You're misreading his post: he was referring to the von Neumann architecture, not von Neumann machines. The former describes the basic architecture of modern computers: shared data and instruction memory accessed by words, logic and control uits, IO, etc, which von Neumann helped develop in the 40's and 50's, before his work of self-reproducing automata. In any case, the comment doesn't make any sense in reference to Turing Machines since they have neither disks nor memory (of the sort in most real computers), nor can they lose power and corrupt their tape.
No, they don't. Qt is licensed under the GPL and QPL; the former is usually interpreted as "contaminating" linked code, and the latter states, in clause 6, that you must make your source code available if you link against the library. You're partially correct, in that the QPL doesn't tell you what license you have to use, but it does impose requirements that invalidate most of the reasons for using the BSD/MIT licences.
Reading Sec. 815 os the USA Act and 18 USC 1030, I notice that Sec. 1030(a)(5), which the former is rewriting, is devoted entirely to damage to "protected computers". A protected computer is defined as
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the
United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not
exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial
institution or the United States Government and the conduct
constituting the offense affects that use by or for the
financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or
communication;
So if the RIAA was actually trying to tie something to this section they would either end up with permission to hack only gov't computers, or they would have had to amend out every reference to protected computers. Am I missing something here?
And to further confuse matters, IBM says [IBM.com, huge graphic] that the POWER4 "includes two 64-bit PowerPC microprocessors".
Re:No, result should depend on types of operands
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 3, Informative
No, the results of this should rely on the type of the operands, as it does with numerical values in C and C++ and most C++ classes.
They do, but the rather essential point that your missing is that in Perl both 1 and "1" are scalar -- they have the same type (in an obviously broader sense of the word). "1" + "1" produces "2" (or 2), as does 1 + "1", "1" + 1, and 1 + 1; and, as you might expect, "1" . "1" and 1 . 1 (note the whitespace) produces "11". Thus the need for distinct syntax, which is already present in the equality operators, where you have == vs eq, > vs gt, etc.
Keep in mind that single quotes denote a character (really an 8-bit ASCII value), and double quotes indicate a string (usually zero-terminated)
As has already been stated, single and double quoting controls variable interpolation in Perl; there are no character constants as such. And since we're playing lanaguage lawyer, (non-wide-)character constants in C are actually int's, and are not required to be ASCII (which only uses 7 bits, anyway), and strings are by definition null-terminated.
I'm not too familiar with Perl
Which begs the question of why you posted in the first place.
Everytime I point Konquerer at visa.info it just flickers for few seconds and dies on a SIGABRT. Pretty much sums up the whole "new TLD" experience for me.
Well, DirecTV no longer feeds non-local basic cable, and barely feeds local basic if you're outside of a major metropolitan area. I used to like watching the afternoon New York news before school, but then Congress stepped in....
The real problem with building KDE isn't the time, it's the space. I recently did a fresh FreeBSD install with a 3.5GB/usr, and then built KDE. When it stopped 6 hours later I had 16.4MB left, and I ended up spending the last half-hour hovering over the console waiting for everything to fall apart when I ran out of disk. Now I build and clean the major packages one at a time, because I can't afford to leave half my drive free. At least KDE is stable enough that you can go for months without updating if need be.
While this is an interesting development, and I can't begin to guess what is the future possibilities of it
There have been two potential applications I've seen mentioned.
Biosensors. This doesn't have much to do with neurons per se, but with having access to very good chemical sensors that can be interfaced to other equipment. Neurons fit these requirements, at least for a limited range of chemicals.
Human-Machine interfaces, and specifically, interfaces for prosthetics. The problems with the neurochips that you point out could work in their favor in this area: you could have (relatively) controlled, deterministic behavior, but in a form that is far easier to "plug in" to the nervous system than silicon. Naturally, they would also be excellent for interfacing instruments to nervous systems for research purposes.
.The irony of your post is that you come across as far more hostile than anything I've heard of Fox News recently. Indeed, your post is the most idiotically hostile bit of political commentary I've seen in quite a while (congrats, you actually surpassed Hannity on my list).
Just today for example I saw someone from conservative.com call Gary Condit a "mass murderer" on Fox News (of course it being fox news the host did not ask him to actually clarify that statement but just let it stand).
A few weeks ago I saw a fairly conservative Republican try to defend Condit by pointing out other disappearances in the area and offering the possibility that there was an established serial killer at work, and the liberal fellow interpreted that as an accusation that Condit was serial killer and spent the rest of interview yelling his head off about it. Am I now allowed to use this as evidence that liberals are insane morons with limited English comprehension and no tact? I think not.
