Developers who treat their sysadmin this way are banished to an outer abode of darkness where they must forever try to create a flawless perfect and exhaustively complete software ecosystem using only COBOL and punched cards.
If their sysadmin worked at Google, then the offending developer may only type on the keypunch machine using their toes.
I have definitely seem some of these drones sitting in their car, parked in a way that they think nobody can see them, eating donuts and using their radar gun.
Wouldn't the signal leave the antenna structure as a waves of spheres? Not lines? The spheres would be strongest at the top of the "sine wave" and absent at the bottom of the wave. Sort of like sound is spheres of compression of denser and less dense.
Think of the crest of each sine wave as an expanding sphere, followed by more and more spheres all expanding from the antenna.
As a particular wave crest (eg sphere) expands from the center point, which is the transmitting antenna, the energy at any point on the surface of the sphere is decreased as the square of the number of furlongs it has traveled from the antenna.
Being an electromagnetic wave the magnetic wave and electrical charge wave are out of phase with each other. Wouldn't spheres of magnetism be strongest at the point where the spheres of electrical charge disappear -- and vice versa -- spheres of electrical charge are strongest at the places where magnetism goes to zero?
Or am I imagining or understanding this wrong? (I mean, I have little more than basic general science level understanding of electromagnetic waves.)
If we 'see' it, like we see light, then would we see the waves (spheres) at all? Wouldn't we just see bright spots where antennas seem like sources of illumination? And some materials are opaque and cast 'shadows' and other materials are transparent to WiFi? (eg, a black plastic garbage bag might be 'transparent')
It was never too late if you wanted to be the oddball.
But it IS too late for this to now ever become mainstream. Or if it does become mainstream, it will take time. The license wackiness was a disservice to everyone. It may not have been intended that way. But that was the net effect.
I didn't create the government or it's absurd copyright laws. When I post some code with no license, I'm not the one threatening to sue. I'm not the one creating a situation where you have to constantly fear me suing no matter how much I assure I won't.
You are right. It's not your fault. Yet the situation exists and is unlikely to change.
You write:
. . . . you have to constantly fear me suing no matter how much I assure I won't.
Let me make it easy for you. If you don't care what people do with your code, just slap a BSD or MIT style license on it. Pick one. You only have to do it once. Nobody will then fear you suing them. You won't have to continually assure anyone. The license itself IS that continuous assurance that you will not sue.
So it sounds like your last sentence is actually complaining about something that you can easily fix. But I'll say it again. You are right that it is a sad situation that the world has bad people in it and they cause you inconvenience.
It's not that hard to get a factory builder facade. You can get one from a factory builder facade factory. Just properly configure the factory builder facade factory to give you the kind of factory builder facade you would like.
An easy way to get a factory builder facade factory is with a factory builder facade factory factory.
----
A problem I had to unfurl
My stomach it started to curl
A bad memory leak
Made me freak out and shriek
I’m just glad it’s not written in C++
Of course I understand JIT is not a JVM specific trait. Android has JIT compilation of Dalvik bytecode to native code.
I was aware that at least one and I believe a couple of JavaScript environments (on browsers) do JIT.
The Anonymous Coward above you points out that node.js also does JIT. I was not aware of that.
As for GC, the reason, I believe, that JVM has such great GC and alternate GC algorithms is because the JVM was a good testbed for GC researchers. Source code has been available for a long time before Sun made it open source. And there have been no shortage of sizable workloads to run on top of your modified JVM with custom GC algorithm.
> Java and.Net are the last places to look for performance.
You obviously do not know about Java.
Since others have addressed other points, let me touch some not yet mentioned.
There are production servers running Java workloads with heap sizes in the tens or even hundreds of Gigabytes of memory, with 10 millisecond GC pause times. I mention that because someone always brings up GC. But JavaScript (node.js) has GC, so instead I'll ask whether you think node.js garbage collector can do that?
