A relief well might be used temporarily to take pressure off the original well, so it can be capped, but that doesn't mean it will be maintained as a full time well, and likely not, as the goals is to make a quick, dirty well. Not to install a full time platform and rigging, which would take considerably longer to do. They will be doing this in weeks, and the normal schedule to just get permission takes longer than that.
For BP, "response effort" means "when the fuck can we start pumping again?"
I'm betting that they will never be pumping from that well ever again, and they likely know this. They are going to have to plug this hole up tight to make it stop leaking, and there is a trashed rig over the hole. It would be easier and cheaper to drill a new hole a few miles away.
In no way did I say (or think) it is a good idea, and I fully understand that if they open it up, or happen to hit a huge pocket of methane hydrate, then yes, the atmosphere is pretty screwed for human life. That doesn't change the fact that the Soviets used nukes previously in "creative ways". I simply pointed to one easy to find example, and there are others.
Once you start actually using weapons on people, that's when it becomes wrong.
No, once you MAKE the chemical weapon (or make the precursors, or attempt to), you have committed a crime, rightfully so. It isn't about terrorism, it is about public safety. I don't need some slack jawed self-taught chemist trying to make ricin in his basement next door to me. Chemical weapsons are not easy to create and contain safely without experience and an isolated location. If you need to make these chemicals and have the experience and facilities, then you should be able to get a permit to do so. If you are not qualified and have a reason (research, etc.) then no, you don't need to be making weapons of mass destruction. Your personal rights are trumped by the safety of the general public in these cases, for damn good reason: One easy to make mistake can kill or injure dozens or hundreds of people.
Same thing for me. My copy was actually HL + TFC, but they gave me HL: Blue Shift, and HL: Opposing Force, plus the non-Source mods CS and DoD and obviously non-Source DM mode of HL. It seems they "supersized" everyone who bought any version of the original HL. Actually, with the exception of a few odd bugs and odd game play quirks, Blue Shift and Opposing Force are actually pretty good games in the same universe. I wouldn't mind seeing them do something similar with Source, perhaps a HL: Citizen Resistance or something similar that takes place before Gordon came back. I'd pay 19.99 to 29.99 for that, no sweat.
Technically, no. SNAFU refers to a stituation that is Normal (but always All Fouled Up). GAU refers to the worst possible situtation that could be anticipated, ie: more fouled up than usual, and about as fouled up as your imagination can take you.
Yum (modern) isn't that bad, I haven't gotten into dependency hell in forever, although it is hard to beat the sheer volume of available software for Debian. I have put off doing a fully custom Deb for years now, party from being lazy, and partly from having my teeth cut on RedHat since version 4.0 way back before 95 came out. Using CentOS on the servers now even. Debian isn't trivial to completely setup the way you want, even for someone like me who works on Linux servers daily (via ssh) and has played on the desktop a fair amount. I am very comfy with Linux in a shell, no so much with swapping out Gnome, KDE, Ice, etc. I don't think Gnome or KDE could ever be trimmed enough for my needs. If you trim all the fat off a hawg, you are still left with a slightly leaner hawg.
You get the game free, forever, if you get your license now. Steam is actually pretty damn cool about licensing. When they first started Steam, I took my copy of Half Life from 1998 (original version) and moved it to my Steam account. I just downloaded the game, again, on my work computer, so it is installed on several systems, even though I bought it retail, not from Steam.
From my experience, they pretty damn good to deal with, and I have something 30+ games through them. Most of them bought at 50% to 75% off during their weekly sales. I'm 45, so even if the game is two years old, it is still new to me. I don't need to buy the same week it comes out. I'm waiting for Bioshock 2 to go on sale right now, or at least a free week long pass. They do lots of those.
And according to the Steam client itself, if you get the free Portal, you can download and play for Mac or PC, or both. They flatly say that they will do that for all games, so if it has a PC, Mac and Linux versions, you can buy it once and download it on all 3 different systems at no extra fee. One more reason I love giving these guys my money.
