More resolution would be nice for about 5 minutes, but it is hardly a reason to spend tons of money and dump all of the existing technology over because when that 5 minutes is up, you realize that we still have the same shitty content as we always have. High definition is such a marginal change that it doesn't even come close to being a compelling upgrade.
And, the rocket WILL reach 7 miles/sec (or whatever) . . . it just doesn't reach it near the Earth's surface. Otherwise, the rocket CANNOT escape the Earth's gravitational potential.
I think I understand what the poster you responded to was asking. Do you necessarily have to reach escape velocity in order to leave the Earth? If I had some way to move slowly up through the atmosphere, all the way to the moon, for instance, I wouldn't be dragged back to Earth simply because I never reached escape velocity.
There is (and I think my source here is a book called "The Physics of Science Fiction") a fairly laymans explanation of how if one can "blow off" more than half ones mass when within the event horizon then one will escape the event horizon.
You can no more escape the event horizon of a black hole by doing this than you could accelerate to the speed of light...
IANAAP, but they are not really the same thing. A neutron star is under so much gravitation that it has had its electrons physically pulled into the nucleus of its atoms, where they combine with the protons to form neutrons, leaving only a giant pile of neutrons. A Bose-Einstein state is when atomic motion slows down enough that the wavelike properties of matter become apparent over the particle-like properties. I suppose that in the center of a black hole, since there is theoretically no possibility of motion, something like a Bose-Einstein state makes sense over just collapsing to a point, even if we still can't 'see' it.
Whether or not the matter condensed into some kind of Bose-Einstein condensate or collapsed to a point is entirely academic because whatever it is would still be within the event horizon, and would act the exact same way in either case.
Anyone who buys so much as a single CD or DVD is directly contributing to the financing of bills like this. If you want to do something, stop buying them. Stop going to the movies. If you can't do that, spend your money on a huge hard drive, go to the local library or video rental place and take out whatever you want, take it home and make yourself a copy instead of supporting the enemy.
But that's exactly the problem. GPL is cutting off great swathes of professional developers because they can't (not don't want to) live with the consequences.
Huh? Nobody is forcing anyone to use GPL code. If you don't like the conditions, just don't use it. Is that difficult?
And it's this lack of choice that leads to the 'tons' of duplication.
What lack of choice? You have exactly two choices - use GPL code and be bound by its terms, or find an alternative. Nobody can make you use GPL code.
If GPL were really in favour of productivity and sharing then it wouldn't be so unreasonable, instead it would encourage sharing, not attempt to force it. There is a world of difference between the two.
I don't consider it unreasonable to require the work of others in exchange for the benefits of my own work.
GPL is selfish, it's a mantra reapeated with no understanding of what it actually means.
I think most of us have a pretty good grasp of what it means.
No-one bitches about lack of code from the commercial group because they don't pretend to be generous, they don't say anything is "free" and they don't try to hide behind idealistic goals. They are earning a living and making no apologies for it. Using a commercial library doesn't normally mean you need to give your code to anyone, and your code is normally *why* you are in business.
It all depends on what kind of payment you are willing to make. With commercial components, you are going to pay cash. With the GPL, you are going to pay with code. Choose whichever you like.
I wonder how many of the GPL advocates actually earn their living from *writing code*
I do, but I sure as hell don't sell canned code. The idea that you should be paid for the same piece of work repeatedly is ridiculous. Does a farmer demand that you keep paying for the food you ate last week?
If GPL is the right thing then I don't think lecturers and consultants should be paid for what they do either, afterall, passing on their knowledge is the best thing for mankind. Let's talk about farmers next, I mean, they don't actually 'own' the land so how can they 'own' the produce...
If a lecturer or farmer wants to work for free, that is their right. Just as it is my right to put every line of code I write (on my own time) under the GPL.
But you want me to give my project to the world if I use your project.
This is grossly unfair and I choose to not use your code because of it, you have removed a choice and created more work for everyone.
Your choice is clear cut - either you don't use GPL code or you live with the consequences of it. How much duplication of work do you think happens in the commercial software realm? Tons. I don't hear people bitching about not being able to use that code.
Again, don't say "don't use it!", because the simple fact is that I don't use GPLd code (I like retaining the right to do what I'd like with my own creations), however there are a lot of people that seem rather misguided about why the GPL is called a virus.
The GPL is no more a virus than any commercial piece of software. If you went out and bought a commercial product and decided that some.dll included with that product would be super-duper useful in the product you are working on, do you think you would get away with including it in your software? Of course not. The author would either demand that you remove the code or pay him in some way. Is this really that hard to understand?
It isn't FUD whatsoever : To use GPLd code you might apply the GPL license to your own code as well.
Incorrect. If all you want to do is use the code, you are under no obligation to give anyone the source code. You can even modify the source to fit whatever needs you might need and nobody can force you to release those changes. It's only when you try to distribute your modified version of the program that you are also forced to include the source code.
Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well.
As our current copyright laws already enforce...
