What is truly phenomenal is that in the 25 years it took Gates to lock up $50 billion, the U.S. economy produced about $250 trillion worth of stuff (Gates secured 0.02% of it! A truly amazing figure when you consider that more than 100 million people were involved), and also consumed the majority of it.
There is no need to make sure that capital is available to profitable solar. Capital will find it and feast on it. I mean, regulated utilities manage to build mega-power stations for 8% annual profit.
How is giving away $40 billion out of, let's say, $80 billion "Estate planning".
If, in 20 years, the foundation has not begun spending down Gates's contributions, I will eat crow, but as far as I know, they plan on the $40+ billion he donated being gone within 50 years of their deaths (The money Buffett has committed needs to be spent at a more rapid pace).
I disagree. The government will get used to spending any and all money that it can get its hands on.
I have a notion that a particular level of government should base its spending on one, and only one, tax, and then use the income from regulatory taxes to pay a rebate on the base tax (I'm okay with states using a sales tax and the feds using a income tax or whatever). Spending has to come out of the base tax. Shortfalls would be paid for by increases in the base tax. That way, people would have a slightly greater chance of being offended by stupid government spending, and regulations would have a greater chance of being written to actually regulate, rather than for income.
Right, but unless you are extraordinarily good at it, substantial portions of the text are going to mean absolutely nothing on the left or absolutely nothing on the right. I don't think it is particularly unreasonable to require that each of the 1000 bits contribute to each of the meanings (or at least more than some arbitrary percentage of them, say 60 or 70 percent).
A song generally 'means something' as a whole. If you fire some text into that site you link, the other representations don't offer alternative meanings, they offer alternative representations.
Here are 125 characters, post the stupid, trivial solution (shouldn't take you long, right?) somewhere so that I have a better chance of understanding it:
"You seem to be missing the point: your test is stupidly easy to meet even if you add the condition that every element be an o"
Certainly the best end-around my statement. Do the majority of the characters have an actual meaning in each representation, or is there a significant amount of gobbledygook hidden in comments?
Oops, the other guy didn't say 1000 bits. My bad. That leaves hilariously small and enormously variable (which would be the reason I chose it). Yay beer.
1000 bits because that's the number that the other fella spoke (it also happens to be hilariously small and enormously variable).
As far as why it has to be meaningful in a human context, the reason is because the digital world is a whole lot less relevant than various judges are, and they tend to be human and stubborn.
Also, "I hereby copyright" doesn't actually mean anything. I can say "I hereby copyright 'Smidge'" until I turn pink and grow roses out of my ears, but that doesn't actually have any impact on your ability to use the word.
Stallman is laughing and crying. Open Source is not enough. Free Software is the (only) future.
I would presume that users of the Apache license (and members of the foundation even more so) have not been particularly concerned about confused outsiders, and that they will continue not to be.
Oh please. I challenge you to come up with a string of 1000 bits that has 3 different (meaningful!) meanings, let alone a string of 4 million bits, which is much more representative of mp3 compressed audio. If you manage to accomplish that, I challenge you to find 9 more.
(Note that there are [301 digit number starting with 1 that the lameness filter will not accept] different 1000 bit numbers...)
Copyright terms and so forth do not fit current technology, but the digital/analog divergence that you are arguing is the worst kind of logical contortion (the kind where you simply ignore inconvenient facts and information).
Analog 'copies' have long been considered copies, even thought they really aren't. Dancing around and pretending that you could possibly engineer an encoder that does what you state without ever referring to the original slutmix is just silly non-sense.
Isn't it sort of strange to ask for someone to play by "GPL rules" when the context is Apache, a "community" that has explicitly chosen not to play by those rules?
Slashdot Mirror
What is the lower limit of obscene?
What is truly phenomenal is that in the 25 years it took Gates to lock up $50 billion, the U.S. economy produced about $250 trillion worth of stuff (Gates secured 0.02% of it! A truly amazing figure when you consider that more than 100 million people were involved), and also consumed the majority of it.
There is no need to make sure that capital is available to profitable solar. Capital will find it and feast on it. I mean, regulated utilities manage to build mega-power stations for 8% annual profit.
How is giving away $40 billion out of, let's say, $80 billion "Estate planning".
If, in 20 years, the foundation has not begun spending down Gates's contributions, I will eat crow, but as far as I know, they plan on the $40+ billion he donated being gone within 50 years of their deaths (The money Buffett has committed needs to be spent at a more rapid pace).
