What tesla was doing was unrefined, he didn't exactly know what he was dealing with (being the guy who discovered radio, there was no previous work for him to deal with, no nice textbooks about RF theory).
Parent: Marconi kind of stole teslas work, but he kind of didn't. The patent office should not have granted Marconi the patents they did (later overturned anyway in favor of Teslas).
In a way, Marconi invented Radio (as in, radio station), but, Tesla discovered RF.
The inverse square law isn't about power disappearing.. it's about energy density (if that's the right term) It just means if you measure the energy spread over a certain area at distance n, then the energy density over that same area at distance 2n will be 1/4 as much, and at 3n will be 1/9 as much.
So.. look at something like, a typical laser pen with a nicely columnated beam. Say at 1km the red dot is 1m^2 (just a guess). Now, if we pretend it's a vacuum and we aren't losing energy due to reflection off particles and whatnot..
The energy density has gone way down... what used to take up less than 1 square mm now takes up 1 million square mm. (1 square m). Inverse square law at work.. but is it a problem for us to, say, build a receiver that's 1 square meter in size? Heck no.
First, if you assume the conversion from microwave back to electricity is very efficient, compared to say, solar power (the principle being the same, right? The photoelectric effect).
Now think of how much energy is in the noonday sun in, say, a 10 square meter area. That's quite a bit of energy. Now, you could quadruple the energy density, and probably not kill anything that passed by. Sure, they would sunburn 4x faster, but.. in passing, it would be relatively safe.
Articles in the past have stated that it's much the same thing.... yes, it's a concentrated beam, but it's nothing like the energy density inside your microwave oven...
Yes, when they receive the software, they must be informed of their rights and whatnot.. the GPL does not require you to inform someone about the licensing BEFORE you send them the software.
It in no way violates the spirit of the GPL. The GPL is not about acquiring software for free; it's about the right to modify and redistribute software if YOU want to, not the right to get it from someone else.
IN fact, there is easily a scenario with GPL software where you MUST get it from a single author. What is that scenario? Simple. The original author distributes copies, as per normal, including GPL, and source, etc, to his customers, says. Then he says to his customers "Look, you are allowed to redistribute this, nothing can change that.. but how about if I give you 50 bucks, and you don't redistribute it? You are still allowed to, I'm just calling on your honour here so I can make a buck"
As long as nobody redistributes it to anyone, the only way to obtain it is purchasing.
Back to the topic: This is not about a GPL violation.. just about a guy selling something under a new name; a practice that is totally legal.
You never add an apostrophe AFTER the s, as you just suggested.
Let's go over the rules for commas.
1) Contractions: When two words are run together with letters ommitted -
This question's difficult = This question is difficult. I can't understand = I can not understand.
- In formal writing, contractions should be avoided.
2) To indicate posession:
John's book. The teacher's pen.
- If the noun is plural AND ends in an S already, we put an apostrophe AFTER the final S "The students' books" "The teachers' lounge"
- If the noun is plural and does NOT end in an S, we add an S after the apostrophe:
The women's washroom
- Indicating posession with names: (some variation in some schools on this) For an english name that ends in an S, you add 'S James's book.
- For an english name ending in S but pronounced "iz", you just add an apostrophe after the final S Bridges' play. (because we don't prounce it "Bridgeses play, it sounds wrong.. but Jameses sounds okay)
The killer: ITS and IT'S (there is no its')
ITS (no apostrophe) indicates posession. Always. There is never an apostrophe when we want to talk about something belonging to IT. Yes, this is totally backwards. IT'S means IT IS or IT HAS (basically a regular contraction)
ALSO: NEVER add an apostrophe when changing something to the plural, ie: 1990s, not "1990's", My celeron 500s temperature, not "My celeron 500's temperature", and so on.
So what you are saying is that it's impossible to build a trusted system?
I don't follow, sorry. THe point is the system is designed to enforce a certain issue; the fact that there may be a way around it by going outside that system is irrelevant.