I could tell that the original article the other day wasn't real in a glance, and I wonder why THAT found a way through. It clearly didn't have the spit and polish that a real presentation would have, nor the overall look and feel. Also being in marketing, I find it hard to believe a real marketing department would be stupid enough to come up with a campaign about "net brutality" and thinking that it would "play in Peoria".
In fact, I think I'm going to write a new app. It will take Ubuntu, select and assemble random packages from it, randomly design a desktop background, toss it all together and give it a random name. Then I can make a bunch of new distros too!
Cool! Got a link for a torrent?
On a more serious note, Ubuntu leaves me frustrated and simply is too much software. I like the look ok, but want simple access to root (and a root that actually works as "root"), less fluff and more speed. Of course, much of the speed problem (ie: how fast apps START) is more of a kernel issue. We don't necessarily need more distros, but it would be nice to have a supported distro that met in the middle of what we have now: Not too much, not too little, easy to install apps using yum, etc.
I want an operating system that is designed to run my applications fast. What I don't want is an operating system that is "cool", has "cool features", spends resources to look "cool", or has any "cool" to it in any way. This is one reason I hate Windows 7: even more fluff than XP and runs everything slower. I want Windows 95 simple but with a better kernel and security, and no "extra" features. Linux (and temporarily WINE) *should* be able to do this, but no distro seems to have gotten that right yet. Too much fluff.
Thanks for the detail info, that is one of the nuances of the GPL that isn't obvious at first glance. I still have one problem that you are free to ignore if it doesn't interest you, but the issue seems real, even if unlikely. Here is the oversimplification to be perfectly clear in my meaning:
Bill writes a program and gives only Alice the binaries but no source. Bill has included a copy of the GPL license with the binaries and it is obviously GPL licensed. One year later, Alice needs to modify the source, and asks Bill to comply with GPL 2, 3(b) and provide a copy. Bill says he changed his mind about the license and it is now closed source and refuses to give Alice a copy of the source. He offers to sell her a restricted copy for $50,000 instead.
Bill can't relicense the copy he gave to Alice after he has already distributed it, that would be taking away Alice's right to redistribute under her current GPL licensed copy. He can change the license on FUTURE copies that HE distributes only, but he can never "unlicense" a copy that has knowingly and deliberately distributed under the GPL in a retroactive way. (This would be true regardless of the license, even Microsoft only changes the license with click through updates that you can refuse) Alice is metaphorically held hostage if she can't take legal action against Bill for refusing to comply with the GPL. Even though she is not the owner of the copyright, she can show she has been harmed by Bill's refusal to comply with the license of the software she received.
While not a common situation, the more the GPL gets used, particularly on smaller 'for hire' projects, the more likely this situation could occur. Perhaps the program made Alice $1M on her servers, and Bill just wants a cut, the reason doesn't matter. While it is easy to say "always get the source when you get the binaries", it is easy to overlook on a busy project when you hear "I will send it in the mail next week" and you aren't expecting to make changes any time soon.
I think you meant GPL2 3(b), but I stand corrected. You have to make a written offer valid for 3 years from the date of your original distribution. I am not sure how this would be enforced if the first party is the original author, as the only person who can legally force the first party to comply is the copyright owner, (such as in this current discussion). I'm not even sure how you could prove the date of the original distribution (1st party to 2nd party), making this a difficult provision to enforce. It can't possibly mean 3 years from the distribution from 2nd party to 3rd party, as that could take place 5 years after the 1st party to 2nd party distribution.
This means that *technically*, the original author can be in violation of his own license, by simply refusing to provide source to a third party.
The disappearance of the belt comes at a time of widespread - but mysterious - change on Jupiter, which has seen changes to the colour of other bands and spots in its atmosphere. "There has been a lot going on," Orton says.
But is there a monolith floating around Jupiter now?
...and how much energy you have to spend to get it compressed enough so that a given volume has a similar energy density as hydrocarbon, making it a viable replacement.
