You are running X OS on Y Processor and are going to play Z game
1. Dump an image of the Memory to Disk 2. Self-Boot (remember those 360K floppy games that did it) the game 3. Access Host Primary filesystem for unusual drivers (Linux Supports almost any filesystem you can think of) 4. Play 5. Reload host OS
(Note: This may cause the OS to report signs missing periods of time and may think it had been abducted by aliens:)
Thou shalt not embrace and extend a single hair on my body!
Seriously,
Who would drop all work on Linux just to play Open Source with M$
Here's an idea. Rob, Poll people working on open source projects whether they'd drop open source projects if M$ came back with "Open Source don't work". C'mon it's like telling a pilot in midair that the plane he built and happens to be flying will not get off the ground.
Anyone have a general forwarding point where info can be sent to be forwarded specifically to news media in bulk?
Methinkseth the priviliges invested in us by the logical, natural, and physical separation of powers that we know as User, Producer, Judge(same as User) must be exercised. Specifically don't get mad at "it", don't get even with "it", move on and let "it" rot.
Damn, it man. Why is it people freak out about this? Anyway just thanks for pointing out the absurddity in most of these threads.
Repitan por favor, Ustedes tienes la direcha del "license"
Ok so shoot me I haven't studied spanish since high school but I think the only way to increase the population percentage that realizes this fact is to translate it into other languages.
I think we're straining the likelyhood of getting anymore people to realize this in the English Language.
1. No one is pushing any license or politics down your throat!
2. Read #1 again.
3. If you can't get out of an endless loop see #2.
Sorry, had to do that. The lamers who don't read made me do it.
But seriously, (with revisions) 1. (restated) No one is pushing any license or politics down your throat.
2. (revised) The purpose of licenses whether free, or proprietary is to have some sort of control.
3. (revised) Given #2, the GPL and other free licenses are no more "restrictive" or "unfair" than proprietary EULA's. See #4 on why I am comparing them.
Exhibit B: Oobjectivity, insight, and a little introspection.
4. One cannot discuss licenses in a vacuum. Even if only one actual license had existed. To believe that is to say a license is an entity isolated from all other entities such as economy, profit, monopolies, white slavery, personal gain, community gain, interest in non-monetary SELFISH non-greedy achievements, etc. (Please excuse the newspeak and ridiculous word-choice, ie. non-greedy, I'm making a point).
5. Licenses do not make the rules. Mathematics, the cost of living, attitudes, the laws of nature such as energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed only interchanged, and hence the fact that money doesn't grow on trees, dictate reality.
6. Licenses are ways to create a desired outcome based on this reality.
Exhibit C: Some Reasons to license
7. If I wanted to simply provide a niche service SOLELY to make some money. Proprietary likely.
8. If I wanted to prevent my product from being misrepresented. Practically any license.
9. If I wanted to prevent others from having to reinvent the wheel. GPL.
Exhibit D: Why I would choose the GPL-Practical reasons.
10. The GPL allows you to make extensions, but not restrictions to the GPL itself, in your license. The GPL specifically says that whatever freedoms you draw from the license must be passed on to others. The extensions you make may not reflect on or pervert the GPL. Want to pervert the GPL, write your own license, heathen. (Just kidding, I'm not biased against other licenses but I'm not encouraged by some of the one's I've read.) Ihe ones that I like somewhat should be classified as extensions of the GPL license. Note: for obvious reasons concerning the integrity and stability of the license, the GPL itself is semi-propritetary. You may extend it but you may not change what is already there. And folks, please, if you don't like the extensions in the new version don't use it. Be mature. (read Exhibit A for more info.)
11. As I mentioned before, from a practical standpoint, critical support software such as the GNU tools or the kernel should be GPLed (not gratis but libre). People depend on these for practical stability and functionality not quality. People depend on Red Hat or Debian or Slackware or Yellow Dog, etc. for quality. Just as there's a difference between hotel accomodations(quality) and the shelter of housing projects(functionality, as if) in terms of purpose, there's the same difference between tools you use.
