Yes and no. This is a new story, making the front pages of newspapers here in Toronto. But apparently others have claimed to have proved that neutrinos have mass before now. Perhaps the findings of the previous experiment were not known, or discounted.
Sure. But you don't even need two names. It's enough to release the project under two different licenses-- one for the university, one for everyone else.
But how did you know you liked their first album before you purchased it, and that you didn't like their second without purchasing it?
We rely on industry-controlled promotion (radio play, video play, insertion in soundtracks) to inform us about a lot of what-we-might-like. If it was just Hootie and the Blowfish, it could just be a bad album. But if it's a trend where H&B is simply an example. . .
That's amusing, but it's not what we were talking about. You start downloading a full-length radio program. A second or two later, you point your mp3 player at it. It starts playing, and it will continue playing unless the download isn't fast enough to keep pace.
Voila, you now have most of the benefits of streaming without, technically, streaming.
Well, sure. The process allows higher resolution, without subpixel rendering. If you're not using subpixel rendering, then any patents (justified or not) on subpixel rendering can't come into play.
But lots of folks believed that the original license permitted modifications, because they were permitted to "use" the source.
A judge would have to rule on whether or not "use" of source code includes modification. The author's intent doesn't count for much in this regard.
Re:Copyright holder question
on
GPL FAQ
·
· Score: 2
In order to retain copyright over the program, you should request bug-fixers to assign their copyright to you.
On the other hand, if it's more like a collaboration than accepting a bug-fix or two, then you probably shouldn't have the right to dual-license it-- imagine how many people would be pissed if Linus dual-licensed the Linux kernel. IIRC, Linus doesn't ask collaborators to assign their copyright to him, so he doesn't have the right to dual-license it.
Then, of course, there's the grey bits in between.
Re:Mojo Nation vs. Swarmcast (vs. Freenet, vs...)
on
Swarmcast GPLed
·
· Score: 2
Zooko, I didn't mean that you don't care about performance. I know that you folks are trying to make things faster. I read it in the changelogs. But Swarmcast is focused (not "focussed", btw) on performance. It's the only purpose of Swarmcast.
They've aimed at something a lot smaller than what you folks are doing, but they've succeeded. You guys have more ambition-- it's not done yet, but when it is, it will be glorious.
With mojonation, I've never seen the performance that a solution like this should provide. Mojonation's not focused on performance, and Swarmcast is.
Mojonation's a lot more complex, too. With Mojonation, there's a searchable, virtual repository of files. Every host on the network is a peer.
With Swarmcast, only hosts downloading a given file are peers, and files are simply linked at web sites. (Personally, I think the proxy server approach is niftier, though.)
Man, you don't usually see download rates like that from anything except akamai. Problem was, the data got corrupted.
And no, it's not like a bucket brigade. It's more like building a house with more than one bricklayer.
Re: slow hosts-- if I understand correctly, all swarmcast hosts maximize their available bandwidth, automatically balancing the download.
Each node downloads packets one at a time. If a host is slow, it won't grab as many packets, and someone else will.
If machines A and B are downloading, and A is 5x as fast as B, then in the same time, A will download 5 packets and B will download 1. If there are 12 packets in the file, A will download 10, and B will download 2.
Dude, "meat is food".
Kidding is a mass noun, like sand.
Oh, there's another one: glass is sand. I could go on all day.
And there are plenty of ways to form new words. There's no reason kidding can't be a mass noun, like "teasing".
True. But
1) All == All
2) the poster said all geeks who can write are boring. (He/she said most geeks can't write)
3) Are you sure Stephenson doesn't translate? I reread Snow Crash recently, and it seemed very visual to me. (Not surprising, since it started as a graphic novel.)
While it's true that you've named a bunch of competing projects, and their adherents may be a bit overzealous, do remember that they are still a bunch of people who have banded together to produce:
a text editor
a desktop environment
In fact, the whole point of open source is to band together to achieve a common goal. It's not a perfect situation, but it's not bad.
And hey, we just saw Stallman named an Open Source Evangelist! If that can happen, maybe we're closer to getting along than it seems.
If you actually READ the bible, it claims that the dead will rise and go to heaven AT THE END of the world. Not instantly. That perk went to Jesus and Elijah, and I'm not sure God would have similar feelings about the man who wrote the babelfish proof of the non-existance of God:
"I refuse to prove that I exists", says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"But the babelfish is a dead giveaway", says man. "It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and therefore, by your own argument, you don't. Q.E.D".
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and promptly vanishes in a path of logic.
We just had a debate about this. Some folks say that BSDL is too open, but there's tons and tons of folks who say that only the BSDL is truly free. Well, this the natural consequence of that freedom; of using BSDL-- someone can relicense your code (hell, they can make it closed source). If you weren't prepared for that, if it's an unacceptable possibility, then the BSDL, was not the right license in the first place.
If you've played with neural nets much, you know that they need to be trained. If the neural net makes a good choice, you reinforce it. If it makes a bad choice, you do the opposite.
It sounds to me like the voting allows parents to train the neural net, so that it becomes more like they want it to be. But all the time, it's the net that is deciding what to block.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and no. This is a new story, making the front pages of newspapers here in Toronto. But apparently others have claimed to have proved that neutrinos have mass before now. Perhaps the findings of the previous experiment were not known, or discounted.
Damn straight!
Sure. But you don't even need two names. It's enough to release the project under two different licenses-- one for the university, one for everyone else.