I'm pretty sure that "having access" is not the same as "distributed to". If it is used internally in any organization, the IT dept. would "have access", for instance. The GPL only covers distribution, and if they are only using it within the organization (even if in different buildings or cities) then the GPL never comes into effect.
Best example is Google, who has many data centers, thousands of tech's who have access, running GPL code on tens of thousands of boxen. They never have to release kernel modifications at those locations because they aren't "distributing" the code, just using it within their own organization, in many different locations. They are NOT "distributing" it to those locations or anyone else, so the GPL never comes into play.
And the organization CAN make it a requirement that you never release any code that you are being paid to produce, even if it is for a program under the GPL. You don't own the code you produce for pay, the company does. Even if you own the original code, you don't own the changes (unless contract says otherwise) so you wouldn't have the authority or ownership to release any changes to the original base code, and technically, those changes are NOT forced to be licensed under the GPL until you distribute them. If you never distribute them, and then replace all previous GPL code with proprietary code, then it can be distributed under any license you wish, even though you developed it (but didn't distribute it) using GPL code.
The GPL doesn't restrict USAGE, only distribution. As to usage, it says you don't need a license to use it unrestricted, and this includes using it as a base for other programs under a different license as long as you remove the GPL portions before distributing.
Uh.. how do you work that out? One person using it at a time, one set of support costs.
Updates downloaded twice, not once, doubling the cost for bandwidth. If they provide a server, Player #1 plays for 6 months and gets bored, sells it, Player #2 plays for 6 months, effectively doubling the server load if only a single person had bought it. (using averages, the effect is literally 100% linear increase in load) Not all support issues are doubled, but their net cost to support (depending on the game) is higher when the game is resold. While these expenses are not tremendous, neither is the $10 fee, and the games would still be single player playable without the extra support. Again, this *could* be abused, but it could also be done to provide good value, depending on how it is implimented. EA's method seems pretty reasonable since it includes a trial period and the price is relatively low.
Now if they made it where you had to pay the $10 to even PLAY the game, then that would be an issue. And it might be with multiplayer only games.
I believe that an "oral contract", as it is called in the US, is never considered valid for longer than one year, and is hard to enforce as the two people often disagree as to the content of the agreement.
There is also an old expression here in the states: "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."
Someone else answered it in a long fashion, but to put it short: You only have to provide the source code to those entities you provided the binaries to, NOT the general public. Otherwise would create an undue burden on the original programmers.
If you make Program A, give me a copy with source, and I sell the binaries for $10 each (or just hand them a disk free), you are NOT responsible for providing the source code to those customers, *I* am, and you would have the legal right to force me to give them the source code since *I* distributed the binaries. I don't have to provide a copy of the source to anyone else, only those I gave/sold the original binaries to.
I would have to disagree, and add that this might actually be a good thing. They are offering extra content for the $10, not requiring it to buy the used game. You can still play the game without the extra content. Obviously, this system can be abused, but the idea itself isn't bad and may be a way where games are offering MORE to the original purchasers, and re-buyers can get the same extras for a small fee.
Keep in mind, that they owe patches, updates only to the original purchaser, and technically, they don't even owe that. Support isn't free (downloads, hosting servers, etc.) and when a game is sold to someone else, it effectively doubles the amount of support they had built into the original price. If done right, this would be a reasonable way to offer longer support and *still make a profit* while not mucking up the used market, since the used games are still 100% playable without the extra support.
The key to this is the buyer understanding what they get (EA is offering a free trial) before they plunk down an extra $10. For some, it will be worth it, for others, not so.
Slashdot Mirror
A relief well might be used temporarily to take pressure off the original well, so it can be capped, but that doesn't mean it will be maintained as a full time well, and likely not, as the goals is to make a quick, dirty well. Not to install a full time platform and rigging, which would take considerably longer to do. They will be doing this in weeks, and the normal schedule to just get permission takes longer than that.
For BP, "response effort" means "when the fuck can we start pumping again?"
