You don't need to force people to provide source code when you're free to decompile their code, modify it as you please, and redistribute your modified version without fear of copyright. It's precisely the tradeoff that's wanted: more work on our side, but complete freedom to do what we want.
I believe the (not inconsistent) position is that copyright is bad for society. So the GPL exploits the flaws of copyright in order to make the flaws in copyright extremely painful (or impossible) for others to exploit. In the event that copyright is abolished, then the GPL becomes both unenforceable and unnecessary at the same time.
What you're missing is the copyright on the GPL itself. You can't just willy nilly make your own derivative GPL. You could make up a whole new license, though, with similar principles.
Actually, the long term evidence on sampling is pretty bad. Sampling gets stuff pretty wrong, usually due to difficult to foresee flaws in the sampling methodology.
Hey, we here in the US need a lot more kids to fund our retirements. Current estimate is the government is only going to be paying me 74c on the dollar, and frankly, I doubt by the time I get the real number it will be even 25c on the dollar.
Manjula: Apu, they're doing it again.
[the babies begin to wrestle with one another] Apu: Okay, okay, break it up. [gently breaks up the
fight by nudging the babies with his foot]
None of the big developers use sdl/ogl because the drivers are crap. ALso, OGL is less than ideal in terms of the actual api. SDL was tolerable the last time I looked.
Suppose ford knowingly violated that patent, seeking to screw over toyota (or to make this ethics lesson more palatable, small time inventor Mr. Brown). You buy a ford to enjoy abusing mr. brown. Now you've done business with a patent violator. It's a bit like receiving stolen goods, in fact, if you think about it, it's pretty much exactly like receiving stolen goods. You're busted for not doing due diligence about who you're doing business with. If Ford can't be trusted not to steal patents, you should have insisted on a legal defense clause in your contract when you bought a car from them.
The patent holder has no responsibility to defend the patent. That's trademarks. Patents are completely capriciously enforceable. If MS wanted to, they could pursue a suit against you and only you for the linux patent violations, and that would be perfectly legal. (assuming you're a linux user, and the patent claims are valid).
Rewriting the code is great for future infringement, but does nothing to protect everyone currently using linux from their past infringements, not to mention everyone who has shipped non upgradeable hardware running a fixed version of linux or uclinux.
That's very true. But it's not terribly hard to design systems such that the failure rate is guaranteed either to be noticeable, or so low as to be unlikely in the history of the universe. The notion that aliens got here, but then suffered the even less likely failure of their equipment, and that's how we met them is pretty preposterous.
It would be quite a bit more plausible that we shot them down. It's much harder to design equipment which is explosion resistant.
That's why when it becomes cheap enough to design with redundancy you do so. Hence 4 legged tables that have an essentially zero failure rate operating within their expected tolerances. (Note that it is entirely plausible the alien craft could have been shot down, that's parallel to putting elephants on the tables).
It will not be hard to design a system in which the worst case failure of our cars will be that one wheel computer goes crazy, and a similar failure of one of the 3 redundant governing systems results in a 2 out of 3 vote to disable the wheel entirely, and bring the vehicle to a safe stop.
It's all a matter of cost, and putting such computers in cars is already almost cheap enough (more and more high end cars are already getting accident avoidance systems of various kinds). I would personally bet that widespread adoption of such systems is less than 20 years away, and adoption of redundant systems is less than 40 years away. Just like airbags became mandatory, I would place a bet on such systems being mandatory in new cars in the 2057 model year. At that point, accidents should essentially be impossible, as the car will not allow you to drive it in a way that it cannot recover safely from (not allowing you to endanger others).
There's little reason to believe that our computer controlled cars will be capable of crashing in 50 years, much less so by the time we can build an interstellar craft capable of carrying crew.
The traditional way to undo bad moderation is to post non anonymously to the moderated topic. Slashdot doesn't allow both moderation and posting in the same topic, so your moderation gets undone. Unless this has changed in the last month.
Diablo 2 will make use of up to 8 cores. (Not that it will scale linearly, but it will get faster, of course, it being so far out of date these days means that it's already so fast you won't care).
Even the most cpu intensive games tend to spend very little time in React(), and even if you do, partitioning that for loop and multithreading it tends to be trivially parallelizable.
The real difficulty in multithreading games is multithreading the render phase. That's most of your CPU and GPU time, and it's hard to make parallel on the CPU side.
Suppose something goes disastrously wrong that makes the planet unlivable for hundreds of years as a result of your terraforming efforts. On mars, that's an unfortunate consequence, on earth, not so good. If we're going to practice some serious terraforming techniques, I'd prefer we practice on a different planet.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need to force people to provide source code when you're free to decompile their code, modify it as you please, and redistribute your modified version without fear of copyright.
It's precisely the tradeoff that's wanted: more work on our side, but complete freedom to do what we want.
Then you're not doing it willy nilly, you're doing it within their licensing regime, and complying with their terms.