Stop thinking about "copyleft". That has no legal meaning.
copyleft licenses are not USE licenses, like EULAs on software: they are licenses you can choose to accept that permit you to do things other than those things allowed by normal copyright law. I don't have to accept your license to read a copy of your book, or to posess it. All your license does is give me a way I can do something normally reserved for YOU by copyright law: Redistribute, for instance.
So, if someone is redistributing your work, they have to have your permission: There are two ways they can get this, in this case: They can get it from you directly They can follow the terms of the license you granted them to do so.
In other words, if they aren't following the terms of your "copyleft" license, then they are distributing a copyrighted work without permission. It's the same thing as if there WAS no license.
All the so-called "GPL violations" are the same thing as well. Not GPL violations.. COPYRIGHT violations.
You can consider the hydrogen basically energy storage.. like a battery.
Not using fossil fuel to produce the power we need to extract hydrogen is the same problem we haev with not using fossil fuels to produce power for everythign else: WE use too much power.
Consider this:
1 HP (horsepower) is approximately.746 KW My 1990 Toyota 4runner has an engine rated at 108.00 KW.
So.. let's say I driev to and from work every day... let's say, considering I don't run teh truck flat out, that I use up 60KWH a day with the truck (that's 50,000 watt-hours)
A quick google says the average north american household uses about 15KWH per day.
So... if we assume 1 car per household (the real number is more) we just ramped up the nation's electricity requirement by 5x.
Yes, I know there are far moer efficient engines that use hydrogen (fuel cell). Yes, I know that peak HP is not what the car actually produces normally, this is just a really really rough guess... but the order of magnitude should be about the same:
Using hydrogen for vehicles is not a magic bullet, we still have big energy concerns. The size, weight, and amount of energy we need for those vehicles is just as important.
So you could say the amount of energy in the universe is constant, and therefore, energy is neither created nor destroyed.. therefore there is no such thing as an energy source. This is true if you consider mass to be energy, which is a completely valid view. Einstein told us mass & energy are the same thing.
For our purposes though, anything we seem to get more energy out of than WE have to put in in the first place, is an energy source. Burning fossil fuels and nuclear fission being our chief examples.
What he means, though, is this: Running a hydrogen combustion engine using hydrogen obtained through electrolysis, you end up with less energy than you actively put into it (in the immediate sense). You aren't "Unlocking" any previously stored energy we couldn't get at.
Wheras with fossil fuels, we are dealing with energy stored over a long period of time.. all we have to do is extract the fun black stuff and burn it. In principle it's the same thing, but from our point of view, we get more energy out of it than we put in. Of course, it runs out.
In the case of hydrogen fusion, like a bomb, we get more energy out than we put in: the universe stored a bunch of energy in those atoms when it popped into existence and cooled a bit. If we could come up wtih a controlled fusion process that produced more energy than it took to contain, we'd look at it as "creating" energy, when really we are just unlocking energy we already had.
Uhh, no... What do you mean "you have to retain the title if the program usesthat title" nowhere in the GPL does it require you to retain the name and/or title of ANY part of the program.
1) Why do you believe he has to say what the original title of the software is? The GPL, for one, allows me to change code *however I want* as long as I make my code availalbe, including licensing it under the GPL, to those that I distribute to.
2) What is wrong with offering full refund & support services? He's offering full support and the ability to return the package if you are not happy with it. That's BUSINESS.
You do not sue him for breaking the license. This is just like the common mistake people make with the GPL: THese licensea are NOT use licenses and you are not BOUND by them.
You ARE bound by copyright law; the only thing that lets you do MORE than what copyright law allows are these licenses... should you choose to abide by their terms. If you chose to ignore these licenses, you are simply bound by copyright law.
So he can nail this guy for plain old copyright infringement. The guy would have to show that he has permission to redistribute the copyrighted work. The only way he can have this is if he is following the term of the license.
Agree 100% on profits; he has no permission to redistribute in the manner he is doing it, therefore, it's the same as if there WAS no license.
The guy does not have your permission to redistribute the work in the manner he is doing so. Forget that it is "copylefted". That's not a legal term, and has no legal meaning.
You own the copyright on your work, and he is selling it without permission.
If he abided by the terms of the license, he could say THAT was his permission, but he isn't.
