Problem here is that he seemed to be (to me) to be "deliberately overstating for effect," and for some odd reason unwilling to admit it. I remember this funny phrase I heard once: "Man, that guy did a 180 so fast it was almost a 360". Obviously figurative, but funny.
"AMD's stock is so untrustable right now, if you invest you might actually end up owing/them/ money."
Um. Well, yeah, he really did kind of overlook that you pointed out future profit potentials in the very post he was contradicting.
But to keep up the Slashdot ritual, how are we to interpret the meaning of negative stock value? You invest, and then you owe money? I'm not even sure what that metaphor is supposed to represent.
Windows makes me cranky. But this post is a bit idiotic: all one usually has to do to get going is to make sure you have current/network/ drivers. From there, everything is mostly automatic, unless you're a purist, in which case you do need to do some surfing to get latest patch revs that are forward of what Windows update is servicing.
Yeah. Truly, I don't know what the right answer is.
At least we have the cable and telephone companies competing for broadband now. When both Verizon (FIOS) and AT&T (U-Verse) start winning away cable customers in droves, the cable companies will have to react. You'd think, anyway.
An Ex Post Facto law is one that seeks to punish parties for things that they did, when they were legal to do them. Retroactive immunity is not one of the use cases covered by Section 9.
Well. Cable companies are still monopolies, because they will not willingly compete with each other, even when they are permitted. Only the government intervention of separating video from voice (cable vs. phone) and then later allowing those two to compete created that set of competitive elements.
There are very many areas in the country where cable companies are permitted to compete with each other, but simply do not. They don't, because they run their little calculators, and conclude that if the customer density becomes mixed, then both cable companies lose.
"The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom." -- H. L. Mencken
That's a fine and fair insight, but the assumption is broader than wisdom. It's inclusive of aggression. Presumably, now, a "youthful" 200 year old person has testosterone levels similar to a youthful person as well, but I don't think it's testosterone alone that dictates aggression, do you?
Who would serve in the army, in the land of the Immortals?
Anyway, the presumption I argue against is the presumption that "things would be the same," and that seems very unlikely to me.
To characterize the field as having researchers is itself a bit deceptive. Mr. de Grey himself would be tickled to death if we as a society were not neglecting the world's #1 cause of death, and is only really doing it all for this reason.
I'd say he's more interested in drumming up support for The Cause than anything else.
Except this wouldn't be labor scarcity, but labor glut, and the traditional recourse for that has been war. -------------
You are presuming a great deal here. The most obviously erroneous of your assumptions is the assumption that a youthful two hundred year old person would have the same impulsive stupidity of a youthful twenty year old.
You mean supposing that we repaired the already existing process of forgetting? How old are you? Tell me as much as you can from the year in your life that is twenty years ago.
We'll soon all be like Mac fanboys in the 90's, gleefully awaiting he next Photoshop benchmark from Apple, and talking about how fast our Mac's will be.
I think they are awaiting more common adoption of HT3.0. I know that their is a type of HT "slot" that looks just a bit like a PCIe8x. You'd think they'd have done this by now, at least for some supercomputer or something.
I think the advances are going to come from finding ways to avoid thread synchronization.
This has been understood for ages in the supercomputing business, where the number of "threads" running at any given time can be in the many thousands these days. If you use synchronization in those environments, you lose. So yah, good guess.
I agree with your perspective, and live in California. I think these agreements should be legal in all states, but only at the executive level, and perhaps at the professional level if the company is serious enough to make certain the professional be represented by their own attorney.
Anyway, I digress. It is ordinary for the person being offered such an agreement to request pay for the non-compete period.
I knew someone once who had that kind of agreement draw up. Later, the company, a large one, sort of forgot about it. There was a layoff.
See where this is going?
They tried to un-lay him off, half-heartedly.
No go.
Nice long paid vacation. He worked in an adjacent field for a while.:-)
However, it does still seem to me that not providing the third would revoke the distributor's rights under the first agreement automatically per Section 8 of the original agreement.
Oh, it certainly would! But it would be the first party's obligation to see to that. They're the only party with standing (unless they would care to assign their rights to the FSF...).
if a distributor says they are not granting them a copy under the GPL then their license under the first agreement is automatically revoked.
Well, yes. But any behavior to the contrary can only be seen to in the court, first and second parties present. Or:
The court of public opinion, which as you may have noticed, actually works pretty well when these GPL violations come up. Bad press, eh.
BTW, when I say "only party with standing," that isn't quite correct. Copyright violations of certain types, when willful, are a crime. In a pig's eye will you get the State to take notice in situations like this (tricky, the "willful" thing), however in such circumstances the State is a technical first party to the case.
So to some extent, you're right, to really enforce things at the end,
Not to some extent. For the entire extent.
It's when they don't acknowledge the second agreement exists that a copyright holder must get involved.
You're imagining the existence of an "implied" second agreement. There is no such "implied" agreement.