So compare the so called hostility of RMS to your typical republican on fox news and he comes of like a gentleman.
They don't have real Republicans on Fox News. They have a few real people and dozens of talking heads whose job is either to misreport the news, or say unfathomable stupid things in an attempt to stir up controversy. In other words, it's a news channel just like CNN, except that FNCs heads tend to look more intelligent, at least at a distance.
Compare his hostility to the average republican radio talk show host and he comes off as a saint.
Have you really listened to enough Republican talk show hosts to find the average? More importantly, have you ever listened to some of the liberal talk show hosts? Both sides have a roughly equal proportion of raving loonies and moderates. Maybe if you were less of a loony you would see that.
What RMS does is childs play compared to the merchants of hostility and hate that pollute the airwaves these days.
There's no need to humble, you can include/., too. At least, now you can.
Put RMS on side of the table and Bill O'reilly on the other and see who is hostile.
I don't think O'Reilly is all that hostile. Occasionally, yes, but usually he's "strongly opinionated", absolutely convinced that he's right, but with no real enmity toward his guests. When he is hostile, he usually manages to direct it at third-parties rather than bombard the other people on the show. (You really should have said Hannity. I don't know anyone who would argue in his defense.)
I don't like the "look my huge shiny dick" SUV owners who think that pulling over to to shoulder is offroading any more than you do, but I also don't like the equally over-urbanized folks who think that SUVs are pure luxury items because everywhere they want to drive has already been paved. There are still a lot of people in the world who need to move large, heavy objects through places where a road is distinguished from the wildness primarily by relative lack of trees and rivers. In my experience, SUVs begin to look very attractive when you decide to take a load of passengers and assorted cargo across a small mountain range with nothing but logging roads to drive on (yes, I've done it, and there was a good reason).
I had what I assume is the same problem he did: my make-kpgk failed in fs/ntfs/unistr.c, complaining of undeclared variables (name1 and c1, IINM), the min macro, and I believe a syntax error, all in the function ntfs_collate_names. I couldn't see the cause of the errors when I (very briefly) looked over the file, so I removed the module from my config and rebuilt without incident. This is actually the first time I've ever had an experimental feature fail in any way, but since that's their job, I'm not too upset about it.
Now when I couldn't build EMU10K1 under 2.4.8, that was the time to be upset.;-)
OS X is essentially a new version of NEXTSTEP, the earliest version of which (that I'm aware of) was released in 1988. So it's actually a little more than 10 years.
OTOH, if you were implying that it took Apple 10 versions to get the MacOS right, it was actually ~16 years from the release of the first Mac to the first OS X release. But since OS X isn't the same MacOS, it's not really meaningful to include the original OS in an analysis of X's development cycle. FWIW, I would say the original MacOS became "good" somewhere between OS 6.5 and System 7.5, as little as 6 years after the initial release. (That's a relative sense of "good", of course; none of the pre-X MacOSes were really that good compared to what's available now.)
No, the kernel is (mostly) GPLed. Linus does have a somewhat more liberal interpretation of the linking issue than many others, though. As for the impact, AFAICT, LinuxDA is, in fact, in violation of the GPL, though it's a messy issue and I'm too tired to think about it clearly right now.
Simple estimate: log2($phonemes). English has somewhere between 30 and 60 phonemes (there are enough dialects to keep things confusing), so 6 bits should be sufficient. Of course, it isn't, since there's more to language than counting phonemes, and what's left likely requires a great deal more information. And your conclusion doesn't follow unless 99% of phonemes are redundant, which they aren't.
Information about the contributors to SELinux is here. Briefly, the NSA seems to be doing the bulk of the kernel work, while NAI, Secure Computing Corporation, and MITRE are working on utilities, MACs, and policy configurations.
According to my one-liner[0] (who needs a calculator), we should have 1717THz processors, with actual performance of around 34 trillion ops/sec. Gee, who would have guessed that Moore's Law breaks when applied to chip speed;-)
[0] perl -e '$i=50000;for($j=0;$j<52;$j+=1.5){$i*=2;}print" $i\n";'
I suppose that's horribly broken in some way....
I agree that it's not likely that they lifted the BSD stack and dropped it into Windows, but that doesn't mean they didn't borrow some code from it. Headers, in particular, seem to get around more than actual code; Linux has several headers that are labelled as ""Copyright (c) 19* Regents of the University of California", even though it doesn't use any of the original corresponding *.c files (AFAIK).
This seems all the more ironic since I understand Craig Mundie to be telling the government not to support GPL'ed development. Is Microsoft itself now going to stop research funding for software under such cancerous licenses?