I'm betting that they will never be pumping from that well ever again, and they likely know this. They are going to have to plug this hole up tight to make it stop leaking, and there is a trashed rig over the hole. It would be easier and cheaper to drill a new hole a few miles away.
In no way did I say (or think) it is a good idea, and I fully understand that if they open it up, or happen to hit a huge pocket of methane hydrate, then yes, the atmosphere is pretty screwed for human life. That doesn't change the fact that the Soviets used nukes previously in "creative ways". I simply pointed to one easy to find example, and there are others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_nuclear_explosions#Soviet_Union:_Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy, although it isn't heavily cited. I have heard of such a thing, and have no problems believing the Soviets used nukes for this. When the only tool you have is a hammer....
Once you start actually using weapons on people, that's when it becomes wrong.
No, once you MAKE the chemical weapon (or make the precursors, or attempt to), you have committed a crime, rightfully so. It isn't about terrorism, it is about public safety. I don't need some slack jawed self-taught chemist trying to make ricin in his basement next door to me. Chemical weapsons are not easy to create and contain safely without experience and an isolated location. If you need to make these chemicals and have the experience and facilities, then you should be able to get a permit to do so. If you are not qualified and have a reason (research, etc.) then no, you don't need to be making weapons of mass destruction. Your personal rights are trumped by the safety of the general public in these cases, for damn good reason: One easy to make mistake can kill or injure dozens or hundreds of people.
Is that in Imperial or Metric?
First one, then the other.
Same thing for me. My copy was actually HL + TFC, but they gave me HL: Blue Shift, and HL: Opposing Force, plus the non-Source mods CS and DoD and obviously non-Source DM mode of HL. It seems they "supersized" everyone who bought any version of the original HL. Actually, with the exception of a few odd bugs and odd game play quirks, Blue Shift and Opposing Force are actually pretty good games in the same universe. I wouldn't mind seeing them do something similar with Source, perhaps a HL: Citizen Resistance or something similar that takes place before Gordon came back. I'd pay 19.99 to 29.99 for that, no sweat.
so a GAU is a SNAFU?
Technically, no. SNAFU refers to a stituation that is Normal (but always All Fouled Up). GAU refers to the worst possible situtation that could be anticipated, ie: more fouled up than usual, and about as fouled up as your imagination can take you.
NT4?
Let me clarify: *with* basic plug and play capability.
Yum (modern) isn't that bad, I haven't gotten into dependency hell in forever, although it is hard to beat the sheer volume of available software for Debian. I have put off doing a fully custom Deb for years now, party from being lazy, and partly from having my teeth cut on RedHat since version 4.0 way back before 95 came out. Using CentOS on the servers now even. Debian isn't trivial to completely setup the way you want, even for someone like me who works on Linux servers daily (via ssh) and has played on the desktop a fair amount. I am very comfy with Linux in a shell, no so much with swapping out Gnome, KDE, Ice, etc. I don't think Gnome or KDE could ever be trimmed enough for my needs. If you trim all the fat off a hawg, you are still left with a slightly leaner hawg.
Why not make it an 8.3 fileystem and get it over with. :-P
Because Microsoft willl charge you $0.25 per unit sold up to a max of $250,000 per license, assuming you meant FAT's 8.3 system.
You get the game free, forever, if you get your license now. Steam is actually pretty damn cool about licensing. When they first started Steam, I took my copy of Half Life from 1998 (original version) and moved it to my Steam account. I just downloaded the game, again, on my work computer, so it is installed on several systems, even though I bought it retail, not from Steam.
From my experience, they pretty damn good to deal with, and I have something 30+ games through them. Most of them bought at 50% to 75% off during their weekly sales. I'm 45, so even if the game is two years old, it is still new to me. I don't need to buy the same week it comes out. I'm waiting for Bioshock 2 to go on sale right now, or at least a free week long pass. They do lots of those.
And according to the Steam client itself, if you get the free Portal, you can download and play for Mac or PC, or both. They flatly say that they will do that for all games, so if it has a PC, Mac and Linux versions, you can buy it once and download it on all 3 different systems at no extra fee. One more reason I love giving these guys my money.
