Yes, forget about "innocent until proven guilty". Use your own judgement about the quality of the evidence, decide for yourself how strong the case is.
If you waited for a court case to reach completion (as well as optional appeals) before you formed an opinion on anything, you couldn't function. You use your judgement every day, why not here?
True, if the guy is acquitted, he could sue those who said (or wrote) he was a spy. But he could be acquitted even if he was a spy.
The difference is that the GPL is based on copyright, not use.
With a EULA, you have a right to do anything you want with the software (the media's yours-- you bought it), until you open it. Then your opening of it binds you to the terms. Basically, the fact that you're using the software means you must have agreed to the license.
With the GPL, you can do anything you want with the software, except distribute it. The copyright is owned by the author, which means you don't have the right to distribute it, unless you accept the terms of the GPL.
There will never be a case of GPL violation that goes before the courts. If someone violates the GPL, they will be sued for copyright infringement. They will then have to prove:
a) that they accept the GPL
b) that the GPL permits what they are doing.
Just because they say that's what they meant doesn't mean it's what they meant.
It's possible (hell, likely) that they were testing the waters-- seeing if anyone would support an "Open Source Software Is Evil" stance.
Now that they know it just makes them look dumb, they claim it's copyleft they hate-- which is something you'd expect them to hate.
I think not. We have a lot more than 30 metres to worry about in our network. FibreChannel is pretty nifty tech (esp FibreChannel Fabric) but I can't see running optical cable all through the house. We only installed Cat 5 a year ago. . .
The fact that it's solid state implies it's not as likely to wear out as a hard disk. In fact, they're projecting a ten year lifespan for these things.
As your vacuum tube example shows, the absense of moving parts is not the only important attribute. Capacity and speed are also valuable attributes in memory. MRAM would also have those going for it as well.
Re:Wow, this is just the Wrongness Thread.
on
ST:TMP Fixer Upper
·
· Score: 2
It's simple, really. Science fiction is the branch of speculative fiction that retains the laws and theories of science as we know them, and projects them. The branch of speculative fiction that rejects the known laws of science is called Fantasy.
The problems with Star Trek's science of the future are almost indenumerable.
1. Noises in space
2. Starships that make banking turns
3. A billion humanoid races
4. Teleportation devices that don't use a receiver
And that's just off the top of my head.
Yes, I'm aware that there's an excuse for 3. I'm also aware that excuse is there because Larry Niven stole it from his own writings in desperation. Besides, it's contradicted in the ST:TNG series finale.
Speaking of that series finale, they had a "making of" special before it, and the host (Jonathan Frakes) NEVER called it a science fiction series. He repeatedly called it an adventure series. Perhaps it's because some of those people know what real science fiction is.
Look, we KNOW already that they write the stories first, and make the science up afterward. It's not like you're getting people like Asimov (who wrote endless science articles) or Heinlein (who wrote about antimatter in the Encyclopaedia Britannica) to write Star Trek episodes. You're getting people who don't know a lot about science to write about the science of the future. How could you possibly expect the science to be valid?
None of the examples you gave of the "seriousness" of Star Trek are proof that it's science fiction. It is what it is, space fantasy. Enjoy it for that.
Not nessesarily. Many DSL providers use PPPoE (PPP on Ethernet). Plug the DSL modem into a hub. Plug the dreamcast into the hub.
Packets go into the Dreamcast in TCP/IP, go out in PPPoE. Because nothing else speaks to the DSL modem, you've got a firewall.
Re:WebObjects, FileMaker, and the NeXTies
on
OS X on x86?
·
· Score: 2
The point is, these puppies last!
Yeah, I know what you mean. I got my machine in 1995, and it's still going strong. It's running Linux beside my main workstation right now. Oh, wait-- it's an Intel machine. Whoops!
That's especially interesting because it isn't true. In fact one of the complaints about 2.4.0 was:
"BSD already does stateful firewalling. Why'd you have to do it a different way?"
Yes, but see, the toy store's original lawsuit proves that they believe that there is cause for consumer confusion. Therefore, only one can have the trademark. And Etoy had it first.
No. The cheezy little transformers like Bumblebee were always just plastic. But the original transformers were metal and plastic, just like the Go-bots.
And hell, the Transformers were somewhat creative. The Go-bots almost always transformed the same way.
Actually, I think in English concepts. "Knight" and "night" are two completely separate entries in my internal lexicon, just like other homonyms such as affect and effect.
But, see, licenses ARE for nitpicking. I'm confident that they have good intentions, but judges and lawyers don't care about good intentions. If this ever goes to court, it will be nitpicked far worse than I'm doing.
And if it goes to court in this form, someone is going to get screwed.
This story will no doubt generate a lot of interest in OpenDivX, and it's important that their license is up to scratch, so no one gets screwed.
There are a lot of different licenses out there. They could have simply applied one of these to their project, and been sure that it was time-tested and lawyer-reviewed.
Instead, they decided to write Yet Another Unique License, that appears to be incompatible with the GPL (so you can't combine it with anything GPLed), and they didn't even get a lawyer to look at it.
