restrictions to free speech that we have now, would the Revolution have even taken place? Did the entire process in fact take place without the lives of a single British citizen or politician being publicly threatened? Is it possible these current restrictions exist precisely to protect the ruling class and prevent or forestall the organization of some future revolution? If a ruling class becomes so criminally tyrannical that the only practical means to change the system they control is by killing the people who control it, don't restrictions on free speech that criminalize discussions of those actions also restrict the ability to carry them out?
Only a completely inept government would allow open attempts to overthrow it violently. That is independent of whether it is a generally repressive one or not, since it can't enforce anyone's power or rights if any group could overthrow it on a whim. Of course, those who want it to be overthrown will prefer that it not try to prevent that, but those in favor of it will prefer the opposite. A government which cannot protect itself from violent overthrow is not of any value to anyone. Of course, an anarchist would prefer such pointless governments.
It's odd that of the movies mentioned, none was the most obviously appropriate. The prototype demonstrated is much more similar to the power loaders in Aliens than anything in the Iron Man and Avatar movies.
This is ridiculous !
Without oil we have no modern civilization. Even if you could somehow replace all the energy produce from oil, you will still need it for: pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, plastics and others various organics chemicals. The modern world depends on oil even more than it dose on software.
Oil has been pretty important, but it's a bit of a stretch to say it's necessary for modern civilization. Automobiles didn't originally depend on it and plastics have been made from things other than petroleum. Many areas of technology would have developed quite differently and probably more slowly without petroleum, but perhaps more long-term sustainable energy sources would be more prevalent today.
The last time I tinkered with Django, I tried writing a simple CRUD app for an existing database at my job. After wasting a few hours learning how the ORM package works and setting up my models, I came to realize that Django does not support database tables with composite primary keys . In other words, it doesn't work with almost any legacy database that you will find in any enterprise shop on the planet. It wasn't worth re-working the schema, so I had to retreat back to Spring MVC and wrestle its XML.
I'll give Django credit, though. It's still several steps ahead of Ruby on Rails, which my last experiment taught me doesn't support more than one database per app !
I make a point to take one these "dynamic language" frameworks for a spin every 6-12 months... because I keep hearing that they are leapfrogging Java, and Oracle is destroying the universe anyway, and my career will be over soon if I don't migrate my skillset. So far I'm just not seeing it, though. These frameworks may be useful for simple non-commerce apps, stood up in a hurry by junior-level devs... but none of them seem remotely ready for any of the realities I deal with day-to-day when working for large companies or handling commerce.
I haven't used any of the frameworks reviewed since where I work we have our own Python web framework. However, the thing that immediately struck me when reading the reviews is that several of the web frameworks have there own database abstraction libraries and/or ORMs, which seems wrong. Why should the DB access be tied to a web framework? I'd rather choose a framework that's good at the web stuff and a framework that's good at the DB stuff and not have one come with the other. I've been dabbling with SQLAlchemy which does support composite primary and foreign keys, unlike the ORM I have to use every day (much to my annoyance) and is not tied to any web framework.
I think you meant EVE is built with Stackless Python. Unless you where talking about a different EVE (I assumed EVE Online).
Stackless is another implementation of the language, upon which many web frameworks run.
EVE is built on IronPython. I'd say that's pretty impressive and worth a comparison when talking about web targeted python
IronPython is an implementation of the Python language, not a web framework. The six reviewed frameworks probably run on IronPython if one is so inclined.
Lets be honest here, soon we wont have desktops like we have had for the last 20. We are right back to the micro, mini and mainframe paradigm, but now the micro-comps will be MIDs (consumption), mini-comps will be dedicated workstations (production), mainframes are the cloud (storage, processing). Linux is never going to be loved by the masses. People love marketing, Linux is pretty much the opposite of sexy marketing.
I'm going to assume that by "Linux" you mean "GNU/Linux on the Desktop" since Motorola, Google, Samsung and others have been putting huge amounts of ad money into marketing Android.
...about porting Linux apps to the Cloud? TFA talks about how OpenOffice/LibreOffice will never make it to the cloud in time to be competitive vs Google Docs/Office Live...but if the Linux/FOSS crowd wants their software to remain open, why would they use such applications in the cloud? Would providing the app via the cloud into a browser be considered "distribution" of the application or binary, and if so would the cloud provider be required to provide their modified source to interested parties? If not, I see no reason why OSS advocates would even want to use such applications in the cloud...and without those who are most feverishly supportive of Open Source, what real market would "Cloud LibreOffice" or "GIMPCloud" have?
You seem to think all "OSS advocates" are feverish and prefer Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. In fact, the Free and Open Source communities often use permissive licenses and there are many successful projects under such licenses.
You are astute to wonder about the effectiveness of Copyleft for web (cloud) applications. For authors wanting to apply the principle of Copyleft to web apps, there is the AGPL.
Linux does not have a shot at the desktop and never will. That is some /. nerd fantasy.
If by "have a shot" you mean dominate in the way Microsoft does, then of course it's a fantasy. If "have a shot" means that many people find it useful then that's already the case.