The JVM (java virtual machine) is one of the most amazing pieces of software engineering on the entire planet. It has some of the most sophisticated code ever written. It's JIT is an amazing dynamic compiler whose source language is the JVM binary code emitted by the Java compiler.
Now, imagine if your node.js could do this.
The VM notices that a particular function (A) is getting more than it's fair share of CPU, so the JIT compiles it to native code. During compilation, if function A calls function B many times, such as in a loop, function A may inline function B.
Now, on the JVM you can dynamically replace and reload binary classfiles in a running system. So suppose the binary file containing function B is reloaded. But now the compiled version of function A has inlined an out of date function B. No problem, the JVM ditches the compiled version of function A, and very shortly, based on real time continuous performance monitoring and statistics, it will notice that function A deserves to be compiled to native code, and repeat the whole process.
The JVM is perhaps one the best runtimes available for many different programming languages. It provides a huge number of highly evolved services right out of the box. GC. Binary portability. Native compilation at runtime, thus making the JVM bytecode portable. Choice of GC algorithms. Choice of JVM vendors, including ones with real commercial support for your Billion dollar business application. Remote monitoring tools and consoles.
How about an app for geotagging the lawns of older people who are unwelcoming of young people setting foot on their lawn? Call it the "get off my lawn" app.
If we are going to teach our kids computer science, shouldn't one of the first subjects be on how they can best train their replacements in other countries when their jobs are outsourced?
Why would a kid want to pursue a career in computer science? Wouldn't it be a better career choice to become a lawyer, marketing insultant, MBA or politician?
No. Stop laughing. I am serious.
--
The pessimists are usually right because optimists are full of crap.
I can't think of any other reason that anyone would publish something publicly on the Internet than to give you a copy to read
People publish things on the internet all the time that are for you to read, but not make a copy of. Not even download. That has been the intention of YouTube videos for ages, you can watch, but not download. (They may have given in to reality on that one recently.)
So the next question is whether the author is giving you a copy by publishing it on the Internet.
Yes, that is a very important question.
I think you'd have a hard time making an argument in court that that was not the intention.
Oh, I'm sure a copyright troll could make a lot of arguments. Let me give it a try.
* I put that up there only for people to read.
* You can't tell me what the intention was, only I can tell you what my intention was
* If you saw a photo on the New York Times website, would you just assume it was intended for you to download?
etc, etc
The time and expense of a court battle, especially against someone acting in bad faith is not worth it. That's why it is best not to touch unlicensed code with a ten foot pole.
And, as you rightly point out, without a license, even if you can make a reasonable argument for downloading it, you definitely cannot copy, modify, distribute, or incorporate it into larger works.
So although your first words to my post were "Not True", it seems in practice that what I said is in fact true. You can't do anything of consequence with the code. It is questionable whether you even have the right to download it. It is very questionable whether you have "been given" the code, just because you see it on the web somewhere. So while you can make personal use of a copyrighted item you have been given, the author might not say they gave you anything. So now we're back to your first two words you replied to me: Not True. Really?
At least they passed a law. Now we'll have legal protection from being spied on in our living rooms and bedrooms just like how the constitution gives protection against unreasonable search by the NSA. I feel safer already. NOT.
You seem confused. The discussion was about code that the author did not put a license on. Not about code, like Windows 8, where the author DID put a license on it.
Here is an example.
Jane puts some code on GitHub, without any license.
John downloads that code and incorporates it into his successful commercial product.
After John is making money, Jane comes to sue John for infringing her copyright.
Jane wants a large chunk of John's profits.
John has no defense -- he is guilty of copyright infringement, he used code without a license from the author.
If the argument gets into the fact that Jane actually did upload the code, Jane could say that the license was implied, and John was only supposed to use it for personal use, or give credit in some particular way, or some other contrived issue. The dispute gets ugly because there is no license in writing. And this is the best case outcome.