12. Reinventing the wheel in cases where tools are critical in functionality is wasteful and redundant (pun). When a business fails because its management and employees are idiots, tough. When a business fails because the cost of starting and maintaining is ludicrously high because some bastard is hoarding, that is an ugly situation. There's a difference between wearing a plastic bag around your head and thus suffocating for no reason, and someone choking you to death.
13. The computer industry, software and hardware, is still in the dark ages. It's just as hard for a newbie to learn how to use menus and the mouse today as it was to learn to copy files in DOS in the last decade. This has nothing to do with technological complexity. I call it first contact syndrome and it's the biggest drain on the industry followed closely behind by attempts to make computers "easier" which only lengthens and complicates the road to recovering from the syndrome.
14. Economically this is good and bad. In fact it's both in a superficial sense but very bad in a long-term situation. The main result of first contact syndrome is the portal skirmishes. A lot of hot air surrounds them. You hear all kinds of miracles made by Internet E-Commerce. That's not to say the Internet isn't powerful. Of course, it is powerful but the software, hardware, and let's face it users AND developers aren't always the best at what they do or more often don't put the required effort into their work. I won't mention scammers. They're a bit of a drain but not as much as hyped. In the short-term hot air is both good and bad. You might make a lot on the virgin stocks that come out with lots of promise but no record of success or failure. But the "hangover" can also be brutal when deals fall through. In the long-term it is a very big problem because the length and severity of the swing from black to red increases and everyone can get hurt.
15. The GPL allows the evolution of a product to accelarate 'til it matures. You then have stability, functionality, and quality. That's the same idea behind beta-testing, but we all know how slow that is. If a product sucks but is a good idea, someone else will add to it. Let's face it we wouldn't have Unreal in 4 years if this weren't true.
Exhibit E: Personal reasons
16. I'm a gamer. I love playing and dreaming about developing a game some day. The game market is a higher risk market to be in than most markets but it's a market I like. If your game sucks, you lose. If it kicks ass, well, more power to you. Games don't compete against each other in the way database software does. If a database package is slow, poorly featured, or doesn't work, tough. If a game is slow, has some incompatibilities here and there, or doesn't display on your hardware, you keep the game and chuck the dollar-store video card.
17. GPLing the libraries used to build your game, has a minimal effect on your profit. Since people don't have to reinvent anything, they might have time to work on a better story. Most often it's not better but different. And GPLing your game engine has no effect on your ability to control what you do with the content. I would advise you, though, fan sites are a huge boost to your reputation. As long as no one tries to claim your brainchild as theirs, there's no conflict nor any loss of revenue.
18. Last but not least, GPLing the effort to build a solid product simplifies(read: lowers) the cost of development. People who work on GPL projects, usually already have jobs. They do it because of the challenge. The obvious exception is college students who need to grow a shark-bone(or cartilege) in order to make some decisions about their future. A little creativity helps. The less obvious exception is guys like Alan Cox who get paid to work on their pet project, Linux.
Exhibit F: Very Personal reasons
19. Big business is fine in theory. Monopolies suck in all contexts.
20. We need more people witr curiosity, integrity, and drive out there turning the world around. Thanks to the fact our overpopulation of the planet is bringing us closer and closer making us suffer the fate of our neighbors sooner than we can manage, there's got to be more solid projects and hard work. We won't last if we're dominated by whiners, scared ignoramusae(is there such a word), and plain lazy couch potatoes. This isn't to say we're all to carry the world on our backs, and like it like some fundamentalists would suggest. But we are all contributing to what happens.
21. This is out to myopic individuals who cite they have the freedom to choose any license they wish: Barring some patent and commerce laws, this is true. Precisely, the most important reason I choose the GPL license. BECAUSE I CAN.
What we call thinking is actually us listening in on the actions of our brain, modeling it, and controlling it. Learning theory says that in order to pick up new information, you must not attack your brain with data, but let it settle and "cook" a little. The language center of our brain by nature not by design or miracle also has the capacity to function as a internal laboratory.
