That's the problem with any for profit corporation. The courts don't recognize any purpose to a corporation but profit, and the shareholders will sue the corporation and the management for not maximizing profits. For example, grocery stores have very low profit margins, it's part of the grocery business. Because of that, Safeway shareholders could sue Safeway and its board for not starting an iTunes competitor and buying an oil company. And they'd probably win, because staying in the grocery business is not a good way to maximize profits.
Well, in the TV business the way to maximize profits is to buy cheap shows that morons will watch and stuff them with advertising. A night vision camera and some old props from the shows you cancelled and you've got a reality show about ghosts. Creating new series targeted at a small but relatively wealthy demographic is not that profitable.
It's time that we recognized that corporations can have a purpose besides profit, and it's time to allow founders of corporations to create an irrevocable charter that lists those purposes. (With, of course, criminal penalties for someone who transfers assets to another corporation in the same industry).
I see where you're going. If you strictly distribute source with every binary, then there is no written offer to provide source which you need to abide by. If you distribute binaries without source, then you must supply a written offer to provide source to anyone (unless you didn't compile the binaries and you received them without source, you can include the offer you received with the binaries in lieu of the source.)
In other words in order to not to be required to distribute the source to anyone who asks you must always provide the source with the binaries you ship.
It's pretty clear to English speakers that "any third party" means "any third party" with no qualifiers. If they had meant to say anyone you have distributed a binary to, they would have said anyone you have distributed a binary to.
From the official FAQ:
Q. What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
A. If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
I transcode to AAC to get smaller files at the same quality. I've only got a 16GB card in my droid.
I assumed that Google's cloud storage for music would be priced the same as the rest of their cloud storage. I may transcode my backups to FLAC, if that's the case.
Anyone who has actually gone to the site might notice that many of the items there aren't failures, unless you consider the Ipod G1, G2, G3 and Touch to be failures. The Palm Pilot a failure? The IBM Trackpoint a failure? I think not. Most of the mice in the mouse section, not failures. Etch-a-sketch? One of the most successful toys ever, a technical failure? Swiss Army knives, a failure?
That's another key difference. 90%+ of potential customers today are already using iTunes, so Amazon/Google/etc.
90%? I think that's an overestimate, although Apple would like you to think it's the truth. I'd never use iTunes (or buy an iPhone or iPod). I do buy MP3s from Amazon.com. My understanding is that Amazon.com mp3s are significantly less expensive than they are at iTunes, and they are in a more portable format. Although I do admit I transcode to AAC for playback on my Droid.
Since, the rollout of the Amazon Cloud player, I find myself less worried about losing songs in transit, or if the device they were just downloaded to gets fried. I don't know if I'll upload anything to it, though. The 20GB upgrade is free if you've bought an album, but 20GB isn't enough to hold my collection. The regular cost for their upgrades seems a bit high.
I pay the $5 a year for 20GB of Google storage already. Again, I doubt I'll upload music due to lack of space. But I mention it to point out that I've already got cloud storage with the competitors. So there's no convincing to be done.
It was a dark time for the viewers. When their best ideas are to cancel anything watchable before the first season is over, it's time for them to go. We've already got one Spike TV, why do we need another one?
Their strategy should have been to capture SF shows from other networks that were good, but couldn't make the ABC/NBC/CBS cut. But they've pretty much blown every chance they've had at that. (Gee, it only pulled in better ratings than anything we've ever had, but NBC won the time slot, so we'd better pass.)
One in 10 of their own series are actually worth watching. Lets remember that SG1 started on Showtime (or was it HBO)?
No, GPL2 doesn't require you to do that. It gives you three options, only one of which requires that you provide source to any third party.
It only requires that you give source to any third party if you don't distribute source with your binary or if your binary was made with unmodified source available elsewhere. If you distribute a binary you made from modified source you must offer source to anyone or distribute the source with the binary. If you made a binary from unmodified source you got from somewhere else with a source offer, you can include their offer to give source rather than your own. If you got the source with a binary rather than with a source offer, you must either include source with the binary or offer source to anyone.
In summary, the only way to avoid being required to give source to any third party under GPL2 is by distributing source with the binaries, or by compiling from unmodified source available elsewhere.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
These are all assumptions based on observations of objects moving at an incredibly slower relative velocity to the objects or phenomenon they are measuring (light).