It's not an "acknowledgment" that is is required, but rather an express written offering of a replication of the original agreement, for the derivative work. If they don't expressly offer this, in written terms, it exists by no means.
It isn't between the company and the end user, and no, you are not right.
The agreement is between the owner of the original intellectual property and the author of the derivative work. If the author of the derivative work elects to take advantage of the GPL and make their own offer, according to the GPL's requirements, that's a different matter. If they do not, then it is below:
You are right about the copyright issue; taking some else's source code and saying you knew you didn't have an agreement with them is not only a civil tort under copyright law, it could be construed as criminal infringement. This is why most GPL violations are tied up faster than you can say "settle". The infringers fancy they don't look good in stripes.:-)
Copyright law cannot require them to provide source code; however the terms of the license can, and therefore one particular possible outcome of court action for the GPL is requiring this company to provide the source to the public. IOW, yes, it really is true that a court can make a party of a contract do what they said they were going to do.
I have a raised floor for the sole purpose of air flow. 2800cfm with minimal obstructions.
Yah. If I did have a raised floor, that's exactly what I would do: for the sole purpose of air, with all cables and wires overhead. I'd not do the raised floor now, though.
I would instead have "two rooms". One room, the room you have. The other room, would be fully inside the first room. The racks would back into this room. All heat evacuation would occur in this room. For larger facilities, you repeat this procedure several times, and it's not strictly necessary for your cooler stuff.
This is like APC's hot aisle containment system, but without the APC gear prices. Drywall is/cheap/. To make this work properly, you do have to have the luxury of rolling in and locking down your racks (with blanking panels) in advance.
Did you check the allowable total load on your floor for the number of high density racks you are using, or are you just using a few? We have a client who's floors can easily handle a few 3800 pound racks, but not 100.:-)
The "guy who installed the floor"? Was he an engineer? To be fair, steel is incredibly strong. Lots of times, a little steel box can hold several cars of weight. Anyway, luckily you are on concrete, eh.
I wouldn't pick a raised floor these days, myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem here is that he seemed to be (to me) to be "deliberately overstating for effect," and for some odd reason unwilling to admit it. I remember this funny phrase I heard once: "Man, that guy did a 180 so fast it was almost a 360". Obviously figurative, but funny.
"AMD's stock is so untrustable right now, if you invest you might actually end up owing /them/ money."
That would be funny, but obviously untrue.
Oh well.
C//
Intel is designing "better" chips at the moment, where "better" is defined as the chips buyers want to buy. That is the problem.
It's no longer an issue of buyers not buying AMD because they don't know AMD is better. It's an issue, largely, of them knowing AMD is not better.
Don't get me wrong. I am an AMD investor. I wish it weren't true.
C//
Um. Well, yeah, he really did kind of overlook that you pointed out future profit potentials in the very post he was contradicting.
But to keep up the Slashdot ritual, how are we to interpret the meaning of negative stock value? You invest, and then you owe money? I'm not even sure what that metaphor is supposed to represent.
C//
Well.
Windows makes me cranky. But this post is a bit idiotic: all one usually has to do to get going is to make sure you have current /network/ drivers. From there, everything is mostly automatic, unless you're a purist, in which case you do need to do some surfing to get latest patch revs that are forward of what Windows update is servicing.
C//
Yeah. Truly, I don't know what the right answer is.
At least we have the cable and telephone companies competing for broadband now. When both Verizon (FIOS) and AT&T (U-Verse) start winning away cable customers in droves, the cable companies will have to react. You'd think, anyway.
C//
An Ex Post Facto law is one that seeks to punish parties for things that they did, when they were legal to do them. Retroactive immunity is not one of the use cases covered by Section 9.
C//
Decades?
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Benjamin Franklin.
Well. Cable companies are still monopolies, because they will not willingly compete with each other, even when they are permitted. Only the government intervention of separating video from voice (cable vs. phone) and then later allowing those two to compete created that set of competitive elements.
There are very many areas in the country where cable companies are permitted to compete with each other, but simply do not. They don't, because they run their little calculators, and conclude that if the customer density becomes mixed, then both cable companies lose.
C//
"The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom." -- H. L. Mencken
That's a fine and fair insight, but the assumption is broader than wisdom. It's inclusive of aggression. Presumably, now, a "youthful" 200 year old person has testosterone levels similar to a youthful person as well, but I don't think it's testosterone alone that dictates aggression, do you?
Who would serve in the army, in the land of the Immortals?
Anyway, the presumption I argue against is the presumption that "things would be the same," and that seems very unlikely to me.
C//
To characterize the field as having researchers is itself a bit deceptive. Mr. de Grey himself would be tickled to death if we as a society were not neglecting the world's #1 cause of death, and is only really doing it all for this reason.
I'd say he's more interested in drumming up support for The Cause than anything else.
C//
Except this wouldn't be labor scarcity, but labor glut, and the traditional recourse for that has been war.