The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
You don't get it. What we are being deprived of are the improvements to our code, which is all we are really asking for in return for the use of our code.
I agree totally. It's almost like this article could have been commissioned by the RIAA itself. I mean:
"In the end, an awful lot of music will be sold in the territory of the free because it will be easier to buy music you really like than to find it for free."
Following standards is not 'retarding your code'. When this switch occurs, a large portion of web pages will have to switch from sloppy MS-only HTML to W3C compliant HTML. Are you honestly saying that this is a bad thing? Is it just because you are lazy and don't want to have to fix your old code?
I think it's because PGP and GPG have such a sucky interface. It takes me forever to read the manual every time, and the integration with current mail programs sucks!
Have you tried Evolution yet? It integrates as seamlessly with GPG as PGP does with Outlook. All you have to do is type in your passphrase after you hit 'send'.
Enforceability of the GPL is problematic at best. It's no more legal than any other software license, and consider how many objections the average/.er raises to (say) Microsoft's clickwrap licenses. Those same objections apply to the GPL, but even more strongly.
Ok, if the GPL is found unenforcable, where do these people think that they get any rights to distribute the program at all?
It is called sharing. More people should learn about it.
Both licenses are about sharing. One just makes sure that the sharing continues.
Or it could be phrased: if you like to openly share (no strings attached) use the BSD license and if you don't, use the GPL.
Or: If you want your code to stay open, use GPL. If you want someone else to make money off of something that you didn't ask any money to produce, use BSD.
1.4? Yeah. But how are you going to deploy your apps? Not everybody is running 1.4 -- can't very well expect everybody to download a 15MB installer. So you will still need to support 1.3 for at least six months to a year.
Java is not VB. Older applicaions written in java have no problem running on a newer JVM. Most of the time, they are actually faster. Also unlike VB, you can continue to use nearly all of your older code in a new project. Have you even seen what Microsoft has done with VB.net? It's a new language with some passing similarity to VB.
Threads. You have to do frigging everything in Java with threads. It's fragile! Livelocks and deadlocks lurks after every code block.
Pure fud. You have either never actually used java or are actively trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
More resolution would be nice for about 5 minutes, but it is hardly a reason to spend tons of money and dump all of the existing technology over because when that 5 minutes is up, you realize that we still have the same shitty content as we always have. High definition is such a marginal change that it doesn't even come close to being a compelling upgrade.
Being able to turn off popups is especially nice when dealing with adult web sites...
And, the rocket WILL reach 7 miles/sec (or whatever) . . . it just doesn't reach it near the Earth's surface. Otherwise, the rocket CANNOT escape the Earth's gravitational potential.
I think I understand what the poster you responded to was asking. Do you necessarily have to reach escape velocity in order to leave the Earth? If I had some way to move slowly up through the atmosphere, all the way to the moon, for instance, I wouldn't be dragged back to Earth simply because I never reached escape velocity.
And creationism *is* internally coherent? Bahahaha!
There is (and I think my source here is a book called "The Physics of Science Fiction") a fairly laymans explanation of how if one can "blow off" more than half ones mass when within the event horizon then one will escape the event horizon.
You can no more escape the event horizon of a black hole by doing this than you could accelerate to the speed of light...
IANAAP, but they are not really the same thing. A neutron star is under so much gravitation that it has had its electrons physically pulled into the nucleus of its atoms, where they combine with the protons to form neutrons, leaving only a giant pile of neutrons. A Bose-Einstein state is when atomic motion slows down enough that the wavelike properties of matter become apparent over the particle-like properties. I suppose that in the center of a black hole, since there is theoretically no possibility of motion, something like a Bose-Einstein state makes sense over just collapsing to a point, even if we still can't 'see' it.
Whether or not the matter condensed into some kind of Bose-Einstein condensate or collapsed to a point is entirely academic because whatever it is would still be within the event horizon, and would act the exact same way in either case.
No, not really. You are still bound by Apple's non-open source license, even if the source code is available.
Anyone who buys so much as a single CD or DVD is directly contributing to the financing of bills like this. If you want to do something, stop buying them. Stop going to the movies. If you can't do that, spend your money on a huge hard drive, go to the local library or video rental place and take out whatever you want, take it home and make yourself a copy instead of supporting the enemy.
But that's exactly the problem. GPL is cutting off great swathes of professional developers because they can't (not don't want to) live with the consequences.
Huh? Nobody is forcing anyone to use GPL code. If you don't like the conditions, just don't use it. Is that difficult?
And it's this lack of choice that leads to the 'tons' of duplication.
What lack of choice? You have exactly two choices - use GPL code and be bound by its terms, or find an alternative. Nobody can make you use GPL code.
If GPL were really in favour of productivity and sharing then it wouldn't be so unreasonable, instead it would encourage sharing, not attempt to force it. There is a world of difference between the two.
I don't consider it unreasonable to require the work of others in exchange for the benefits of my own work.
GPL is selfish, it's a mantra reapeated with no understanding of what it actually means.