So get a lawyer to send him a letter, and send ebay a note saying the guy is selling copyrighted material without permission.
We all know the public FUD "Linux is like UNIX and WE OWN UNIX"...
but have they actually said what it is they are suing over? What code is it, exactly, that the lawsuit is over? Linux wasn't derived from BSD or SYSV.. it was written from scratch.
Sco appears to be basically mounting nothing more than a smear campaign.
If there IS copyright infringement... and there IS code that SCO has the rights to in there:
It would be awfully hard for them to show intent - that the code was actually knowingly used without their permission. This is obvious.. as the entire linux world is going "HuH? What are you talking about?"
That means that all we would have to do is politely remove the code covered by their copyright, and have it re-implemented.
I know we all hate trademark disputes, and obviously, this isn't one.... but the principle is the same. It's this kind of thing that the concept of trademark was DESIGNED to deal with, exacty: 2 things in the same field with the same name.
Oh, but a browser isn't a database tool? Trademark law recognizes software as a class unto itself.
Just like if someone named their dump truck "firebird". Pontiac could have a fit... it's still a vehicle, even if the use case & market is different.
What we need to get back to is basic IP routing.. and let the world add services as we want to.
Is SMTP at fault for spam? Sure.. in that the system wasn't designed to combat it. There is no reason to re-do anything to bring about a new email system, involving, say, certified links & signaturse of each server & users involved. That can be added to the current internet any time anyone wants to do it... all we have to do is agree on how it works.
THe same goes for DNS, or any other system we don't like.
All the stuff about buffer overflows, code audits, stack randomization... those are all attempts at plugging security issues. None of them really have anything to do with "trusted computing".
Trusted computing is normally about 2 things: Making sure that nothing has access to anything it's not supposed to, and making sure that there is an audit trail for who did what.
Example: Normal linux distributed -vs- NT.
Okay... I hate windows.. but....
Ever been frustrated because, in windows, if someone sets permissions on a directory they own, and says administrator can't access it... when administrator tries to access it, he gets denied? In unix, of course, root just ignores said permissions.. or changes them. In NT.. administrator has to first take ownership of the object THEN change the permissions... and administrator can't assign ownership back to the other user (though of course, administrator can grant access to the object). Why? So there is a trail of events. Your file was changed? You say you didn't do it? IF administrator did it, it will show in the file permissions.
Forget the license for a second. Say you take my source, modify & distribute it.
I can claim copyright violation, because you do not have my permission to distribute & modify.
Now, say my original work was available under the GPL to you. (or any other license I choose, but you never asked me) IF you chose to not follow the terms of the GPL, or if you didn't know about it, but distribute anyway.. the situation is no different: you are violating copyright law. You are NOT violationg the GPL.. because you never agreed to it in the first place. Following it's terms is one way you can get around me charging you with copyright violation.
Let's list some common consumer appliances that offload data to the home computer:
mp3: 1MB/min of audio
video from digital video cameras: Lots of GB here digital photos: getting bigger all the time.
DIVX video: almost a gig per movie.
Video Game: 2 gigs of space, easy.
PVR: the more space the merrier.
So seriously, what are you smoking?
In the old days, there were all kinds of ide incompatabilities.. some drives just would not work with other drives in master/slave configurations. Bios issues, etcetera.
Nowadays, any modern computer (by modern, I mean from the last 4 years or so) can use any hard drive out today, with no problems at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Same thing. Microwave is RF.
What tesla was doing was unrefined, he didn't exactly know what he was dealing with (being the guy who discovered radio, there was no previous work for him to deal with, no nice textbooks about RF theory).
Parent: Marconi kind of stole teslas work, but he kind of didn't. The patent office should not have granted Marconi the patents they did (later overturned anyway in favor of Teslas).
In a way, Marconi invented Radio (as in, radio station), but, Tesla discovered RF.
The inverse square law isn't about power disappearing.. it's about energy density (if that's the right term) It just means if you measure the energy spread over a certain area at distance n, then the energy density over that same area at distance 2n will be 1/4 as much, and at 3n will be 1/9 as much.