IANAL, and neither are they. But I'm a programmer, and I can spot a logical flaw in a legal document. If they can't, they're not trying hard enough. And if they don't care, they should use an existing license instead.
Be pissed off at the tone, but the self-desctuct source code example makes the point far better than "but they could password-protect the source code"
You missed a few things I don't like. It restricts the things you can do with the output. It restricts the types of programs you can derive from it. These strike me as very bad things.
It's wonderful that they've made this available. But they're still trying to exercise control in a disturbingly Sun/Apple way. That makes it less of a "donation". I have no doubt that they put far more care into their program code than to did into their license. However, they appear to be working on fixing their license, so things may yet be groovy.
This is not a pretty license. It's not Open Source, either because of the restrictions on fields of endeavor. It's also "clickwrap", rather than copyright-based like the GPL.
Problems:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
(even the GPL permits further restriction)
Any Codec or Larger Works created by you must conform to the MPEG-4 Video Standard.
(even if you independently write a Sorenson codec, using none of their code, it must conform to the MPEG-4 Video Standard! And that applies to any program you write, even a word processor!)
You may copy and distribute the Codec in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 3, provided that you also accompany it with the complete machine-readable source code, or information about where the source code can be obtained.
(But the information on obtaining the source code can be "The source code is on an iceberg set to autodescruct using a proximity detector")
Nope. It's true. If x>y and z>0 then zx/100>zy/100. It's mathmatically inescapable.
x=percentage of whites at MS
y=percentage of whites in general population
z=percentage of whites who are white supremecists
zx/100=percentage of white supremecists at MS
zy/100=percentage of white supremecists in general population
You'll note that one of the assumptions is that the percentage of whites who are white supremecists remains constant. You can't disprove the statement by saying the number of klansmen may not remain constant, because the statement doesn't apply to that situation.
Any other "factors" that affect the mix of attitudes at Microsoft simply demonstrate my point-- that it's ludicrous to assert that a cross section of Microsoft is the same as a cross section of the general population. For one thing, there are probably fewer technophobes there than in the general population. And fewer people over 65. And. . .
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, forget about "innocent until proven guilty". Use your own judgement about the quality of the evidence, decide for yourself how strong the case is.
If you waited for a court case to reach completion (as well as optional appeals) before you formed an opinion on anything, you couldn't function. You use your judgement every day, why not here?
True, if the guy is acquitted, he could sue those who said (or wrote) he was a spy. But he could be acquitted even if he was a spy.
The difference is that the GPL is based on copyright, not use.
With a EULA, you have a right to do anything you want with the software (the media's yours-- you bought it), until you open it. Then your opening of it binds you to the terms. Basically, the fact that you're using the software means you must have agreed to the license.
With the GPL, you can do anything you want with the software, except distribute it. The copyright is owned by the author, which means you don't have the right to distribute it, unless you accept the terms of the GPL.
There will never be a case of GPL violation that goes before the courts. If someone violates the GPL, they will be sued for copyright infringement. They will then have to prove:
a) that they accept the GPL
b) that the GPL permits what they are doing.
Just because they say that's what they meant doesn't mean it's what they meant.
It's possible (hell, likely) that they were testing the waters-- seeing if anyone would support an "Open Source Software Is Evil" stance.
Now that they know it just makes them look dumb, they claim it's copyleft they hate-- which is something you'd expect them to hate.
And it all blows over.
Actually, a thousand 8086s would be a total of 4.7 gigahertz.....
I think not. We have a lot more than 30 metres to worry about in our network. FibreChannel is pretty nifty tech (esp FibreChannel Fabric) but I can't see running optical cable all through the house. We only installed Cat 5 a year ago. . .
Actually, one programmer can make all the difference. Studies have shown that some star programmers are ten times as productive as other programmers.
But traditionally, non-volatile storage has not been solid state.
Just in case you're not a troll...
The fact that it's solid state implies it's not as likely to wear out as a hard disk. In fact, they're projecting a ten year lifespan for these things.
As your vacuum tube example shows, the absense of moving parts is not the only important attribute. Capacity and speed are also valuable attributes in memory. MRAM would also have those going for it as well.
It's simple, really. Science fiction is the branch of speculative fiction that retains the laws and theories of science as we know them, and projects them. The branch of speculative fiction that rejects the known laws of science is called Fantasy.
The problems with Star Trek's science of the future are almost indenumerable.
1. Noises in space
2. Starships that make banking turns
3. A billion humanoid races
4. Teleportation devices that don't use a receiver
And that's just off the top of my head.
Yes, I'm aware that there's an excuse for 3. I'm also aware that excuse is there because Larry Niven stole it from his own writings in desperation. Besides, it's contradicted in the ST:TNG series finale.
Speaking of that series finale, they had a "making of" special before it, and the host (Jonathan Frakes) NEVER called it a science fiction series. He repeatedly called it an adventure series. Perhaps it's because some of those people know what real science fiction is.