-------------
You are presuming a great deal here. The most obviously erroneous of your assumptions is the assumption that a youthful two hundred year old person would have the same impulsive stupidity of a youthful twenty year old.
This seems extremely unlikely to me.
C//
You mean supposing that we repaired the already existing process of forgetting? How old are you? Tell me as much as you can from the year in your life that is twenty years ago.
For most people, that's not much at all.
C//
We'll soon all be like Mac fanboys in the 90's, gleefully awaiting he next Photoshop benchmark from Apple, and talking about how fast our Mac's will be.
C//
I think they are awaiting more common adoption of HT3.0. I know that their is a type of HT "slot" that looks just a bit like a PCIe8x. You'd think they'd have done this by now, at least for some supercomputer or something.
C//
I think the advances are going to come from finding ways to avoid thread synchronization.
This has been understood for ages in the supercomputing business, where the number of "threads" running at any given time can be in the many thousands these days. If you use synchronization in those environments, you lose.
So yah, good guess.
C//
I agree with your perspective, and live in California. I think these agreements should be legal in all states, but only at the executive level, and perhaps at the professional level if the company is serious enough to make certain the professional be represented by their own attorney.
Anyway, I digress. It is ordinary for the person being offered such an agreement to request pay for the non-compete period.
I knew someone once who had that kind of agreement draw up. Later, the company, a large one, sort of forgot about it. There was a layoff.
See where this is going?
They tried to un-lay him off, half-heartedly.
No go.
Nice long paid vacation. He worked in an adjacent field for a while. :-)
C//
Careful reader. I've been couch potato lawyering open source for years. Although I should say, the GPL is a rather tricky beast. :-)
However, it does still seem to me that not providing the third would revoke the distributor's rights under the first agreement automatically per Section 8 of the original agreement.
Oh, it certainly would! But it would be the first party's obligation to see to that. They're the only party with standing (unless they would care to assign their rights to the FSF...).
if a distributor says they are not granting them a copy under the GPL then their license under the first agreement is automatically revoked.
Well, yes. But any behavior to the contrary can only be seen to in the court, first and second parties present. Or:
The court of public opinion, which as you may have noticed, actually works pretty well when these GPL violations come up. Bad press, eh.
BTW, when I say "only party with standing," that isn't quite correct. Copyright violations of certain types, when willful, are a crime. In a pig's eye will you get the State to take notice in situations like this (tricky, the "willful" thing), however in such circumstances the State is a technical first party to the case.
C//
So to some extent, you're right, to really enforce things at the end,
Not to some extent. For the entire extent.
It's when they don't acknowledge the second agreement exists that a copyright holder must get involved.
You're imagining the existence of an "implied" second agreement. There is no such "implied" agreement.
It's not an "acknowledgment" that is is required, but rather an express written offering of a replication of the original agreement, for the derivative work. If they don't expressly offer this, in written terms, it exists by no means.
C//
It isn't between the company and the end user, and no, you are not right.
The agreement is between the owner of the original intellectual property and the author of the derivative work. If the author of the derivative work elects to take advantage of the GPL and make their own offer, according to the GPL's requirements, that's a different matter. If they do not, then it is below:
You are right about the copyright issue; taking some else's source code and saying you knew you didn't have an agreement with them is not only a civil tort under copyright law, it could be construed as criminal infringement. This is why most GPL violations are tied up faster than you can say "settle". The infringers fancy they don't look good in stripes. :-)
C//
If they admit they are distributing the software under the GPL then anyone who receives it has enough standing to enforce the license.
All third parties have a right to intervene on agreements between first and second parties? Not in the USA.
C//
One cannot enter into a contract with one's self. Just a little FYI there.
C//
Copyright law cannot require them to provide source code; however the terms of the license can, and therefore one particular possible outcome of court action for the GPL is requiring this company to provide the source to the public. IOW, yes, it really is true that a court can make a party of a contract do what they said they were going to do.
C//
I have a raised floor for the sole purpose of air flow. 2800cfm with minimal obstructions.
Yah. If I did have a raised floor, that's exactly what I would do: for the sole purpose of air, with all cables and wires overhead. I'd not do the raised floor now, though.
I would instead have "two rooms". One room, the room you have. The other room, would be fully inside the first room. The racks would back into this room. All heat evacuation would occur in this room. For larger facilities, you repeat this procedure several times, and it's not strictly necessary for your cooler stuff.
This is like APC's hot aisle containment system, but without the APC gear prices. Drywall is /cheap/. To make this work properly, you do have to have the luxury of rolling in and locking down your racks (with blanking panels) in advance.
Did you check the allowable total load on your floor for the number of high density racks you are using, or are you just using a few? We have a client who's floors can easily handle a few 3800 pound racks, but not 100. :-)
C//
The "guy who installed the floor"? Was he an engineer? To be fair, steel is incredibly strong. Lots of times, a little steel box can hold several cars of weight. Anyway, luckily you are on concrete, eh.
I wouldn't pick a raised floor these days, myself.
C//