Wouldn't it have been simpler for John to be smart enough not to touch unlicensed code with a ten foot pole?
If Jane really wanted people to use her code, wouldn't it have been smart to just slap some quick easy license on it like the BSD, or some other?
If people start using unlicensed code on a large scale, it is only a matter of time before some trolls, like Jane, start appearing.
I cannot say I am familiar with the laws of Europe. But if you had a license with a disclaimer, don't you think you might have avoided such an unreasonable lawsuit to begin with? Even if you do get compensated, it is a risk, it is a cost of your time -- and temporarily a cost of your money -- assuming you can actually afford your defense.
If I offer open source code, I want everyone to be able to use it.
That is why I put a license on it. Without a license, anyone who uses it is infringing my copyright. I can sue them for exercising the rights that copyright gives exclusively to me and me alone.
The reason I put a license on it is to protect YOU, not to protect ME.
You ask how unlicensed use would be proven, and then you point out gpl-violations.org. But that is not precisely the same issue. What happened in the gpl-violations cases is that someone use code that DID HAVE a license, and exceeded the permissions given in that license (eg, distributing binary without also distributing source code).
'giving credit' is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the GPL or most other open source licenses.
Companies that benefit from unlicensed code are fools as much as companies that benefit by violating the licenses of licensed code. If they get caught, the liability could be very large. But go ahead. It's your future. You can also cheat on your taxes and hope the IRS doesn't catch you. Some murderers don't get caught. Some people who exceed the speed limit don't get caught. What's your argument about that some will take unlicensed code and use it? Yep, they will, and they have a ticking time bomb in their code.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Phone will not succeed regardless of any tough new standards of aerodynamic efficiency that Microsoft may impose upon office chair suppliers.
Developers who treat their sysadmin this way are banished to an outer abode of darkness where they must forever try to create a flawless perfect and exhaustively complete software ecosystem using only COBOL and punched cards.
If their sysadmin worked at Google, then the offending developer may only type on the keypunch machine using their toes.
In some cold war police states half the population was employed to spy on the other half. No wonder their economies sucked.
I have definitely seem some of these drones sitting in their car, parked in a way that they think nobody can see them, eating donuts and using their radar gun.
> Jerkin' Dicks.
There are better alternatives.
Wouldn't the signal leave the antenna structure as a waves of spheres? Not lines? The spheres would be strongest at the top of the "sine wave" and absent at the bottom of the wave. Sort of like sound is spheres of compression of denser and less dense.
Think of the crest of each sine wave as an expanding sphere, followed by more and more spheres all expanding from the antenna.
As a particular wave crest (eg sphere) expands from the center point, which is the transmitting antenna, the energy at any point on the surface of the sphere is decreased as the square of the number of furlongs it has traveled from the antenna.
Being an electromagnetic wave the magnetic wave and electrical charge wave are out of phase with each other. Wouldn't spheres of magnetism be strongest at the point where the spheres of electrical charge disappear -- and vice versa -- spheres of electrical charge are strongest at the places where magnetism goes to zero?
Or am I imagining or understanding this wrong? (I mean, I have little more than basic general science level understanding of electromagnetic waves.)
If we 'see' it, like we see light, then would we see the waves (spheres) at all? Wouldn't we just see bright spots where antennas seem like sources of illumination? And some materials are opaque and cast 'shadows' and other materials are transparent to WiFi? (eg, a black plastic garbage bag might be 'transparent')
It was never too late if you wanted to be the oddball.
But it IS too late for this to now ever become mainstream. Or if it does become mainstream, it will take time. The license wackiness was a disservice to everyone. It may not have been intended that way. But that was the net effect.
You are right. It's not your fault. Yet the situation exists and is unlikely to change.
You write:
Let me make it easy for you. If you don't care what people do with your code, just slap a BSD or MIT style license on it. Pick one. You only have to do it once. Nobody will then fear you suing them. You won't have to continually assure anyone. The license itself IS that continuous assurance that you will not sue.