But how did you know you liked their first album before you purchased it, and that you didn't like their second without purchasing it?
We rely on industry-controlled promotion (radio play, video play, insertion in soundtracks) to inform us about a lot of what-we-might-like. If it was just Hootie and the Blowfish, it could just be a bad album. But if it's a trend where H&B is simply an example. . .
The display may match the room lighting better, but it's still RGB, not CMYK.
That's amusing, but it's not what we were talking about. You start downloading a full-length radio program. A second or two later, you point your mp3 player at it. It starts playing, and it will continue playing unless the download isn't fast enough to keep pace.
Voila, you now have most of the benefits of streaming without, technically, streaming.
Careful with the word "superior"-- not everyone has the same opinions of what's superior and inferior.
For example, some folks might find a 22" monitor more handy than a 17" monitor, regardless of the dpi.
Well, sure. The process allows higher resolution, without subpixel rendering. If you're not using subpixel rendering, then any patents (justified or not) on subpixel rendering can't come into play.
But lots of folks believed that the original license permitted modifications, because they were permitted to "use" the source.
A judge would have to rule on whether or not "use" of source code includes modification. The author's intent doesn't count for much in this regard.
In order to retain copyright over the program, you should request bug-fixers to assign their copyright to you.
On the other hand, if it's more like a collaboration than accepting a bug-fix or two, then you probably shouldn't have the right to dual-license it-- imagine how many people would be pissed if Linus dual-licensed the Linux kernel. IIRC, Linus doesn't ask collaborators to assign their copyright to him, so he doesn't have the right to dual-license it.
Then, of course, there's the grey bits in between.
Zooko, I didn't mean that you don't care about performance. I know that you folks are trying to make things faster. I read it in the changelogs. But Swarmcast is focused (not "focussed", btw) on performance. It's the only purpose of Swarmcast.
They've aimed at something a lot smaller than what you folks are doing, but they've succeeded. You guys have more ambition-- it's not done yet, but when it is, it will be glorious.
There's more tech info here: http://opencola.org/projects/swarmcast/swarm_tech1 .shtml
No.
With mojonation, I've never seen the performance that a solution like this should provide. Mojonation's not focused on performance, and Swarmcast is.
Mojonation's a lot more complex, too. With Mojonation, there's a searchable, virtual repository of files. Every host on the network is a peer.
With Swarmcast, only hosts downloading a given file are peers, and files are simply linked at web sites. (Personally, I think the proxy server approach is niftier, though.)
Man, you don't usually see download rates like that from anything except akamai. Problem was, the data got corrupted.
And no, it's not like a bucket brigade. It's more like building a house with more than one bricklayer.
Re: slow hosts-- if I understand correctly, all swarmcast hosts maximize their available bandwidth, automatically balancing the download.
Each node downloads packets one at a time. If a host is slow, it won't grab as many packets, and someone else will.
If machines A and B are downloading, and A is 5x as fast as B, then in the same time, A will download 5 packets and B will download 1. If there are 12 packets in the file, A will download 10, and B will download 2.
I suppose you could make "zipmagic for linux" (letting you treat .tar.gz files as directories). What else could you do?
Dude, "meat is food".
Kidding is a mass noun, like sand.
Oh, there's another one: glass is sand. I could go on all day.
And there are plenty of ways to form new words. There's no reason kidding can't be a mass noun, like "teasing".
So let me get this straight:
You're up against a bunch of evil trees, and you don't have a chainsaw?
True. But
1) All == All
2) the poster said all geeks who can write are boring. (He/she said most geeks can't write)
3) Are you sure Stephenson doesn't translate? I reread Snow Crash recently, and it seemed very visual to me. (Not surprising, since it started as a graphic novel.)
Not all geek writers are boring.
While it's true that you've named a bunch of competing projects, and their adherents may be a bit overzealous, do remember that they are still a bunch of people who have banded together to produce:
a text editor
a desktop environment
In fact, the whole point of open source is to band together to achieve a common goal. It's not a perfect situation, but it's not bad.
And hey, we just saw Stallman named an Open Source Evangelist! If that can happen, maybe we're closer to getting along than it seems.
If you actually READ the bible, it claims that the dead will rise and go to heaven AT THE END of the world. Not instantly. That perk went to Jesus and Elijah, and I'm not sure God would have similar feelings about the man who wrote the babelfish proof of the non-existance of God:
"I refuse to prove that I exists", says God. "For proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"But the babelfish is a dead giveaway", says man. "It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and therefore, by your own argument, you don't. Q.E.D".
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and promptly vanishes in a path of logic.
We just had a debate about this. Some folks say that BSDL is too open, but there's tons and tons of folks who say that only the BSDL is truly free. Well, this the natural consequence of that freedom; of using BSDL-- someone can relicense your code (hell, they can make it closed source). If you weren't prepared for that, if it's an unacceptable possibility, then the BSDL, was not the right license in the first place.
If you've played with neural nets much, you know that they need to be trained. If the neural net makes a good choice, you reinforce it. If it makes a bad choice, you do the opposite.
It sounds to me like the voting allows parents to train the neural net, so that it becomes more like they want it to be. But all the time, it's the net that is deciding what to block.
Try installing Cygwin first. It might--gasp--actually work then.
Well, sort-of extensive, anyhow. You can get quite similar results by slecting the red bit in your example and doing
Image|Adjust Levels|Auto|OK