So.. look at something like, a typical laser pen with a nicely columnated beam. Say at 1km the red dot is 1m^2 (just a guess).
Now, if we pretend it's a vacuum and we aren't losing energy due to reflection off particles and whatnot..
The energy density has gone way down... what used to take up less than 1 square mm now takes up 1 million square mm. (1 square m). Inverse square law at work.. but is it a problem for us to, say, build a receiver that's 1 square meter in size? Heck no.
It's not as dangerous as you might think.
First, if you assume the conversion from microwave back to electricity is very efficient, compared to say, solar power (the principle being the same, right? The photoelectric effect).
Now think of how much energy is in the noonday sun in, say, a 10 square meter area. That's quite a bit of energy.
Now, you could quadruple the energy density, and probably not kill anything that passed by. Sure, they would sunburn 4x faster, but.. in passing, it would be relatively safe.
Articles in the past have stated that it's much the same thing.... yes, it's a concentrated beam, but it's nothing like the energy density inside your microwave oven...
we could bea little bit more accurate.
It's wireless power transmission, yes.. not "wireless electricity". Wireless electricity is like, lightning, electric sparks, or electron beams....
This is microwave power transmission.
Thanks for sorting that out... Now nobody will be confused by my typo and think I was talking about commas. Your post was so.. meaningful.
And as for how many times I proofread: none
Feel better now?
into it.
Yes, when they receive the software, they must be informed of their rights and whatnot.. the GPL does not require you to inform someone about the licensing BEFORE you send them the software.
It in no way violates the spirit of the GPL. The GPL is not about acquiring software for free; it's about the right to modify and redistribute software if YOU want to, not the right to get it from someone else.
IN fact, there is easily a scenario with GPL software where you MUST get it from a single author. What is that scenario? Simple. The original author distributes copies, as per normal, including GPL, and source, etc, to his customers, says. Then he says to his customers "Look, you are allowed to redistribute this, nothing can change that.. but how about if I give you 50 bucks, and you don't redistribute it? You are still allowed to, I'm just calling on your honour here so I can make a buck"
As long as nobody redistributes it to anyone, the only way to obtain it is purchasing.
Back to the topic: This is not about a GPL violation.. just about a guy selling something under a new name; a practice that is totally legal.
You never add an apostrophe AFTER the s, as you just suggested.
Let's go over the rules for commas.
1) Contractions: When two words are run together with letters ommitted -
This question's difficult = This question is difficult.
I can't understand = I can not understand.
- In formal writing, contractions should be avoided.
2) To indicate posession:
John's book. The teacher's pen.
- If the noun is plural AND ends in an S already, we put an apostrophe AFTER the final S
"The students' books"
"The teachers' lounge"
- If the noun is plural and does NOT end in an S, we add an S after the apostrophe:
The women's washroom
- Indicating posession with names: (some variation in some schools on this)
For an english name that ends in an S, you add 'S
James's book.
- For an english name ending in S but pronounced "iz", you just add an apostrophe after the final S
Bridges' play. (because we don't prounce it "Bridgeses play, it sounds wrong.. but Jameses sounds okay)
The killer: ITS and IT'S (there is no its')
ITS (no apostrophe) indicates posession. Always. There is never an apostrophe when we want to talk about something belonging to IT. Yes, this is totally backwards.
IT'S means IT IS or IT HAS (basically a regular contraction)
ALSO: NEVER add an apostrophe when changing something to the plural, ie:
1990s, not "1990's",
My celeron 500s temperature, not "My celeron 500's temperature", and so on.
So what you are saying is that it's impossible to build a trusted system?
I don't follow, sorry. THe point is the system is designed to enforce a certain issue; the fact that there may be a way around it by going outside that system is irrelevant.
It's not a "license violation".
Stop thinking about "copyleft". That has no legal meaning.
copyleft licenses are not USE licenses, like EULAs on software: they are licenses you can choose to accept that permit you to do things other than those things allowed by normal copyright law. I don't have to accept your license to read a copy of your book, or to posess it. All your license does is give me a way I can do something normally reserved for YOU by copyright law: Redistribute, for instance.