No. These are theoretical prediction that have been confirmed for every case tested. Human beings accelerating things to very near the speed of light is a daily occurrence. Google "synchrotron" to see how many are currently operating.
1. We know that objects travel faster than light in at least one place in the universe – in a black hole objects are accelerated to speeds at which light reflecting off of their surfaces or emitted by the objects cannot reach escape velocity. Thus, things falling into a black hole must be traveling faster than the speed of light.
That's not true. From the perspective of an outside viewer, no object ever reaches the event horizon. It's a fall that takes an infinite amount of time. It's one of the pitfalls of using black holes for transit. You need to go back in time when you exit from the other side. From the perspective of someone falling into a black hole, they never exceed the speed of light, they calculate that the outside universe is receeding, even though the light falling in is strongly blue-shifted and they don't even notice the event horizon.
3. Mass is the measurement of the amount of matter in an object.
No. Mass is the amount of energy (of all forms) that an object possesses.
4. It follows from 2 that the only way to add mass to an object is to add matter.
No.
5. Distances between two stationary objects in space cannot change.
That depends upon your definition of stationary and distance. An observer can change the distance between them by accelerating himself.
6. An object set in motion moving from one stationary point toward another stationary point will eventually reach the other point.
That depends upon how you define toward, but yes, if you define toward as the direction and velocity necessary for it to reach the other point, it's a tautology
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove about faster than light travel, but it's clear you need to study some relativity. Distance is changed by relativistic velocity. That's the one part of the solution to the twin paradox. Two twin's, one stays home, one travels at 99% of the speed of light to a star 10 light years away and back. The one that stays at home ages 20 years and sees that his brother traveled 20 light years. But once the traveling brother got to 99% of the speed of light, the distance between the earth and the distant star is only 1.4 light years. There's a lot of other stuff you should learn about simultaneity, too.
You're right. I didn't notice that the LGPL had "the same user" where the standard GPL has "any third party," and made a bad assumption. Yet another reason not to choose LGPL.
they are legally required to make available source code of any LGPL-licensed components to whomever they have distributed binaries
You need to read your licenses better, or stop believing people who don't know what they are talking about. The only provision in the LGPL for only giving source to people you have given binaries to is if you give the source and binaries together. If you don't give source and binaries together, then you are required to give source to any party that requests it.
Or they're just getting their ducks into a row first?
It doesn't work that way. The LGPL is clear that once you're distributing a binary, you must also be ready to distribute source. So if there was duck sorting to be done before releasing the code, that sorting needed to be performed before they release a binary. The source also needs to be what is required to build webkit. If they mixed it up with proprietary code that they don't want to release, they need to cease binary distribution, and hope that they don't get sued by the KHTML authors. Regardless of the reason, they need to cease binary distribution until there is a source distribution.
And the freight rail system is doing well despite how much track has been decommissioned in the last 40 years. Some has been decommissioned due to mergers, but a lot of other right-of-ways have been removed entirely. When I was growing up in the upper midwest, towns of 200 still had railroad stops for loading grain and timber. At that point it was still the best way to get to the paper mill or to the grain market. (The other option being 200+ miles on 2 lane roads with no shoulder).
Now, of course, the tracks have been pulled and the right-of-ways are all snowmobile or cross country ski trails. Nothing makes for exciting cross country skiing like a 10 mile straight stretch. Now you might have to drive 40 miles to the nearest set of tracks, and 60 to the nearest freight stop. The trains won't be coming back, even if we need them to. People are to jealous with their land to allow that. Of course, that's been true for a long time. When I was growing up, the tracks to my home town had long since been removed. The right of way crossed my parents driveway. There were trees three inches in diameter growing on it. They're probably much bigger now.
It's not the outages you have now that are the problem. The current design (if you can call it a design) is subject to cascade failures. Suppose a part of the grid (region 1) loses contact with generating capacity (or the generators go down). So region 1 starts pulling power from region 2, which was already pulling power from regions 3 and 4. The region 2 to 3 connection overloads and shuts down. Then region 2 starts sucking all the power out of region 4, overloading a section of region 4. Region 1, 2, and 4 go dark. Meanwhile region 7, which was buying power from region 1 and shipping it through 2, 3 and 5, starts having brownouts as does 5.