Just as dreams contain sounds, images, smells, we can recreate those things inside our heads voluntarily. (Sure, we can't always get certain tunes Out of our heads.) Or we could set our brain to work on a problem without necessarily watching every neuron fire. We call that kind of obsession paranoia, or stage fright.
So I don't think consciousness is some complicated that exists because of some esoteric property of the universe. I pretty much think it's as simple as plumbing.
First of all, children, adaptation is built into the body without actually being built into the body as a module as opposed to the way our brain "suppossedly has it's different centers.
We do not need this technology. We can do it ourselves and maintain flexibility.
Every cell is (in terms of the model of the thing not the thing itself) like a plastic bag. Ever have someone tighten a knot in the opening of the bag so tight only GOD/root could open it and you didn't have a knife nor a pair of scissors? If you push in slightly on the plastic it returns to its original form. If you push harder eventually it begins to stretch. If you push in far enough it breaks.
Here comes the magic (no it's not designed into the body):
Most pragmatists, efficiency experts and altogether too-lazy-to-rearrange-the-pieces-before making-a-judgment scientists would say the above covers everything. Reductionism Knows All...
That's like saying all you need to know about driving is the brake pedal and the gas pedal. That's like saying that you don't need to develop a sense not just a reflex of how you control your speed around a curve (this is where fuzziness is a gold mine!). Going too slow around a curve can be just as deadly as going too fast.
Reductionism Knows Shit. If you use two fingers the stretched section shapes itself like two fingers. If you apply a flame to the plastic it melts. Now before flaming me that all this is obvious please tell me where is it programmed into the plastic that two fingers cause the plastic to stretch around two fingers and that plastic melts.
It isn't programmed anywhere. Programming means not only specifying a feature of a thing but designing that feature out of basic actions all microprocessors do, namely move memory values around and around. With all due respect to Lara Croft, what we call a picture is just a bunch of dots.
With physical objects such as a rock, we have no way of programming the things. The lowest level of physics is in theory. We can spend a ludicrous amount of resources to isolate one subparticle from the rest of the universe, but we cannot design subparticles with our own features. Features such as adaptation cannot be assigned to any one thing.
There's two environments we're talking about here. One is an environment where feedback loops do not exist. This is the case of objects being out of the range of natural forces (ie. zero gravity). Here all you have is cause and efect.
When you have intelligence, there is a feedback loop. Cause and effect are no longer separated and neither are the objects they apply to. There is only adaptation. An example of this is military mobilization or as I like to call it the mushroom that comes before the mushroom cloud. (To think humanity is doomed to screw itself over and over again unless we keep some of our runaway adaptatiopns in check. Not turn them off but in check.)
The fact of the matter is all our senses are learned and depend on adaptation. Everything we see, taste, touch, smell, feel, and hear is a reconstruction of the world outside. I believe through the right training neurons can be organized in handy sets of logic gates that can be organized into ALU's. And don't get me wrong, despite my reservations, H.R. Geiger rules. Let's face it. Interfacing a spaceship to the human brain raises space travel to the glory of snowboarding, skying, roller-blading, hang-gliding or what have you.
But integrating machines inside your brain permanently? Yech! No thank you. Besides what mostly likely would happen if you even tried to train the brain, it would happily transfer all your efforts to create rigid structures into fuzzy structures that you wouldn't be able to differentiate from the rigid structures you intended to create, except under special conditions. This again is not a magic feature cleverly designed into the brain but a feature gained from experience that fits the nature of the universe and the fact that the universe invariably presents fuzzy problems to be solved.
And don't even think of suggesting early training in linear thinking, you would take away the one thing that allows an organism to survive.
And yes I do believe cellular phones are part of a corporate government plot:)
Slashdot Mirror
Take this for instance:
:)
You are running X OS on Y Processor and are going to play Z game
1. Dump an image of the Memory to Disk
2. Self-Boot (remember those 360K floppy games that did it) the game
3. Access Host Primary filesystem for unusual drivers (Linux Supports almost any filesystem you
can think of)
4. Play
5. Reload host OS
(Note: This may cause the OS to report signs missing periods of time and may think it had been abducted by aliens
Thou shalt not embrace and extend a single hair on my body!
