This liscense is much more like the open content liscense than like the GPL. The colophon says that redistribution is allowed, but doesn't speak of modifications. Therefore, any modifications of his text would have to be distinguished from the original (which is how the open content liscense works), which is contrary to the GPL (which forbids authors from requiring credit be due to them or the distinguishing of derived content from the original content).
Of course, after a eleven-hundred years, it's all public domain, although with the rate at which Disney and the late Rep. Sonny Bono were conspiring to extend the duration of copyrights, such an assumption might soon be invalid.;)
If I were inventing a new chip that is supposed to revolutionize the industry, I certainly wouldn't pin my hopes on getting Microsoft to port its operating systems onto it for a bunch of reasons:
1) Their operating systems provide subpar performance and never really made some of the easier chip-technology leaps that have already happened. They're having enough trouble porting their wares to Intel's Itanium chips, which are less revolutionary than what Transmeta is alegedly making.
2) Try as they might otherwise, they are still joined to Intel, and if I had a new wonderful process to protect, I wouldn't wave it anywhere near Intel.
3) Ultimately, it would be up to MS to decide whether and how well to support the new chip.
4) It doesn't look like this chip will even be competing on the normal pc part of the spectrum, which makes sense if Allen is hoping to keep his paper billions from crashing about his ears.
Hiring Linus makes perfect sense, because if they want a non-MS operating system to run on this chip, their best bet is Linux, and if they're therefore betting hard on Linux, it is in their best interest to make sure the maintainer of its kernel is secure in that position. They also get the bonus of getting to develop their own modified kernel in house while subtly steering the public kernel in a direction most favorable to the sudden incorporation of their modifications when the chip is finally unveiled.
I finally figured out Linus's connection! According to the secret message, come January we will "have access to all of the real details". In other words, the information is going to become open. But then, if you turn to the processor's name, Crusoe, you'll quickly realize as I did that it's just an anagram for SOURCE. Transmeta's processor is going to be OPEN SOURCE!
as well as Gowers and others, the fear of splitting infinitives has always been a superstition and rarely justified. Yes, you should try to avoid splitting your infinitives if you can convey the same meaning by restructuring your sentence, but avoiding the splitting of infinitives at all costs leads to much greater sins like splitting direct objects from transitive verbs, as well as even sillier superstitions like fearing to split helping verbs from their infinitives.
In any event, rules of grammar are not beholden to any single authority; either something is correct or it isn't, and incorrect things eventually become correct when enough of the population is using them. Of course, I will likely continue to assert the difference between "owing to" and "due to" until I die.
Murder is, by definiton, unjustified and unauthorized killing. War is, in most cases, again by definition, authorized. Semantics aside, your point stands valid.
You can find out more here, where you might then follow to this place over here. The whole idea of trademarking and imbuing goodwill into a word like "shack" is ludicrous.
A hundred years from now, some mathematician will find Black Parrot's comment, fail to figure out the answer, and name this conundrum "Black Parrot's Last Theorem". Mark my word.
Reuse. How are you supposed to reuse the thing if it's disposable? Besides, though recycling is certainly not energetically free, it does have some other major benefits besides any potential savings of energy, including: it conserves scarce and/or toxic chemicals (eg, whoever thought to make mercury batteries disposable needs a lobotomy or two).
Yes, most SUV-driving environmentalists are hypocrites. That doesn't disqualify the intentions they fail to realize, however (unless you believe in the logical validity of ad hominem arguments, in which case you're twice a fool).
Saying "let's slashdot their poll" is equivalent to saying "let's line up and slashdot their wallets". These polls are meaningless, and all stuffing them does is rack up some ad impressions for the company running the page. It's what they're counting on having people do, and though it's not dishonest at this level, it needn't be encouraged.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Historical Review of Pennsylvania.) as found here.
Rig them like the messenger bots in Marge Piercy's He She and It. Lots of strong encryption, but besides that, they violently explode when tampered with.
Of course, there might be reprocussions when the farmer's dog tries to eat one of these things....
1. At least in NY, juries pay less than minimum wage. For some retail jobs, one of the perks is that the company will pay you the difference between what you get from jury duty and what you would've gotten if you'd worked. Lots of people don't have such a standing offer.
2. You're more wrong than you think. Batson v. Kentucky said it's unconsitutional for prosecutors to use preemptory challenges to exclude jurors because of race. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel said that it's unconstitutional to do the same for sex. It was the accused's race and gender that were being excluded in each of these cases.
And most of all, your jurisprudence of original intent falls on its face, especially in terms of voting. Nearly every one of the amendments passed since the bill of rights has extended the right to vote to more and more people, until we reach the present where for all intents and purposes it's "one person one vote".
(Go ahead and look at Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson for some examples of what sort of horrors a jurisprudence of original intent can wreak. It's with good reason that Bork isn't sitting on the Courttoday.)