The situations are typically more difficult than that and the initial failure more complex. Of course these multi-region failures are pretty rare. Once every couple decades or so. They are rare enough that the power companies won't design for them. It's cheaper for them if you're without power for a week every 15 years. It's probably cheaper for you, too, unless you happen to need emergency surgery after the Hospital has run out of diesel fuel for its backup generators.
Here's a million dollar app idea, free for the taking. New app called "Paris Interactive Pussy". It's just Neko with the Eiffel Tower in the background. No Demo. Charge $3.
By the time you could get a C64 for $200, you could get a 6502 for $1.50. And it's not true that use on part build by a subsidiary or even the same company get you the part for free. Unless that kind of accounting is how Commodore ran itself into the ground. If a company gets $10 by selling it to someone else, you can be damn sure the per unit cost is accounted as close to the same. If it isn't the suits would decide that it's better not to use a part internally if you make more money by selling it.
Taxation is one of the prices you pay for being a part of this society. Society and rules/laws such as "do not kill" do not absolutely necessitate taxation.
Feel free to move to one of those other cultures. I'll gladly buy you a one way ticket once you prove that such a culture still exists. Somehow I doubt many hunter-gatherer societies would accept you as a member.
By only looking at the spending side, and discount whether program are necessary, you can reach stupid nonsensical randian conclusions like that. Special tax break don't show up in the budget, nor do tax cuts. Social security is paid for by taxes. Medicare is overbudget, but could be fixed by expanding coverage to everyone and getting rid of the rip off known as private health insurance. The rest of the budget is welfare for defense contractors. Social spending on welfare is not worth discussing until defense is cut to a reasonable level. Lets spend what the countries with the next 3 highest defense budgets spend rather than more than what the rest of the world spends.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the problem with any for profit corporation. The courts don't recognize any purpose to a corporation but profit, and the shareholders will sue the corporation and the management for not maximizing profits. For example, grocery stores have very low profit margins, it's part of the grocery business. Because of that, Safeway shareholders could sue Safeway and its board for not starting an iTunes competitor and buying an oil company. And they'd probably win, because staying in the grocery business is not a good way to maximize profits.
Well, in the TV business the way to maximize profits is to buy cheap shows that morons will watch and stuff them with advertising. A night vision camera and some old props from the shows you cancelled and you've got a reality show about ghosts. Creating new series targeted at a small but relatively wealthy demographic is not that profitable.
It's time that we recognized that corporations can have a purpose besides profit, and it's time to allow founders of corporations to create an irrevocable charter that lists those purposes. (With, of course, criminal penalties for someone who transfers assets to another corporation in the same industry).
I see where you're going. If you strictly distribute source with every binary, then there is no written offer to provide source which you need to abide by. If you distribute binaries without source, then you must supply a written offer to provide source to anyone (unless you didn't compile the binaries and you received them without source, you can include the offer you received with the binaries in lieu of the source.)
In other words in order to not to be required to distribute the source to anyone who asks you must always provide the source with the binaries you ship.
From the official FAQ:
Q. What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?
A. If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
I transcode to AAC to get smaller files at the same quality. I've only got a 16GB card in my droid. I assumed that Google's cloud storage for music would be priced the same as the rest of their cloud storage. I may transcode my backups to FLAC, if that's the case.
Anyone who has actually gone to the site might notice that many of the items there aren't failures, unless you consider the Ipod G1, G2, G3 and Touch to be failures. The Palm Pilot a failure? The IBM Trackpoint a failure? I think not. Most of the mice in the mouse section, not failures. Etch-a-sketch? One of the most successful toys ever, a technical failure? Swiss Army knives, a failure?
That's another key difference. 90%+ of potential customers today are already using iTunes, so Amazon/Google/etc.
90%? I think that's an overestimate, although Apple would like you to think it's the truth. I'd never use iTunes (or buy an iPhone or iPod). I do buy MP3s from Amazon.com. My understanding is that Amazon.com mp3s are significantly less expensive than they are at iTunes, and they are in a more portable format. Although I do admit I transcode to AAC for playback on my Droid.