Seriously,
Who would drop all work on Linux just to play Open Source with M$
Here's an idea. Rob, Poll people working on open source projects whether they'd drop open source projects if M$ came back with "Open Source don't work". C'mon it's like telling a pilot in midair that the plane he built and happens to be flying will not get off the ground.
Anyone have a general forwarding point where info can be sent to be forwarded specifically to news media in bulk?
(is that spamming or are they asking for it?)
Thou shalt not embrace and extend a single hair on my body!
Methinkseth the priviliges invested in us by the logical, natural, and physical separation of powers that we know as User, Producer, Judge(same as User) must be exercised. Specifically don't get mad at "it", don't get even with "it", move on and let "it" rot.
How bout spinning off a Hardware Interface GPL?
you scare me man
Damn, it man. Why is it people freak out about this? Anyway just thanks for pointing out the absurddity in most of these threads.
Repitan por favor, Ustedes tienes la direcha del "license"
Ok so shoot me I haven't studied spanish since high school but I think the only way to increase the population percentage that realizes this fact is to translate it into other languages.
I think we're straining the likelyhood of getting anymore people to realize this in the English Language.
Any takers?
Heck anyone could "glean" it. Then build a proprietary war module against it.
We're forgetting there's no law that requires you to license under anyone else's license.
Simply put the whiners want to make sure people still buy their software.
The fact of the matter is they believe FSF is their enemy.
What's the fig?
Why not take a little responsibility yourself?
Why give rights to the gov't?
Exhibit A: Stop whining
1. No one is pushing any license or politics down your throat!
2. Read #1 again.
3. If you can't get out of an endless loop see #2.
Sorry, had to do that. The lamers who don't read made me do it.
But seriously, (with revisions)
1. (restated) No one is pushing any license or politics down your throat.
2. (revised) The purpose of licenses whether free, or proprietary is to have some sort of control.
3. (revised) Given #2, the GPL and other free licenses are no more "restrictive" or "unfair" than proprietary EULA's. See #4 on why I am comparing them.
Exhibit B: Oobjectivity, insight, and a little introspection.
4. One cannot discuss licenses in a vacuum. Even if only one actual license had existed. To believe that is to say a license is an entity isolated from all other entities such as economy, profit, monopolies, white slavery, personal gain, community gain, interest in non-monetary SELFISH non-greedy achievements, etc. (Please excuse the newspeak and ridiculous word-choice, ie. non-greedy, I'm making a point).
5. Licenses do not make the rules. Mathematics, the cost of living, attitudes, the laws of nature such as energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed only interchanged, and hence the fact that money doesn't grow on trees, dictate reality.
6. Licenses are ways to create a desired outcome based on this reality.
Exhibit C: Some Reasons to license
7. If I wanted to simply provide a niche service
SOLELY to make some money. Proprietary likely.
8. If I wanted to prevent my product from being misrepresented. Practically any license.
9. If I wanted to prevent others from having to reinvent the wheel. GPL.
Exhibit D: Why I would choose the GPL-Practical reasons.
10. The GPL allows you to make extensions, but not restrictions to the GPL itself, in your license. The GPL specifically says that whatever freedoms you draw from the license must be passed on to others. The extensions you make may not reflect on or pervert the GPL. Want to pervert the GPL, write your own license, heathen. (Just kidding, I'm not biased against other licenses but I'm not encouraged by some of the one's I've read.) Ihe ones that I like somewhat should be classified as extensions
of the GPL license. Note: for obvious reasons concerning the integrity and stability of the license, the GPL itself is semi-propritetary. You may extend it but you may not change what is already there. And folks, please, if you don't like the extensions in the new version don't use it. Be mature. (read Exhibit A for more info.)
11. As I mentioned before, from a practical standpoint, critical support software such as the GNU tools or the kernel should be GPLed (not gratis but libre). People depend on these for practical stability and functionality not quality.