Very few car navigation systems send any information to anything. It isn't something that can be checked in any sort of a trivial manner.
I'm not real sure what OnStar allows, but it isn't exactly pervasive.
I disagree. The government will get used to spending any and all money that it can get its hands on.
I have a notion that a particular level of government should base its spending on one, and only one, tax, and then use the income from regulatory taxes to pay a rebate on the base tax (I'm okay with states using a sales tax and the feds using a income tax or whatever). Spending has to come out of the base tax. Shortfalls would be paid for by increases in the base tax. That way, people would have a slightly greater chance of being offended by stupid government spending, and regulations would have a greater chance of being written to actually regulate, rather than for income.
For instance, Earth was originally intended to be a cosmic beverage warmer.
Right, but unless you are extraordinarily good at it, substantial portions of the text are going to mean absolutely nothing on the left or absolutely nothing on the right. I don't think it is particularly unreasonable to require that each of the 1000 bits contribute to each of the meanings (or at least more than some arbitrary percentage of them, say 60 or 70 percent).
A song generally 'means something' as a whole. If you fire some text into that site you link, the other representations don't offer alternative meanings, they offer alternative representations.
Here are 125 characters, post the stupid, trivial solution (shouldn't take you long, right?) somewhere so that I have a better chance of understanding it:
"You seem to be missing the point: your test is stupidly easy to meet even if you add the condition that every element be an o"
Given your characterization, they do an astonishing job of getting reelected. Maybe they use magic.
Also, it wasn't really that the crude bothered me, it was being disappointed in the wrapping of an insult in a joke that wasn't very funny.
Is it really any wonder that elected officials care nothing for the opinions of the masses?
Certainly the best end-around my statement. Do the majority of the characters have an actual meaning in each representation, or is there a significant amount of gobbledygook hidden in comments?
I'm not prepared to confuse and conflate "you can build an arbitrary mathematical construct featuring it" with "meaning".
Oops, the other guy didn't say 1000 bits. My bad. That leaves hilariously small and enormously variable (which would be the reason I chose it). Yay beer.
1000 bits because that's the number that the other fella spoke (it also happens to be hilariously small and enormously variable).
As far as why it has to be meaningful in a human context, the reason is because the digital world is a whole lot less relevant than various judges are, and they tend to be human and stubborn.
Also, "I hereby copyright" doesn't actually mean anything. I can say "I hereby copyright 'Smidge'" until I turn pink and grow roses out of my ears, but that doesn't actually have any impact on your ability to use the word.
Use of "fixed that for you" shall be considered proof that the user is a complete tool.
There, fixed that for you.
Yeah, thanks, I left out at least one 8 in there. Yay beer.
Stallman is laughing and crying. Open Source is not enough. Free Software is the (only) future.
I would presume that users of the Apache license (and members of the foundation even more so) have not been particularly concerned about confused outsiders, and that they will continue not to be.
Oh please. I challenge you to come up with a string of 1000 bits that has 3 different (meaningful!) meanings, let alone a string of 4 million bits, which is much more representative of mp3 compressed audio. If you manage to accomplish that, I challenge you to find 9 more.
(Note that there are [301 digit number starting with 1 that the lameness filter will not accept] different 1000 bit numbers...)
Copyright terms and so forth do not fit current technology, but the digital/analog divergence that you are arguing is the worst kind of logical contortion (the kind where you simply ignore inconvenient facts and information).
Analog 'copies' have long been considered copies, even thought they really aren't. Dancing around and pretending that you could possibly engineer an encoder that does what you state without ever referring to the original slutmix is just silly non-sense.
The first guy to cook a piece of cow loves the way you think.
Isn't it sort of strange to ask for someone to play by "GPL rules" when the context is Apache, a "community" that has explicitly chosen not to play by those rules?
My favorite raving lunatic, Larry Kudlow, says it well:
"Trust but verify."
(I realize he isn't the first and certainly not the only, but it's where I hear it...)
Aye Karama!
He posts his phone number to the internet. Clearly, he is prepared to deal with incoming whatever.
I suppose extremely dense readers would be helped by something that made it clear that bruce@perens.com probably had a website associated with it.
Of course, if you check the link that you provided, you might find out who the submitter of the article was.