Works just fine, perhaps it was just /.'ed. It takes you to http://store.steampowered.com/app/400. And yes, it is free until the 24th.
I could tell that the original article the other day wasn't real in a glance, and I wonder why THAT found a way through. It clearly didn't have the spit and polish that a real presentation would have, nor the overall look and feel. Also being in marketing, I find it hard to believe a real marketing department would be stupid enough to come up with a campaign about "net brutality" and thinking that it would "play in Peoria".
In fact, I think I'm going to write a new app. It will take Ubuntu, select and assemble random packages from it, randomly design a desktop background, toss it all together and give it a random name. Then I can make a bunch of new distros too!
Cool! Got a link for a torrent?
On a more serious note, Ubuntu leaves me frustrated and simply is too much software. I like the look ok, but want simple access to root (and a root that actually works as "root"), less fluff and more speed. Of course, much of the speed problem (ie: how fast apps START) is more of a kernel issue. We don't necessarily need more distros, but it would be nice to have a supported distro that met in the middle of what we have now: Not too much, not too little, easy to install apps using yum, etc.
I want an operating system that is designed to run my applications fast. What I don't want is an operating system that is "cool", has "cool features", spends resources to look "cool", or has any "cool" to it in any way. This is one reason I hate Windows 7: even more fluff than XP and runs everything slower. I want Windows 95 simple but with a better kernel and security, and no "extra" features. Linux (and temporarily WINE) *should* be able to do this, but no distro seems to have gotten that right yet. Too much fluff.
Thanks for the detail info, that is one of the nuances of the GPL that isn't obvious at first glance. I still have one problem that you are free to ignore if it doesn't interest you, but the issue seems real, even if unlikely. Here is the oversimplification to be perfectly clear in my meaning:
Bill writes a program and gives only Alice the binaries but no source. Bill has included a copy of the GPL license with the binaries and it is obviously GPL licensed. One year later, Alice needs to modify the source, and asks Bill to comply with GPL 2, 3(b) and provide a copy. Bill says he changed his mind about the license and it is now closed source and refuses to give Alice a copy of the source. He offers to sell her a restricted copy for $50,000 instead.
Bill can't relicense the copy he gave to Alice after he has already distributed it, that would be taking away Alice's right to redistribute under her current GPL licensed copy. He can change the license on FUTURE copies that HE distributes only, but he can never "unlicense" a copy that has knowingly and deliberately distributed under the GPL in a retroactive way. (This would be true regardless of the license, even Microsoft only changes the license with click through updates that you can refuse) Alice is metaphorically held hostage if she can't take legal action against Bill for refusing to comply with the GPL. Even though she is not the owner of the copyright, she can show she has been harmed by Bill's refusal to comply with the license of the software she received.
While not a common situation, the more the GPL gets used, particularly on smaller 'for hire' projects, the more likely this situation could occur. Perhaps the program made Alice $1M on her servers, and Bill just wants a cut, the reason doesn't matter. While it is easy to say "always get the source when you get the binaries", it is easy to overlook on a busy project when you hear "I will send it in the mail next week" and you aren't expecting to make changes any time soon.
Academic, perhaps, but troublesome. Thanks.
I think you meant GPL2 3(b), but I stand corrected. You have to make a written offer valid for 3 years from the date of your original distribution. I am not sure how this would be enforced if the first party is the original author, as the only person who can legally force the first party to comply is the copyright owner, (such as in this current discussion). I'm not even sure how you could prove the date of the original distribution (1st party to 2nd party), making this a difficult provision to enforce. It can't possibly mean 3 years from the distribution from 2nd party to 3rd party, as that could take place 5 years after the 1st party to 2nd party distribution.
This means that *technically*, the original author can be in violation of his own license, by simply refusing to provide source to a third party.
The disappearance of the belt comes at a time of widespread - but mysterious - change on Jupiter, which has seen changes to the colour of other bands and spots in its atmosphere. "There has been a lot going on," Orton says.