I think most of us have a pretty good grasp of what it means.
No-one bitches about lack of code from the commercial group because they don't pretend to be generous, they don't say anything is "free" and they don't try to hide behind idealistic goals. They are earning a living and making no apologies for it. Using a commercial library doesn't normally mean you need to give your code to anyone, and your code is normally *why* you are in business.
It all depends on what kind of payment you are willing to make. With commercial components, you are going to pay cash. With the GPL, you are going to pay with code. Choose whichever you like.
I wonder how many of the GPL advocates actually earn their living from *writing code*
I do, but I sure as hell don't sell canned code. The idea that you should be paid for the same piece of work repeatedly is ridiculous. Does a farmer demand that you keep paying for the food you ate last week?
If GPL is the right thing then I don't think lecturers and consultants should be paid for what they do either, afterall, passing on their knowledge is the best thing for mankind. Let's talk about farmers next, I mean, they don't actually 'own' the land so how can they 'own' the produce...
If a lecturer or farmer wants to work for free, that is their right. Just as it is my right to put every line of code I write (on my own time) under the GPL.
But you want me to give my project to the world if I use your project.
This is grossly unfair and I choose to not use your code because of it, you have removed a choice and created more work for everyone.
Your choice is clear cut - either you don't use GPL code or you live with the consequences of it. How much duplication of work do you think happens in the commercial software realm? Tons. I don't hear people bitching about not being able to use that code.
Again, don't say "don't use it!", because the simple fact is that I don't use GPLd code (I like retaining the right to do what I'd like with my own creations), however there are a lot of people that seem rather misguided about why the GPL is called a virus.
.dll included with that product would be super-duper useful in the product you are working on, do you think you would get away with including it in your software? Of course not. The author would either demand that you remove the code or pay him in some way. Is this really that hard to understand?
The GPL is no more a virus than any commercial piece of software. If you went out and bought a commercial product and decided that some
It isn't FUD whatsoever : To use GPLd code you might apply the GPL license to your own code as well.
Incorrect. If all you want to do is use the code, you are under no obligation to give anyone the source code. You can even modify the source to fit whatever needs you might need and nobody can force you to release those changes. It's only when you try to distribute your modified version of the program that you are also forced to include the source code.
Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well.
As our current copyright laws already enforce...
The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
You don't get it. What we are being deprived of are the improvements to our code, which is all we are really asking for in return for the use of our code.
I agree totally. It's almost like this article could have been commissioned by the RIAA itself. I mean:
"In the end, an awful lot of music will be sold in the territory of the free because it will be easier to buy music you really like than to find it for free."
Right....
What content can you not get to, exactly?
If strong IP rights didn't exist, there would be no need for the GPL.
It seems to me like they're taking all of the benefits of Linux and open-source and giving NOTHING back whatsoever.
And what would you call that whole 'Mozilla' thing?
Following standards is not 'retarding your code'. When this switch occurs, a large portion of web pages will have to switch from sloppy MS-only HTML to W3C compliant HTML. Are you honestly saying that this is a bad thing? Is it just because you are lazy and don't want to have to fix your old code?
If binary object code isn't a form of expression (as they said in the DeCss case), how can it get any copyright protection at all?
I think it's because PGP and GPG have such a sucky interface. It takes me forever to read the manual every time, and the integration with current mail programs sucks!
Have you tried Evolution yet? It integrates as seamlessly with GPG as PGP does with Outlook. All you have to do is type in your passphrase after you hit 'send'.
Enforceability of the GPL is problematic at best. It's no more legal than any other software license, and consider how many objections the average /.er raises to (say) Microsoft's clickwrap licenses. Those same objections apply to the GPL, but even more strongly.
Ok, if the GPL is found unenforcable, where do these people think that they get any rights to distribute the program at all?
Incorrect, DMCA refers to circumventing a protective device
Ok, so what 'protective device' is there on a gameboy that is supposedly being circumvented?
Forcing others to share is not considered sharing in my book.
Ok. Consider it selective sharing. I am only willing to share with other people who are willing to share.
It is called sharing. More people should learn about it.
Both licenses are about sharing. One just makes sure that the sharing continues.
Or it could be phrased: if you like to openly share (no strings attached) use the BSD license and if you don't, use the GPL.
Or: If you want your code to stay open, use GPL. If you want someone else to make money off of something that you didn't ask any money to produce, use BSD.
1.4? Yeah. But how are you going to deploy your apps? Not everybody is running 1.4 -- can't very well expect everybody to download a 15MB installer. So you will still need to support 1.3 for at least six months to a year.
Java is not VB. Older applicaions written in java have no problem running on a newer JVM. Most of the time, they are actually faster. Also unlike VB, you can continue to use nearly all of your older code in a new project. Have you even seen what Microsoft has done with VB.net? It's a new language with some passing similarity to VB.
Threads. You have to do frigging everything in Java with threads. It's fragile! Livelocks and deadlocks lurks after every code block.
Pure fud. You have either never actually used java or are actively trolling.