Ah, but Mercury is being developed in Australia, not the US. Maybe MS is trying to topple to Australian government; or maybe there is a shadow war between waged Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch for world dominance, and this is just the first evidence to escape their 'cleaners'.
Wouldn't that mean that MS has to include the advertising clause notice on all Windows advertising (and the box, etc)?
Yes and no. From the original BSDL (if we could use CSS, this would be properly formatted):
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.
To my knowledge, MS has never advertised the use of ftp, so that alone wouldn't trigger the clause. OTOH, if they used, e.g., the BSD TCP/IP stack, it would, since as I recall MS was quite enthusiastic about Internet support in 95 and 98.
Also, I thought that even though the date is 1983, the new license still applies to the old code.
Nope; you can't relicense code retroactively. If they wanted to, though, MS could take the newly licensed ftp and port it, possibly just by patching it from their own source (assuming it hasn't changed any in 15 years, or the original was also relicensed). Not really worth the effort, though.
If Kereberos had been under the GPL, then MS couldn't have pulled that embrace and extend trick...
Of course they could. The Kerberos spec itself can't be GPLed; only specific implementations of it are subject to any licensing at all (barring any patents, of course).
So, let me get this straignt. Berating someone is a bad thing, unless you're doing the berating, right?
I was speaking specifically of berating companies for their licensing, so there isn't much of an analogy to draw, if that what you're going for. I'm certainly not opposed to berating, insulting, harassing, assaulting, bombing, and so, in principle, but not for something as trivial and selfish as trying to dictate the details of other people's licensing decisions to fulfill your ethical goals (which I'm not doing, so don't bother). In any case, I don't believe I was berating; rather, I think it was a mildly insulting generalization that happens to reflect reality to some degree (much like the "General Public Virus"). I believe berating requires more force and a more speicifc target.
As for the "License? Who cares? Do what you like" attitude, I'm all for it, as long as you apply it consistently.
You misunderstood, and misquoted. I simply meant that while legally you aren't required to use the new license, morally it's your business and whether you choose use the new or old, I don't care, as long as you don't decide it's the 'right' decision and try to force it down my throat. (Not that you could, since I don't use Python, but still....)
If you disregard the GPL, then you must disregard proprietary licenses as well, and furthermore you cannot expect anyone to heed any licenses you may have on your own software.
I don't expect anyone to heed my licenses as it is. And actually I wouldn't mind ignoring licenses altogether, except that doing so works entirely against Free Software -- after all, its no trouble for closed-source software developers to just not give anyone the source, making the issue moot -- and if I'm going to screw someone, it's going to be to my benefit.
As far as I can tell, a company is still perfectly free to release an open source app under a license other than the GPL. There is no law against it.
Yes, they are, but they should expect to be berated by the minority in the Free Software community who look upon every act GPL-advocacy as a quest on par with the search for the Holy Grail in terms of importance.
However, there are laws against releasing viruses, and it sounded very strongly to me that the poster would support illegalizing the GPL "virus".
You must not get out much. The "General Public Virus" is an old rebuke of the linking requirements of the GPL, and is purely rhetorical. It has nothing to do with the law, nor in fact with viruses; it's simply an analogy and reasonably clever play on words.
I see no reason why there is anything wrong with the Python developers choosing a new license for their code, on their own free will.
No one believes there is. What he was criticising, rightly I believe, was the expectation that Free Software will be brought into conformance with the GPL. There are some people out there who adopt the GPL as their personal licensing ethic, and grade all other licenses on their compatability with it. Some of are simply a little tired of listening to their complaints when they find something unacceptable.
And I think the rest of us who use the Python software are obligated to follow the new license
Legally, you aren't, unless you upgrade, since my understanding is that licenses can't be altered retroactively (yet). Morally, who cares? Do what you like.
Slashdot Mirror
You're misreading his post: he was referring to the von Neumann architecture, not von Neumann machines. The former describes the basic architecture of modern computers: shared data and instruction memory accessed by words, logic and control uits, IO, etc, which von Neumann helped develop in the 40's and 50's, before his work of self-reproducing automata. In any case, the comment doesn't make any sense in reference to Turing Machines since they have neither disks nor memory (of the sort in most real computers), nor can they lose power and corrupt their tape.
No, they don't. Qt is licensed under the GPL and QPL; the former is usually interpreted as "contaminating" linked code, and the latter states, in clause 6, that you must make your source code available if you link against the library. You're partially correct, in that the QPL doesn't tell you what license you have to use, but it does impose requirements that invalidate most of the reasons for using the BSD/MIT licences.
So if the RIAA was actually trying to tie something to this section they would either end up with permission to hack only gov't computers, or they would have had to amend out every reference to protected computers. Am I missing something here?