Since, the rollout of the Amazon Cloud player, I find myself less worried about losing songs in transit, or if the device they were just downloaded to gets fried. I don't know if I'll upload anything to it, though. The 20GB upgrade is free if you've bought an album, but 20GB isn't enough to hold my collection. The regular cost for their upgrades seems a bit high.
I pay the $5 a year for 20GB of Google storage already. Again, I doubt I'll upload music due to lack of space. But I mention it to point out that I've already got cloud storage with the competitors. So there's no convincing to be done.
It was a dark time for the viewers. When their best ideas are to cancel anything watchable before the first season is over, it's time for them to go. We've already got one Spike TV, why do we need another one?
Their strategy should have been to capture SF shows from other networks that were good, but couldn't make the ABC/NBC/CBS cut. But they've pretty much blown every chance they've had at that. (Gee, it only pulled in better ratings than anything we've ever had, but NBC won the time slot, so we'd better pass.)
One in 10 of their own series are actually worth watching. Lets remember that SG1 started on Showtime (or was it HBO)?
BBC is the current SciFi Channel.
No, GPL2 doesn't require you to do that. It gives you three options, only one of which requires that you provide source to any third party.
It only requires that you give source to any third party if you don't distribute source with your binary or if your binary was made with unmodified source available elsewhere. If you distribute a binary you made from modified source you must offer source to anyone or distribute the source with the binary. If you made a binary from unmodified source you got from somewhere else with a source offer, you can include their offer to give source rather than your own. If you got the source with a binary rather than with a source offer, you must either include source with the binary or offer source to anyone.
In summary, the only way to avoid being required to give source to any third party under GPL2 is by distributing source with the binaries, or by compiling from unmodified source available elsewhere.
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
In Robert J. Sawyer's "Golden Fleece" is similar, but they don't forget the mission.
These are all assumptions based on observations of objects moving at an incredibly slower relative velocity to the objects or phenomenon they are measuring (light).
No. These are theoretical prediction that have been confirmed for every case tested. Human beings accelerating things to very near the speed of light is a daily occurrence. Google "synchrotron" to see how many are currently operating.
1. We know that objects travel faster than light in at least one place in the universe – in a black hole objects are accelerated to speeds at which light reflecting off of their surfaces or emitted by the objects cannot reach escape velocity. Thus, things falling into a black hole must be traveling faster than the speed of light.
That's not true. From the perspective of an outside viewer, no object ever reaches the event horizon. It's a fall that takes an infinite amount of time. It's one of the pitfalls of using black holes for transit. You need to go back in time when you exit from the other side. From the perspective of someone falling into a black hole, they never exceed the speed of light, they calculate that the outside universe is receeding, even though the light falling in is strongly blue-shifted and they don't even notice the event horizon.
3. Mass is the measurement of the amount of matter in an object.
No. Mass is the amount of energy (of all forms) that an object possesses.
4. It follows from 2 that the only way to add mass to an object is to add matter.
No.
5. Distances between two stationary objects in space cannot change.
That depends upon your definition of stationary and distance. An observer can change the distance between them by accelerating himself.
6. An object set in motion moving from one stationary point toward another stationary point will eventually reach the other point.
That depends upon how you define toward, but yes, if you define toward as the direction and velocity necessary for it to reach the other point, it's a tautology
I'm not sure what you were trying to prove about faster than light travel, but it's clear you need to study some relativity. Distance is changed by relativistic velocity. That's the one part of the solution to the twin paradox. Two twin's, one stays home, one travels at 99% of the speed of light to a star 10 light years away and back. The one that stays at home ages 20 years and sees that his brother traveled 20 light years. But once the traveling brother got to 99% of the speed of light, the distance between the earth and the distant star is only 1.4 light years. There's a lot of other stuff you should learn about simultaneity, too.
Did they figure out how much that fuel tank is going to cost? I'm guessing about as much as the ISS.
You're right. I didn't notice that the LGPL had "the same user" where the standard GPL has "any third party," and made a bad assumption. Yet another reason not to choose LGPL.
they are legally required to make available source code of any LGPL-licensed components to whomever they have distributed binaries
You need to read your licenses better, or stop believing people who don't know what they are talking about. The only provision in the LGPL for only giving source to people you have given binaries to is if you give the source and binaries together. If you don't give source and binaries together, then you are required to give source to any party that requests it.