So, if someone is redistributing your work, they have to have your permission: There are two ways they can get this, in this case:
They can get it from you directly
They can follow the terms of the license you granted them to do so.
In other words, if they aren't following the terms of your "copyleft" license, then they are distributing a copyrighted work without permission. It's the same thing as if there WAS no license.
All the so-called "GPL violations" are the same thing as well. Not GPL violations.. COPYRIGHT violations.
You can consider the hydrogen basically energy storage.. like a battery.
.746 KW
Not using fossil fuel to produce the power we need to extract hydrogen is the same problem we haev with not using fossil fuels to produce power for everythign else: WE use too much power.
Consider this:
1 HP (horsepower) is approximately
My 1990 Toyota 4runner has an engine rated at 108.00 KW.
So.. let's say I driev to and from work every day... let's say, considering I don't run teh truck flat out, that I use up 60KWH a day with the truck (that's 50,000 watt-hours)
A quick google says the average north american household uses about 15KWH per day.
So... if we assume 1 car per household (the real number is more) we just ramped up the nation's electricity requirement by 5x.
Yes, I know there are far moer efficient engines that use hydrogen (fuel cell). Yes, I know that peak HP is not what the car actually produces normally, this is just a really really rough guess... but the order of magnitude should be about the same:
Using hydrogen for vehicles is not a magic bullet, we still have big energy concerns. The size, weight, and amount of energy we need for those vehicles is just as important.
is a property that is conserved. That's all.
So you could say the amount of energy in the universe is constant, and therefore, energy is neither created nor destroyed.. therefore there is no such thing as an energy source.
This is true if you consider mass to be energy, which is a completely valid view. Einstein told us mass & energy are the same thing.
For our purposes though, anything we seem to get more energy out of than WE have to put in in the first place, is an energy source. Burning fossil fuels and nuclear fission being our chief examples.
What he means, though, is this:
Running a hydrogen combustion engine using hydrogen obtained through electrolysis, you end up with less energy than you actively put into it (in the immediate sense). You aren't "Unlocking" any previously stored energy we couldn't get at.
Wheras with fossil fuels, we are dealing with energy stored over a long period of time.. all we have to do is extract the fun black stuff and burn it. In principle it's the same thing, but from our point of view, we get more energy out of it than we put in. Of course, it runs out.
In the case of hydrogen fusion, like a bomb, we get more energy out than we put in: the universe stored a bunch of energy in those atoms when it popped into existence and cooled a bit. If we could come up wtih a controlled fusion process that produced more energy than it took to contain, we'd look at it as "creating" energy, when really we are just unlocking energy we already had.
Fossil Fuels took millions of years to form.
Uhh, no...
What do you mean "you have to retain the title if the program usesthat title"
nowhere in the GPL does it require you to retain the name and/or title of ANY part of the program.
1) Why do you believe he has to say what the original title of the software is? The GPL, for one, allows me to change code *however I want* as long as I make my code availalbe, including licensing it under the GPL, to those that I distribute to.
2) What is wrong with offering full refund & support services? He's offering full support and the ability to return the package if you are not happy with it. That's BUSINESS.
You do not sue him for breaking the license. This is just like the common mistake people make with the GPL: THese licensea are NOT use licenses and you are not BOUND by them.
You ARE bound by copyright law; the only thing that lets you do MORE than what copyright law allows are these licenses... should you choose to abide by their terms. If you chose to ignore these licenses, you are simply bound by copyright law.
So he can nail this guy for plain old copyright infringement. The guy would have to show that he has permission to redistribute the copyrighted work. The only way he can have this is if he is following the term of the license.
Agree 100% on profits; he has no permission to redistribute in the manner he is doing it, therefore, it's the same as if there WAS no license.
straightforward copyright violation.
The guy does not have your permission to redistribute the work in the manner he is doing so.
Forget that it is "copylefted". That's not a legal term, and has no legal meaning.
You own the copyright on your work, and he is selling it without permission.
If he abided by the terms of the license, he could say THAT was his permission, but he isn't.