People depend on Red Hat or Debian or Slackware or Yellow Dog, etc. for quality. Just as there's a difference between hotel accomodations(quality) and the shelter of housing projects(functionality, as if) in terms of purpose, there's the same difference between tools you use.
12. Reinventing the wheel in cases where tools are critical in functionality is wasteful and redundant (pun). When a business fails because its management and employees are idiots, tough. When a business fails because the cost of starting and maintaining is ludicrously high because some bastard is hoarding, that is an ugly situation. There's a difference between wearing a plastic bag around your head and thus suffocating for no reason, and someone choking you to death.
13. The computer industry, software and hardware, is still in the dark ages. It's just as hard for a newbie to learn how to use menus and the mouse today as it was to learn to copy files in DOS in the last decade. This has nothing to do with technological complexity. I call it first contact syndrome and it's the biggest drain on the industry followed closely behind by attempts to make computers "easier" which only lengthens and complicates the road to recovering from the syndrome.
14. Economically this is good and bad. In fact it's both in a superficial sense but very bad in a long-term situation. The main result of first contact syndrome is the portal skirmishes. A lot of hot air surrounds them. You hear all kinds of miracles made by Internet E-Commerce. That's not to say the Internet isn't powerful. Of course, it is powerful but the software, hardware, and let's face it users AND developers aren't always the best at what they do or more often don't put the required effort into their work. I won't mention scammers. They're a bit of a drain but not as much as hyped. In the short-term hot air is both good and bad. You might make a lot on the virgin stocks that come out with lots of promise but no record of success or failure. But the "hangover" can also be brutal when deals fall through. In the long-term it is a very big problem because the
length and severity of the swing from black to red increases and everyone can get hurt.
15. The GPL allows the evolution of a product to accelarate 'til it matures. You then have stability, functionality, and quality. That's the same idea behind beta-testing, but we all know how slow that is. If a product sucks but is a good idea, someone else will add to it. Let's face it we wouldn't have Unreal in 4 years if this weren't true.
Exhibit E: Personal reasons
16. I'm a gamer. I love playing and dreaming about developing a game some day. The game market is a higher risk market to be in than most markets but it's a market I like. If your game sucks, you lose. If it kicks ass, well, more power to you. Games don't compete against each other in the way database software does. If a database package is slow, poorly featured, or doesn't work, tough. If a game is slow, has some incompatibilities here and there, or doesn't display on your hardware, you keep the game and chuck the dollar-store video card.
17. GPLing the libraries used to build your game, has a minimal effect on your profit. Since people don't have to reinvent anything, they might have time to work on a better story. Most often it's not better but different. And GPLing your game engine has no effect on your ability to control what you do with the content. I would advise you, though, fan sites are a huge boost to your reputation. As long as no one tries to claim your brainchild as theirs, there's no conflict nor any loss of revenue.
18. Last but not least, GPLing the effort to build a solid product simplifies(read: lowers) the cost of development. People who work on GPL projects, usually already have jobs. They do it because of the challenge. The obvious exception is college students who need to grow a shark-bone(or cartilege) in order to make some decisions about their future. A little creativity helps. The less obvious exception is guys like Alan Cox who get paid to work on their pet project, Linux.
Exhibit F: Very Personal reasons
19. Big business is fine in theory. Monopolies suck in all contexts.
20. We need more people witr curiosity, integrity, and drive out there turning the world around. Thanks to the fact our overpopulation of the planet is bringing us closer and closer making us suffer the fate of our neighbors sooner than we can manage, there's got to be more solid projects and hard work. We won't last if we're dominated by whiners, scared ignoramusae(is there such a word), and plain lazy couch potatoes. This isn't to say we're all to carry the world on our backs, and like it like some fundamentalists would suggest. But we are all contributing to what happens.
21. This is out to myopic individuals who cite they have the freedom to choose any license they wish: Barring some patent and commerce laws, this is true. Precisely, the most important reason I choose the GPL license. BECAUSE I CAN.
Sorry but the just do it instruction was never included on a chip so getting even sprites to work is a huge deal. Get a clue.
By the way, do a search for cross-elf on the net.
It let's you run one binary on dos, linux, and 95, with no problems whatsoever.