One wonders if Apple would like to let such a case before a court. I think they would decide to avoid it.
No, they will say: "You are distributing this without a license. Stop it. Now."
Don't forget the part about awarding damages to the copyright holders.
Or they're just getting their ducks into a row first?
It doesn't work that way. The LGPL is clear that once you're distributing a binary, you must also be ready to distribute source. So if there was duck sorting to be done before releasing the code, that sorting needed to be performed before they release a binary. The source also needs to be what is required to build webkit. If they mixed it up with proprietary code that they don't want to release, they need to cease binary distribution, and hope that they don't get sued by the KHTML authors. Regardless of the reason, they need to cease binary distribution until there is a source distribution.
Who? This is about a cat and the city.
And the freight rail system is doing well despite how much track has been decommissioned in the last 40 years. Some has been decommissioned due to mergers, but a lot of other right-of-ways have been removed entirely. When I was growing up in the upper midwest, towns of 200 still had railroad stops for loading grain and timber. At that point it was still the best way to get to the paper mill or to the grain market. (The other option being 200+ miles on 2 lane roads with no shoulder).
Now, of course, the tracks have been pulled and the right-of-ways are all snowmobile or cross country ski trails. Nothing makes for exciting cross country skiing like a 10 mile straight stretch. Now you might have to drive 40 miles to the nearest set of tracks, and 60 to the nearest freight stop. The trains won't be coming back, even if we need them to. People are to jealous with their land to allow that. Of course, that's been true for a long time. When I was growing up, the tracks to my home town had long since been removed. The right of way crossed my parents driveway. There were trees three inches in diameter growing on it. They're probably much bigger now.
It's not the outages you have now that are the problem. The current design (if you can call it a design) is subject to cascade failures. Suppose a part of the grid (region 1) loses contact with generating capacity (or the generators go down). So region 1 starts pulling power from region 2, which was already pulling power from regions 3 and 4. The region 2 to 3 connection overloads and shuts down. Then region 2 starts sucking all the power out of region 4, overloading a section of region 4. Region 1, 2, and 4 go dark. Meanwhile region 7, which was buying power from region 1 and shipping it through 2, 3 and 5, starts having brownouts as does 5.
The situations are typically more difficult than that and the initial failure more complex. Of course these multi-region failures are pretty rare. Once every couple decades or so. They are rare enough that the power companies won't design for them. It's cheaper for them if you're without power for a week every 15 years. It's probably cheaper for you, too, unless you happen to need emergency surgery after the Hospital has run out of diesel fuel for its backup generators.
Here's a million dollar app idea, free for the taking. New app called "Paris Interactive Pussy". It's just Neko with the Eiffel Tower in the background. No Demo. Charge $3.
Dude! We can see your prostrate!
Don't worry, in about 6 months, the Sony part of Sony-Ericsson will find out about it, and their lawyers will put a stop to it.
By the time you could get a C64 for $200, you could get a 6502 for $1.50. And it's not true that use on part build by a subsidiary or even the same company get you the part for free. Unless that kind of accounting is how Commodore ran itself into the ground. If a company gets $10 by selling it to someone else, you can be damn sure the per unit cost is accounted as close to the same. If it isn't the suits would decide that it's better not to use a part internally if you make more money by selling it.
Taxation is one of the prices you pay for being a part of this society. Society and rules/laws such as "do not kill" do not absolutely necessitate taxation.
Feel free to move to one of those other cultures. I'll gladly buy you a one way ticket once you prove that such a culture still exists. Somehow I doubt many hunter-gatherer societies would accept you as a member.
By only looking at the spending side, and discount whether program are necessary, you can reach stupid nonsensical randian conclusions like that. Special tax break don't show up in the budget, nor do tax cuts. Social security is paid for by taxes. Medicare is overbudget, but could be fixed by expanding coverage to everyone and getting rid of the rip off known as private health insurance. The rest of the budget is welfare for defense contractors. Social spending on welfare is not worth discussing until defense is cut to a reasonable level. Lets spend what the countries with the next 3 highest defense budgets spend rather than more than what the rest of the world spends.