The system you advocate would be unconstitutional, because it would violate the accused's right to a fair and impartial jury. Especially economicly disadvantaged people would suffer, because they above all others are least likely to be able to afford to miss work to serve on a jury.
You'd be better off throwing your liquid nitrogen on the plexiglass of a regular candy machine. Screen shatters = free candy. Or you could just rob the next person in line. Or you could just work for a living and spend your money on things other than carbonated caffeinated sugar water.
At least on paper, MS surpassed GE a while back (it's amazing what inflated stock values can do). Never mind that GE owns fab plants and other things of material value.
Lots of xmas trees are ones that're just standing around outside one's home and get strung with lights. Just plant one of these instead, and it'll glow for free. And don't think that people won't do it just because these things would glow all year round. People have enough trouble getting their lights down by valentine's day -- they want the lights up all the time, and this is the perfect excuse for doing so.
They're inserting the appropriate genes into the tree so it'll grow its own luciferase. Much cheaper, and probably equally as important, much more patentable. I could definitely see some corporation like Monsanto getting in on this sort of thing.
Think of how much fossil fuel such a thing would save if it glowed on its own instead of having to be plugged into the local power plant. There's too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it is, and here we have a glowing xmas tree that, being a tree, actually deducts from the aggregate atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Of course it'll be ugly as hell, but we're used to that here in the states. Since when has xmas ever been about demonstrating good taste in America?
False positives. If this thing returns no false positives, then innocent people simply won't be affected. "Bad" people will.
That assumes that only "bad" people are targeted in the first place. Lack of fales positives only indicates that they're nabbing the ones they intend to nab. There were no false positives in the FBI Files scandal a few years back, but that doesn't mean innocent people's rights weren't trampled.
I personally find the bumper stickers amusing and the problem they address important, but please excuse me if I don't see the wisdom in combatting a problem of others' driving while distracted by putting a bumper sticker on one's car. I often see idiots driving recklessly in order to get close enough to see what the bumper sticker says on the car ahead of them. Perhaps it'll inform more people than it hurts in this manner, but I remain skeptical.
Network architecture: Imagine being able to navigate your network as in all those Gibsonian worlds... In a Doom environment, no less. A room is a particular server, and doors are gateways. You get that moving skyline when you're about to go on the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
This liscense is much more like the open content liscense than like the GPL. The colophon says that redistribution is allowed, but doesn't speak of modifications. Therefore, any modifications of his text would have to be distinguished from the original (which is how the open content liscense works), which is contrary to the GPL (which forbids authors from requiring credit be due to them or the distinguishing of derived content from the original content).
;)
Of course, after a eleven-hundred years, it's all public domain, although with the rate at which Disney and the late Rep. Sonny Bono were conspiring to extend the duration of copyrights, such an assumption might soon be invalid.
If I were inventing a new chip that is supposed to revolutionize the industry, I certainly wouldn't pin my hopes on getting Microsoft to port its operating systems onto it for a bunch of reasons:
1) Their operating systems provide subpar performance and never really made some of the easier chip-technology leaps that have already happened. They're having enough trouble porting their wares to Intel's Itanium chips, which are less revolutionary than what Transmeta is alegedly making.
2) Try as they might otherwise, they are still joined to Intel, and if I had a new wonderful process to protect, I wouldn't wave it anywhere near Intel.
3) Ultimately, it would be up to MS to decide whether and how well to support the new chip.
4) It doesn't look like this chip will even be competing on the normal pc part of the spectrum, which makes sense if Allen is hoping to keep his paper billions from crashing about his ears.
Hiring Linus makes perfect sense, because if they want a non-MS operating system to run on this chip, their best bet is Linux, and if they're therefore betting hard on Linux, it is in their best interest to make sure the maintainer of its kernel is secure in that position. They also get the bonus of getting to develop their own modified kernel in house while subtly steering the public kernel in a direction most favorable to the sudden incorporation of their modifications when the chip is finally unveiled.
I finally figured out Linus's connection! According to the secret message, come January we will "have access to all of the real details". In other words, the information is going to become open. But then, if you turn to the processor's name, Crusoe, you'll quickly realize as I did that it's just an anagram for SOURCE. Transmeta's processor is going to be OPEN SOURCE!
Hallelujah!
as well as Gowers and others, the fear of splitting infinitives has always been a superstition and rarely justified. Yes, you should try to avoid splitting your infinitives if you can convey the same meaning by restructuring your sentence, but avoiding the splitting of infinitives at all costs leads to much greater sins like splitting direct objects from transitive verbs, as well as even sillier superstitions like fearing to split helping verbs from their infinitives.
In any event, rules of grammar are not beholden to any single authority; either something is correct or it isn't, and incorrect things eventually become correct when enough of the population is using them. Of course, I will likely continue to assert the difference between "owing to" and "due to" until I die.
Murder is, by definiton, unjustified and unauthorized killing. War is, in most cases, again by definition, authorized. Semantics aside, your point stands valid.