Look, we KNOW already that they write the stories first, and make the science up afterward. It's not like you're getting people like Asimov (who wrote endless science articles) or Heinlein (who wrote about antimatter in the Encyclopaedia Britannica) to write Star Trek episodes. You're getting people who don't know a lot about science to write about the science of the future. How could you possibly expect the science to be valid?
None of the examples you gave of the "seriousness" of Star Trek are proof that it's science fiction. It is what it is, space fantasy. Enjoy it for that.
Not nessesarily. Many DSL providers use PPPoE (PPP on Ethernet). Plug the DSL modem into a hub. Plug the dreamcast into the hub.
Packets go into the Dreamcast in TCP/IP, go out in PPPoE. Because nothing else speaks to the DSL modem, you've got a firewall.
It doesn't. You'd need an x86 emulator too.
The point is, these puppies last!
Yeah, I know what you mean. I got my machine in 1995, and it's still going strong. It's running Linux beside my main workstation right now. Oh, wait-- it's an Intel machine. Whoops!
Nifty. Should make it easier to extend Mozilla with new protocols. Mozilla could well become the browser of choice for file sharing.
That's especially interesting because it isn't true. In fact one of the complaints about 2.4.0 was:
"BSD already does stateful firewalling. Why'd you have to do it a different way?"
No. There was a decision that legal protection should be given to trademarks. Before then, it was not an asset.
There was a decision that copyright should be given legal protection. Before then, you couldn't own a copyright, and it was not an asset.
There are many kinds of assets that are only assets because the legal system has decided they should be.
Yes, but see, the toy store's original lawsuit proves that they believe that there is cause for consumer confusion. Therefore, only one can have the trademark. And Etoy had it first.
No. The cheezy little transformers like Bumblebee were always just plastic. But the original transformers were metal and plastic, just like the Go-bots.
And hell, the Transformers were somewhat creative. The Go-bots almost always transformed the same way.
It takes you to the same url, but this time, it shows you the picture instead of that message.
Yeah, but you yanks have no honour.
Actually, I think in English concepts. "Knight" and "night" are two completely separate entries in my internal lexicon, just like other homonyms such as affect and effect.
Why assume postal workers are male? Just 'cause some deliver "mail"?
But, see, licenses ARE for nitpicking. I'm confident that they have good intentions, but judges and lawyers don't care about good intentions. If this ever goes to court, it will be nitpicked far worse than I'm doing.
And if it goes to court in this form, someone is going to get screwed.
This story will no doubt generate a lot of interest in OpenDivX, and it's important that their license is up to scratch, so no one gets screwed.
There are a lot of different licenses out there. They could have simply applied one of these to their project, and been sure that it was time-tested and lawyer-reviewed.
Instead, they decided to write Yet Another Unique License, that appears to be incompatible with the GPL (so you can't combine it with anything GPLed), and they didn't even get a lawyer to look at it.
IANAL, and neither are they. But I'm a programmer, and I can spot a logical flaw in a legal document. If they can't, they're not trying hard enough. And if they don't care, they should use an existing license instead.
Be pissed off at the tone, but the self-desctuct source code example makes the point far better than "but they could password-protect the source code"
You missed a few things I don't like. It restricts the things you can do with the output. It restricts the types of programs you can derive from it. These strike me as very bad things.
It's wonderful that they've made this available. But they're still trying to exercise control in a disturbingly Sun/Apple way. That makes it less of a "donation". I have no doubt that they put far more care into their program code than to did into their license. However, they appear to be working on fixing their license, so things may yet be groovy.
This is not a pretty license. It's not Open Source, either because of the restrictions on fields of endeavor. It's also "clickwrap", rather than copyright-based like the GPL.
Problems:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
(even the GPL permits further restriction)
Any Codec or Larger Works created by you must conform to the MPEG-4 Video Standard.
(even if you independently write a Sorenson codec, using none of their code, it must conform to the MPEG-4 Video Standard! And that applies to any program you write, even a word processor!)
You may copy and distribute the Codec in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 3, provided that you also accompany it with the complete machine-readable source code, or information about where the source code can be obtained.
(But the information on obtaining the source code can be "The source code is on an iceberg set to autodescruct using a proximity detector")
Yes, multiple colors are exactly what's on the way. . .
http://www.c-3d.net/tech_frameset.html
Nope. It's true. If x>y and z>0 then zx/100>zy/100. It's mathmatically inescapable.
x=percentage of whites at MS
y=percentage of whites in general population
z=percentage of whites who are white supremecists
zx/100=percentage of white supremecists at MS
zy/100=percentage of white supremecists in general population
You'll note that one of the assumptions is that the percentage of whites who are white supremecists remains constant. You can't disprove the statement by saying the number of klansmen may not remain constant, because the statement doesn't apply to that situation.
Any other "factors" that affect the mix of attitudes at Microsoft simply demonstrate my point-- that it's ludicrous to assert that a cross section of Microsoft is the same as a cross section of the general population. For one thing, there are probably fewer technophobes there than in the general population. And fewer people over 65. And. . .