But is there a monolith floating around Jupiter now?
...and how much energy you have to spend to get it compressed enough so that a given volume has a similar energy density as hydrocarbon, making it a viable replacement.
My laser vasectomy took 15 minutes, didn't hurt, had no side effects, and was covered under basic medical.
Also, frickin' laser beams.
But was it performed by a shark?
I'm pretty sure that "having access" is not the same as "distributed to". If it is used internally in any organization, the IT dept. would "have access", for instance. The GPL only covers distribution, and if they are only using it within the organization (even if in different buildings or cities) then the GPL never comes into effect.
Best example is Google, who has many data centers, thousands of tech's who have access, running GPL code on tens of thousands of boxen. They never have to release kernel modifications at those locations because they aren't "distributing" the code, just using it within their own organization, in many different locations. They are NOT "distributing" it to those locations or anyone else, so the GPL never comes into play.
And the organization CAN make it a requirement that you never release any code that you are being paid to produce, even if it is for a program under the GPL. You don't own the code you produce for pay, the company does. Even if you own the original code, you don't own the changes (unless contract says otherwise) so you wouldn't have the authority or ownership to release any changes to the original base code, and technically, those changes are NOT forced to be licensed under the GPL until you distribute them. If you never distribute them, and then replace all previous GPL code with proprietary code, then it can be distributed under any license you wish, even though you developed it (but didn't distribute it) using GPL code.
The GPL doesn't restrict USAGE, only distribution. As to usage, it says you don't need a license to use it unrestricted, and this includes using it as a base for other programs under a different license as long as you remove the GPL portions before distributing.
Uh.. how do you work that out? One person using it at a time, one set of support costs.
Updates downloaded twice, not once, doubling the cost for bandwidth. If they provide a server, Player #1 plays for 6 months and gets bored, sells it, Player #2 plays for 6 months, effectively doubling the server load if only a single person had bought it. (using averages, the effect is literally 100% linear increase in load) Not all support issues are doubled, but their net cost to support (depending on the game) is higher when the game is resold. While these expenses are not tremendous, neither is the $10 fee, and the games would still be single player playable without the extra support. Again, this *could* be abused, but it could also be done to provide good value, depending on how it is implimented. EA's method seems pretty reasonable since it includes a trial period and the price is relatively low.
Now if they made it where you had to pay the $10 to even PLAY the game, then that would be an issue. And it might be with multiplayer only games.
I believe that an "oral contract", as it is called in the US, is never considered valid for longer than one year, and is hard to enforce as the two people often disagree as to the content of the agreement.
There is also an old expression here in the states: "An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."
Someone else answered it in a long fashion, but to put it short: You only have to provide the source code to those entities you provided the binaries to, NOT the general public. Otherwise would create an undue burden on the original programmers.
If you make Program A, give me a copy with source, and I sell the binaries for $10 each (or just hand them a disk free), you are NOT responsible for providing the source code to those customers, *I* am, and you would have the legal right to force me to give them the source code since *I* distributed the binaries. I don't have to provide a copy of the source to anyone else, only those I gave/sold the original binaries to.
I would have to disagree, and add that this might actually be a good thing. They are offering extra content for the $10, not requiring it to buy the used game. You can still play the game without the extra content. Obviously, this system can be abused, but the idea itself isn't bad and may be a way where games are offering MORE to the original purchasers, and re-buyers can get the same extras for a small fee.
Keep in mind, that they owe patches, updates only to the original purchaser, and technically, they don't even owe that. Support isn't free (downloads, hosting servers, etc.) and when a game is sold to someone else, it effectively doubles the amount of support they had built into the original price. If done right, this would be a reasonable way to offer longer support and *still make a profit* while not mucking up the used market, since the used games are still 100% playable without the extra support.
The key to this is the buyer understanding what they get (EA is offering a free trial) before they plunk down an extra $10. For some, it will be worth it, for others, not so.