*grumble* No, I haven't posted a link here in a while, why do you ask?
And to further confuse matters, IBM says [IBM.com, huge graphic] that the POWER4 "includes two 64-bit PowerPC microprocessors".
They do, but the rather essential point that your missing is that in Perl both 1 and "1" are scalar -- they have the same type (in an obviously broader sense of the word). "1" + "1" produces "2" (or 2), as does 1 + "1", "1" + 1, and 1 + 1; and, as you might expect, "1" . "1" and 1 . 1 (note the whitespace) produces "11". Thus the need for distinct syntax, which is already present in the equality operators, where you have == vs eq, > vs gt, etc.
As has already been stated, single and double quoting controls variable interpolation in Perl; there are no character constants as such. And since we're playing lanaguage lawyer, (non-wide-)character constants in C are actually int's, and are not required to be ASCII (which only uses 7 bits, anyway), and strings are by definition null-terminated.
Which begs the question of why you posted in the first place.
Everytime I point Konquerer at visa.info it just flickers for few seconds and dies on a SIGABRT. Pretty much sums up the whole "new TLD" experience for me.
Heh, heh. That's what satellite TV is for.
Well, DirecTV no longer feeds non-local basic cable, and barely feeds local basic if you're outside of a major metropolitan area. I used to like watching the afternoon New York news before school, but then Congress stepped in....
The real problem with building KDE isn't the time, it's the space. I recently did a fresh FreeBSD install with a 3.5GB /usr, and then built KDE. When it stopped 6 hours later I had 16.4MB left, and I ended up spending the last half-hour hovering over the console waiting for everything to fall apart when I ran out of disk. Now I build and clean the major packages one at a time, because I can't afford to leave half my drive free. At least KDE is stable enough that you can go for months without updating if need be.
There have been two potential applications I've seen mentioned.
Just today for example I saw someone from conservative.com call Gary Condit a "mass murderer" on Fox News (of course it being fox news the host did not ask him to actually clarify that statement but just let it stand).
A few weeks ago I saw a fairly conservative Republican try to defend Condit by pointing out other disappearances in the area and offering the possibility that there was an established serial killer at work, and the liberal fellow interpreted that as an accusation that Condit was serial killer and spent the rest of interview yelling his head off about it. Am I now allowed to use this as evidence that liberals are insane morons with limited English comprehension and no tact? I think not.
So compare the so called hostility of RMS to your typical republican on fox news and he comes of like a gentleman.
They don't have real Republicans on Fox News. They have a few real people and dozens of talking heads whose job is either to misreport the news, or say unfathomable stupid things in an attempt to stir up controversy. In other words, it's a news channel just like CNN, except that FNCs heads tend to look more intelligent, at least at a distance.
Compare his hostility to the average republican radio talk show host and he comes off as a saint.
Have you really listened to enough Republican talk show hosts to find the average? More importantly, have you ever listened to some of the liberal talk show hosts? Both sides have a roughly equal proportion of raving loonies and moderates. Maybe if you were less of a loony you would see that.
What RMS does is childs play compared to the merchants of hostility and hate that pollute the airwaves these days.
There's no need to humble, you can include /., too. At least, now you can.
Put RMS on side of the table and Bill O'reilly on the other and see who is hostile.
I don't think O'Reilly is all that hostile. Occasionally, yes, but usually he's "strongly opinionated", absolutely convinced that he's right, but with no real enmity toward his guests. When he is hostile, he usually manages to direct it at third-parties rather than bombard the other people on the show. (You really should have said Hannity. I don't know anyone who would argue in his defense.)
PARC == Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, which is the correct attribution for the GUI (though Engelbart/PARC would be better).
I don't like the "look my huge shiny dick" SUV owners who think that pulling over to to shoulder is offroading any more than you do, but I also don't like the equally over-urbanized folks who think that SUVs are pure luxury items because everywhere they want to drive has already been paved. There are still a lot of people in the world who need to move large, heavy objects through places where a road is distinguished from the wildness primarily by relative lack of trees and rivers. In my experience, SUVs begin to look very attractive when you decide to take a load of passengers and assorted cargo across a small mountain range with nothing but logging roads to drive on (yes, I've done it, and there was a good reason).
Now when I couldn't build EMU10K1 under 2.4.8, that was the time to be upset. ;-)
OTOH, if you were implying that it took Apple 10 versions to get the MacOS right, it was actually ~16 years from the release of the first Mac to the first OS X release. But since OS X isn't the same MacOS, it's not really meaningful to include the original OS in an analysis of X's development cycle. FWIW, I would say the original MacOS became "good" somewhere between OS 6.5 and System 7.5, as little as 6 years after the initial release. (That's a relative sense of "good", of course; none of the pre-X MacOSes were really that good compared to what's available now.)