So it sounds like your last sentence is actually complaining about something that you can easily fix. But I'll say it again. You are right that it is a sad situation that the world has bad people in it and they cause you inconvenience.
Forking may involve at least two of the rights that belong exclusively to the copyright owner.
1. Copying
2. Derivative Works
It's not that hard to get a factory builder facade. You can get one from a factory builder facade factory. Just properly configure the factory builder facade factory to give you the kind of factory builder facade you would like.
An easy way to get a factory builder facade factory is with a factory builder facade factory factory.
----
A problem I had to unfurl
My stomach it started to curl
A bad memory leak
Made me freak out and shriek
I’m just glad it’s not written in C++
Of course I understand JIT is not a JVM specific trait. Android has JIT compilation of Dalvik bytecode to native code.
I was aware that at least one and I believe a couple of JavaScript environments (on browsers) do JIT.
The Anonymous Coward above you points out that node.js also does JIT. I was not aware of that.
As for GC, the reason, I believe, that JVM has such great GC and alternate GC algorithms is because the JVM was a good testbed for GC researchers. Source code has been available for a long time before Sun made it open source. And there have been no shortage of sizable workloads to run on top of your modified JVM with custom GC algorithm.
> Java and .Net are the last places to look for performance.
You obviously do not know about Java.
Since others have addressed other points, let me touch some not yet mentioned.
There are production servers running Java workloads with heap sizes in the tens or even hundreds of Gigabytes of memory, with 10 millisecond GC pause times. I mention that because someone always brings up GC. But JavaScript (node.js) has GC, so instead I'll ask whether you think node.js garbage collector can do that?
The JVM (java virtual machine) is one of the most amazing pieces of software engineering on the entire planet. It has some of the most sophisticated code ever written. It's JIT is an amazing dynamic compiler whose source language is the JVM binary code emitted by the Java compiler.
Now, imagine if your node.js could do this.
The VM notices that a particular function (A) is getting more than it's fair share of CPU, so the JIT compiles it to native code. During compilation, if function A calls function B many times, such as in a loop, function A may inline function B.
Now, on the JVM you can dynamically replace and reload binary classfiles in a running system. So suppose the binary file containing function B is reloaded. But now the compiled version of function A has inlined an out of date function B. No problem, the JVM ditches the compiled version of function A, and very shortly, based on real time continuous performance monitoring and statistics, it will notice that function A deserves to be compiled to native code, and repeat the whole process.
The JVM is perhaps one the best runtimes available for many different programming languages. It provides a huge number of highly evolved services right out of the box. GC. Binary portability. Native compilation at runtime, thus making the JVM bytecode portable. Choice of GC algorithms. Choice of JVM vendors, including ones with real commercial support for your Billion dollar business application. Remote monitoring tools and consoles.
Pick the right tool for the right job.
How about an app for geotagging the lawns of older people who are unwelcoming of young people setting foot on their lawn? Call it the "get off my lawn" app.
> Coding is not computer science. Coding is a trade job like plumber, electrician, etc.
:-) It's all got something to do with a computer, right? And we can sell it, right?
While I agree with you. Marketing and management people might not.
No they do not. Cyberwarriers do not need to know how to code.
Mere coder peon jobs can be outsourced to the countries we are at cyberwar with.
What do you fail to grasp in the job title of Cyberwarrier? It is about good management skills, marketing and politics.
If we are going to teach our kids computer science, shouldn't one of the first subjects be on how they can best train their replacements in other countries when their jobs are outsourced?
Why would a kid want to pursue a career in computer science? Wouldn't it be a better career choice to become a lawyer, marketing insultant, MBA or politician?
No. Stop laughing. I am serious.
--
The pessimists are usually right because optimists are full of crap.