Come on do a little research.
Or look like a fool.
What we call thinking is actually us listening in on the actions of our brain, modeling it, and controlling it. Learning theory says that in order to pick up new information, you must not attack your brain with data, but let it settle and "cook" a little. The language center of our brain by nature not by design or miracle also has the capacity to function as a internal laboratory.
Just as dreams contain sounds, images, smells, we can recreate those things inside our heads voluntarily. (Sure, we can't always get certain tunes Out of our heads.) Or we could set our brain to work on a problem without necessarily watching every neuron fire. We call that kind of obsession paranoia, or stage fright.
So I don't think consciousness is some complicated that exists because of some esoteric property of the universe. I pretty much think it's as simple as plumbing.
First of all, children, adaptation is built into the body without actually being built into the body as a module as opposed to the way our brain "suppossedly has it's different centers.
:)
We do not need this technology. We can do it ourselves and maintain flexibility.
Every cell is (in terms of the model of the thing not the thing itself) like a plastic bag. Ever have someone tighten a knot in the opening of the bag so tight only GOD/root could open it and you didn't have a knife nor a pair of scissors? If you push in slightly on the plastic it returns to its original form. If you push harder eventually it begins to stretch. If you push in far enough it breaks.
Here comes the magic (no it's not designed into the body):
Most pragmatists, efficiency experts and altogether too-lazy-to-rearrange-the-pieces-before making-a-judgment scientists would say the above covers everything. Reductionism Knows All...
That's like saying all you need to know about driving is the brake pedal and the gas pedal. That's like saying that you don't need to develop a sense not just a reflex of how you control your speed around a curve (this is where fuzziness is a gold mine!). Going too slow around a curve can be just as deadly as going too fast.
Reductionism Knows Shit. If you use two fingers the stretched section shapes itself like two fingers. If you apply a flame to the plastic it melts. Now before flaming me that all this is obvious please tell me where is it programmed into the plastic that two fingers cause the plastic to stretch around two fingers and that plastic melts.
It isn't programmed anywhere. Programming means not only specifying a feature of a thing but designing that feature out of basic actions all microprocessors do, namely move memory values around and around. With all due respect to Lara Croft, what we call a picture is just a bunch of dots.
With physical objects such as a rock, we have no way of programming the things. The lowest level of physics is in theory. We can spend a ludicrous amount of resources to isolate one subparticle from the rest of the universe, but we cannot design subparticles with our own features. Features such as adaptation cannot be assigned to any one thing.
There's two environments we're talking about here.
One is an environment where feedback loops do not exist. This is the case of objects being out of the range of natural forces (ie. zero gravity).
Here all you have is cause and efect.
When you have intelligence, there is a feedback loop. Cause and effect are no longer separated and neither are the objects they apply to. There is only adaptation. An example of this is military mobilization or as I like to call it the mushroom that comes before the mushroom cloud. (To think humanity is doomed to screw itself over and over again unless we keep some of our runaway adaptatiopns in check. Not turn them off but in check.)
The fact of the matter is all our senses are learned and depend on adaptation. Everything we see, taste, touch, smell, feel, and hear is a reconstruction of the world outside. I believe through the right training neurons can be organized in handy sets of logic gates that can be organized into ALU's. And don't get me wrong, despite my reservations, H.R. Geiger rules. Let's face it. Interfacing a spaceship to the human brain raises space travel to the glory of snowboarding, skying, roller-blading, hang-gliding or what have you.
But integrating machines inside your brain permanently? Yech! No thank you. Besides what mostly likely would happen if you even tried to train the brain, it would happily transfer all your efforts to create rigid structures into fuzzy structures that you wouldn't be able to differentiate from the rigid structures you intended to create, except under special conditions. This again is not a magic feature cleverly designed into the brain but a feature gained from experience that fits the nature of the universe and the fact that the universe invariably presents fuzzy problems to be solved.
And don't even think of suggesting early training
in linear thinking, you would take away the one thing that allows an organism to survive.
And yes I do believe cellular phones are part of a corporate government plot