So get a lawyer to send him a letter, and send ebay a note saying the guy is selling copyrighted material without permission.
Finally, someone who gets it.
All you are saying is that an equilateral triangle can be isncribed inside a circle. That has nothing to do with the problem.
The maximum cross-section on an equilateral triangle is viewing any edge straight on (the length of an edge)
The minimum cross section is viewing with one face parallel to the angle of viewing (the height of the triangle, if one point is facing upwards)
They are not the same.
We all know the public FUD "Linux is like UNIX and WE OWN UNIX" ...
but have they actually said what it is they are suing over? What code is it, exactly, that the lawsuit is over? Linux wasn't derived from BSD or SYSV.. it was written from scratch.
Sco appears to be basically mounting nothing more than a smear campaign.
If there IS copyright infringement... and there IS code that SCO has the rights to in there:
It would be awfully hard for them to show intent - that the code was actually knowingly used without their permission. This is obvious.. as the entire linux world is going "HuH? What are you talking about?"
That means that all we would have to do is politely remove the code covered by their copyright, and have it re-implemented.
Trademarking would ABSOLUTEY have mattered; SOFTWARE is a category in trademark law. There is no distinction for different types of software.
I know we all hate trademark disputes, and obviously, this isn't one.... but the principle is the same.
It's this kind of thing that the concept of trademark was DESIGNED to deal with, exacty: 2 things in the same field with the same name.
Oh, but a browser isn't a database tool? Trademark law recognizes software as a class unto itself.
Just like if someone named their dump truck "firebird". Pontiac could have a fit... it's still a vehicle, even if the use case & market is different.
So... as a community, how do we solve the issue?
What we need to get back to is basic IP routing.. and let the world add services as we want to.
Is SMTP at fault for spam? Sure.. in that the system wasn't designed to combat it. There is no reason to re-do anything to bring about a new email system, involving, say, certified links & signaturse of each server & users involved. That can be added to the current internet any time anyone wants to do it... all we have to do is agree on how it works.
THe same goes for DNS, or any other system we don't like.
All the stuff about buffer overflows, code audits, stack randomization... those are all attempts at plugging security issues.
None of them really have anything to do with "trusted computing".
Trusted computing is normally about 2 things: Making sure that nothing has access to anything it's not supposed to, and making sure that there is an audit trail for who did what.
Example: Normal linux distributed -vs- NT.
Okay... I hate windows.. but....
Ever been frustrated because, in windows, if someone sets permissions on a directory they own, and says administrator can't access it... when administrator tries to access it, he gets denied?
In unix, of course, root just ignores said permissions.. or changes them.
In NT.. administrator has to first take ownership of the object THEN change the permissions... and administrator can't assign ownership back to the other user (though of course, administrator can grant access to the object).
Why? So there is a trail of events. Your file was changed? You say you didn't do it? IF administrator did it, it will show in the file permissions.
That's kind of my point.
Forget the license for a second.
Say you take my source, modify & distribute it.
I can claim copyright violation, because you do not have my permission to distribute & modify.
Now, say my original work was available under the GPL to you. (or any other license I choose, but you never asked me)
IF you chose to not follow the terms of the GPL, or if you didn't know about it, but distribute anyway.. the situation is no different: you are violating copyright law.
You are NOT violationg the GPL.. because you never agreed to it in the first place. Following it's terms is one way you can get around me charging you with copyright violation.
You are speaking of a solid state disk.
I meant a ramdrive (a virtual drive created in system memory)
My personal data?
Let's list some common consumer appliances that offload data to the home computer:
mp3: 1MB/min of audio
video from digital video cameras: Lots of GB here
digital photos: getting bigger all the time.
DIVX video: almost a gig per movie.
Video Game: 2 gigs of space, easy.
PVR: the more space the merrier.
So seriously, what are you smoking?
In the old days, there were all kinds of ide incompatabilities.. some drives just would not work with other drives in master/slave configurations. Bios issues, etcetera.
Nowadays, any modern computer (by modern, I mean from the last 4 years or so) can use any hard drive out today, with no problems at all.
My mom eats 30 gigs for breakfast.