People publish things on the internet all the time that are for you to read, but not make a copy of. Not even download. That has been the intention of YouTube videos for ages, you can watch, but not download. (They may have given in to reality on that one recently.)
Yes, that is a very important question.
Oh, I'm sure a copyright troll could make a lot of arguments. Let me give it a try.
* I put that up there only for people to read.
* You can't tell me what the intention was, only I can tell you what my intention was
* If you saw a photo on the New York Times website, would you just assume it was intended for you to download?
etc, etc
The time and expense of a court battle, especially against someone acting in bad faith is not worth it. That's why it is best not to touch unlicensed code with a ten foot pole.
And, as you rightly point out, without a license, even if you can make a reasonable argument for downloading it, you definitely cannot copy, modify, distribute, or incorporate it into larger works.
So although your first words to my post were "Not True", it seems in practice that what I said is in fact true. You can't do anything of consequence with the code. It is questionable whether you even have the right to download it. It is very questionable whether you have "been given" the code, just because you see it on the web somewhere. So while you can make personal use of a copyrighted item you have been given, the author might not say they gave you anything. So now we're back to your first two words you replied to me: Not True. Really?
At least they passed a law. Now we'll have legal protection from being spied on in our living rooms and bedrooms just like how the constitution gives protection against unreasonable search by the NSA. I feel safer already. NOT.
> Quack Quack
Do you mean like Duck Typing?
> Quack Quack
Did you mean like Duck Typing?
Then really and truly I say: good for you!
You seem confused. The discussion was about code that the author did not put a license on. Not about code, like Windows 8, where the author DID put a license on it.
Here is an example.
Jane puts some code on GitHub, without any license.
John downloads that code and incorporates it into his successful commercial product.
After John is making money, Jane comes to sue John for infringing her copyright.
Jane wants a large chunk of John's profits.
John has no defense -- he is guilty of copyright infringement, he used code without a license from the author.
If the argument gets into the fact that Jane actually did upload the code, Jane could say that the license was implied, and John was only supposed to use it for personal use, or give credit in some particular way, or some other contrived issue. The dispute gets ugly because there is no license in writing. And this is the best case outcome.
Wouldn't it have been simpler for John to be smart enough not to touch unlicensed code with a ten foot pole?
If Jane really wanted people to use her code, wouldn't it have been smart to just slap some quick easy license on it like the BSD, or some other?
If people start using unlicensed code on a large scale, it is only a matter of time before some trolls, like Jane, start appearing.
I cannot say I am familiar with the laws of Europe. But if you had a license with a disclaimer, don't you think you might have avoided such an unreasonable lawsuit to begin with? Even if you do get compensated, it is a risk, it is a cost of your time -- and temporarily a cost of your money -- assuming you can actually afford your defense.
What do you mean 'is that what you want?'
If I offer open source code, I want everyone to be able to use it.
That is why I put a license on it. Without a license, anyone who uses it is infringing my copyright. I can sue them for exercising the rights that copyright gives exclusively to me and me alone.
The reason I put a license on it is to protect YOU, not to protect ME.
You ask how unlicensed use would be proven, and then you point out gpl-violations.org. But that is not precisely the same issue. What happened in the gpl-violations cases is that someone use code that DID HAVE a license, and exceeded the permissions given in that license (eg, distributing binary without also distributing source code).
'giving credit' is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the GPL or most other open source licenses.
Companies that benefit from unlicensed code are fools as much as companies that benefit by violating the licenses of licensed code. If they get caught, the liability could be very large. But go ahead. It's your future. You can also cheat on your taxes and hope the IRS doesn't catch you. Some murderers don't get caught. Some people who exceed the speed limit don't get caught. What's your argument about that some will take unlicensed code and use it? Yep, they will, and they have a ticking time bomb in their code.
> How the hell is the NSA supposed to keep track of all those people?!?!
It's just a typo. I'm sure they meant that the world population could reach 11 Million by 2100. (Million with an M, not Billion with a B.)