I believe the (not inconsistent) position is that copyright is bad for society. So the GPL exploits the flaws of copyright in order to make the flaws in copyright extremely painful (or impossible) for others to exploit. In the event that copyright is abolished, then the GPL becomes both unenforceable and unnecessary at the same time.
What you're missing is the copyright on the GPL itself.
You can't just willy nilly make your own derivative GPL.
You could make up a whole new license, though, with similar principles.
At age 20, you've likely used up a third of your child having years. Better get cracking.
Actually, the long term evidence on sampling is pretty bad. Sampling gets stuff pretty wrong, usually due to difficult to foresee flaws in the sampling methodology.
Hey, we here in the US need a lot more kids to fund our retirements. Current estimate is the government is only going to be paying me 74c on the dollar, and frankly, I doubt by the time I get the real number it will be even 25c on the dollar.
ObSimpsons:
Manjula: Apu, they're doing it again.
[the babies begin to wrestle with one another]
Apu: Okay, okay, break it up. [gently breaks up the
fight by nudging the babies with his foot]
Underscores are an unfortunate reach on most keyboards, and generally require two fingers and both hands to type.
Interestingly enough, I had no difficulty reading your camel humps, which would be difficult for uniform cased variables.
Overrated on unmoderated parent?
None of the big developers use sdl/ogl because the drivers are crap. ALso, OGL is less than ideal in terms of the actual api. SDL was tolerable the last time I looked.
Fabricate? Well la-tee-dah mister fancy pants. I had to arrange the molecules of my computing device by hand, and it's a difference engine!
Actually, scientific research has proven that a little bit of lying is good for the public welfare. The question is really: is this too much lying?
o ff&client=firefox-a&q=benefits+lying&btnG=Search
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=
Suppose ford knowingly violated that patent, seeking to screw over toyota (or to make this ethics lesson more palatable, small time inventor Mr. Brown). You buy a ford to enjoy abusing mr. brown. Now you've done business with a patent violator. It's a bit like receiving stolen goods, in fact, if you think about it, it's pretty much exactly like receiving stolen goods. You're busted for not doing due diligence about who you're doing business with. If Ford can't be trusted not to steal patents, you should have insisted on a legal defense clause in your contract when you bought a car from them.
The patent holder has no responsibility to defend the patent. That's trademarks.
Patents are completely capriciously enforceable. If MS wanted to, they could pursue a suit against you and only you for the linux patent violations, and that would be perfectly legal. (assuming you're a linux user, and the patent claims are valid).
Rewriting the code is great for future infringement, but does nothing to protect everyone currently using linux from their past infringements, not to mention everyone who has shipped non upgradeable hardware running a fixed version of linux or uclinux.
That's very true. But it's not terribly hard to design systems such that the failure rate is guaranteed either to be noticeable, or so low as to be unlikely in the history of the universe. The notion that aliens got here, but then suffered the even less likely failure of their equipment, and that's how we met them is pretty preposterous.
It would be quite a bit more plausible that we shot them down. It's much harder to design equipment which is explosion resistant.
That's why when it becomes cheap enough to design with redundancy you do so. Hence 4 legged tables that have an essentially zero failure rate operating within their expected tolerances. (Note that it is entirely plausible the alien craft could have been shot down, that's parallel to putting elephants on the tables).
It will not be hard to design a system in which the worst case failure of our cars will be that one wheel computer goes crazy, and a similar failure of one of the 3 redundant governing systems results in a 2 out of 3 vote to disable the wheel entirely, and bring the vehicle to a safe stop.
It's all a matter of cost, and putting such computers in cars is already almost cheap enough (more and more high end cars are already getting accident avoidance systems of various kinds). I would personally bet that widespread adoption of such systems is less than 20 years away, and adoption of redundant systems is less than 40 years away. Just like airbags became mandatory, I would place a bet on such systems being mandatory in new cars in the 2057 model year. At that point, accidents should essentially be impossible, as the car will not allow you to drive it in a way that it cannot recover safely from (not allowing you to endanger others).
There's little reason to believe that our computer controlled cars will be capable of crashing in 50 years, much less so by the time we can build an interstellar craft capable of carrying crew.
The traditional way to undo bad moderation is to post non anonymously to the moderated topic.
Slashdot doesn't allow both moderation and posting in the same topic, so your moderation gets undone.
Unless this has changed in the last month.
Diablo 2 will make use of up to 8 cores. (Not that it will scale linearly, but it will get faster, of course, it being so far out of date these days means that it's already so fast you won't care).
Even the most cpu intensive games tend to spend very little time in React(), and even if you do, partitioning that for loop and multithreading it tends to be trivially parallelizable.
The real difficulty in multithreading games is multithreading the render phase. That's most of your CPU and GPU time, and it's hard to make parallel on the CPU side.
Suppose something goes disastrously wrong that makes the planet unlivable for hundreds of years as a result of your terraforming efforts. On mars, that's an unfortunate consequence, on earth, not so good. If we're going to practice some serious terraforming techniques, I'd prefer we practice on a different planet.
You're thinking too small. One moon of jupiter will do the job of all those combined times ten, and requires only one mission.