Cashier: So can I have your name?
Me: Cash.
Cashier: And how do you spell that, Mr Cash?
Me: Cash. I'm paying you with cash.
You can find out more here, where you might then follow to this place over here. The whole idea of trademarking and imbuing goodwill into a word like "shack" is ludicrous.
A hundred years from now, some mathematician will find Black Parrot's comment, fail to figure out the answer, and name this conundrum "Black Parrot's Last Theorem". Mark my word.
Reuse. How are you supposed to reuse the thing if it's disposable? Besides, though recycling is certainly not energetically free, it does have some other major benefits besides any potential savings of energy, including: it conserves scarce and/or toxic chemicals (eg, whoever thought to make mercury batteries disposable needs a lobotomy or two).
Yes, most SUV-driving environmentalists are hypocrites. That doesn't disqualify the intentions they fail to realize, however (unless you believe in the logical validity of ad hominem arguments, in which case you're twice a fool).
Saying "let's slashdot their poll" is equivalent to saying "let's line up and slashdot their wallets". These polls are meaningless, and all stuffing them does is rack up some ad impressions for the company running the page. It's what they're counting on having people do, and though it's not dishonest at this level, it needn't be encouraged.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Historical Review of Pennsylvania.) as found here.
Rig them like the messenger bots in Marge Piercy's He She and It. Lots of strong encryption, but besides that, they violently explode when tampered with.
Of course, there might be reprocussions when the farmer's dog tries to eat one of these things....
1. At least in NY, juries pay less than minimum wage. For some retail jobs, one of the perks is that the company will pay you the difference between what you get from jury duty and what you would've gotten if you'd worked. Lots of people don't have such a standing offer.
2. You're more wrong than you think. Batson v. Kentucky said it's unconsitutional for prosecutors to use preemptory challenges to exclude jurors because of race. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel said that it's unconstitutional to do the same for sex. It was the accused's race and gender that were being excluded in each of these cases.
And most of all, your jurisprudence of original intent falls on its face, especially in terms of voting. Nearly every one of the amendments passed since the bill of rights has extended the right to vote to more and more people, until we reach the present where for all intents and purposes it's "one person one vote".
(Go ahead and look at Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson for some examples of what sort of horrors a jurisprudence of original intent can wreak. It's with good reason that Bork isn't sitting on the Courttoday.)
The system you advocate would be unconstitutional, because it would violate the accused's right to a fair and impartial jury. Especially economicly disadvantaged people would suffer, because they above all others are least likely to be able to afford to miss work to serve on a jury.
As you'll see here or somewhere else. It's too bad coke's own page is so braindead (although not half as braindead as the page for barq's.
Barqs, Surge, and Coke are all put out by the same company.
You'd be better off throwing your liquid nitrogen on the plexiglass of a regular candy machine. Screen shatters = free candy. Or you could just rob the next person in line. Or you could just work for a living and spend your money on things other than carbonated caffeinated sugar water.
At least on paper, MS surpassed GE a while back (it's amazing what inflated stock values can do). Never mind that GE owns fab plants and other things of material value.
Lots of xmas trees are ones that're just standing around outside one's home and get strung with lights. Just plant one of these instead, and it'll glow for free. And don't think that people won't do it just because these things would glow all year round. People have enough trouble getting their lights down by valentine's day -- they want the lights up all the time, and this is the perfect excuse for doing so.
They're inserting the appropriate genes into the tree so it'll grow its own luciferase. Much cheaper, and probably equally as important, much more patentable. I could definitely see some corporation like Monsanto getting in on this sort of thing.
Think of how much fossil fuel such a thing would save if it glowed on its own instead of having to be plugged into the local power plant. There's too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it is, and here we have a glowing xmas tree that, being a tree, actually deducts from the aggregate atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Of course it'll be ugly as hell, but we're used to that here in the states. Since when has xmas ever been about demonstrating good taste in America?
False positives. If this thing returns no false positives, then innocent people simply won't be affected. "Bad" people will.
That assumes that only "bad" people are targeted in the first place. Lack of fales positives only indicates that they're nabbing the ones they intend to nab. There were no false positives in the FBI Files scandal a few years back, but that doesn't mean innocent people's rights weren't trampled.
I personally find the bumper stickers amusing and the problem they address important, but please excuse me if I don't see the wisdom in combatting a problem of others' driving while distracted by putting a bumper sticker on one's car. I often see idiots driving recklessly in order to get close enough to see what the bumper sticker says on the car ahead of them. Perhaps it'll inform more people than it hurts in this manner, but I remain skeptical.
Network architecture: Imagine being able to navigate your network as in all those Gibsonian worlds... In a Doom environment, no less. A room is a particular server, and doors are gateways. You get that moving skyline when you're about to go on the Internet.
"It's a UNIX system! I know this!!!"
this one or this one?