No, the kernel is (mostly) GPLed. Linus does have a somewhat more liberal interpretation of the linking issue than many others, though. As for the impact, AFAICT, LinuxDA is, in fact, in violation of the GPL, though it's a messy issue and I'm too tired to think about it clearly right now.
Simple estimate: log2($phonemes). English has somewhere between 30 and 60 phonemes (there are enough dialects to keep things confusing), so 6 bits should be sufficient. Of course, it isn't, since there's more to language than counting phonemes, and what's left likely requires a great deal more information. And your conclusion doesn't follow unless 99% of phonemes are redundant, which they aren't.
Information about the contributors to SELinux is here. Briefly, the NSA seems to be doing the bulk of the kernel work, while NAI, Secure Computing Corporation, and MITRE are working on utilities, MACs, and policy configurations.
[0] perl -e '$i=50000;for($j=0;$j<52;$j+=1.5){$i*=2;}print" $i\n";'
I suppose that's horribly broken in some way....
I agree that it's not likely that they lifted the BSD stack and dropped it into Windows, but that doesn't mean they didn't borrow some code from it. Headers, in particular, seem to get around more than actual code; Linux has several headers that are labelled as ""Copyright (c) 19* Regents of the University of California", even though it doesn't use any of the original corresponding *.c files (AFAIK).
Ah, but Mercury is being developed in Australia, not the US. Maybe MS is trying to topple to Australian government; or maybe there is a shadow war between waged Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch for world dominance, and this is just the first evidence to escape their 'cleaners'.
Yes and no. From the original BSDL (if we could use CSS, this would be properly formatted):
To my knowledge, MS has never advertised the use of ftp, so that alone wouldn't trigger the clause. OTOH, if they used, e.g., the BSD TCP/IP stack, it would, since as I recall MS was quite enthusiastic about Internet support in 95 and 98.
Also, I thought that even though the date is 1983, the new license still applies to the old code.
Nope; you can't relicense code retroactively. If they wanted to, though, MS could take the newly licensed ftp and port it, possibly just by patching it from their own source (assuming it hasn't changed any in 15 years, or the original was also relicensed). Not really worth the effort, though.
His point was the GPLing would have helped.
If Kereberos had been under the GPL, then MS couldn't have pulled that embrace and extend trick...
Of course they could. The Kerberos spec itself can't be GPLed; only specific implementations of it are subject to any licensing at all (barring any patents, of course).
I was speaking specifically of berating companies for their licensing, so there isn't much of an analogy to draw, if that what you're going for. I'm certainly not opposed to berating, insulting, harassing, assaulting, bombing, and so, in principle, but not for something as trivial and selfish as trying to dictate the details of other people's licensing decisions to fulfill your ethical goals (which I'm not doing, so don't bother). In any case, I don't believe I was berating; rather, I think it was a mildly insulting generalization that happens to reflect reality to some degree (much like the "General Public Virus"). I believe berating requires more force and a more speicifc target.
As for the "License? Who cares? Do what you like" attitude, I'm all for it, as long as you apply it consistently.
You misunderstood, and misquoted. I simply meant that while legally you aren't required to use the new license, morally it's your business and whether you choose use the new or old, I don't care, as long as you don't decide it's the 'right' decision and try to force it down my throat. (Not that you could, since I don't use Python, but still....)
If you disregard the GPL, then you must disregard proprietary licenses as well, and furthermore you cannot expect anyone to heed any licenses you may have on your own software.
I don't expect anyone to heed my licenses as it is. And actually I wouldn't mind ignoring licenses altogether, except that doing so works entirely against Free Software -- after all, its no trouble for closed-source software developers to just not give anyone the source, making the issue moot -- and if I'm going to screw someone, it's going to be to my benefit.
Yes, they are, but they should expect to be berated by the minority in the Free Software community who look upon every act GPL-advocacy as a quest on par with the search for the Holy Grail in terms of importance.
However, there are laws against releasing viruses, and it sounded very strongly to me that the poster would support illegalizing the GPL "virus".
You must not get out much. The "General Public Virus" is an old rebuke of the linking requirements of the GPL, and is purely rhetorical. It has nothing to do with the law, nor in fact with viruses; it's simply an analogy and reasonably clever play on words.
I see no reason why there is anything wrong with the Python developers choosing a new license for their code, on their own free will.
No one believes there is. What he was criticising, rightly I believe, was the expectation that Free Software will be brought into conformance with the GPL. There are some people out there who adopt the GPL as their personal licensing ethic, and grade all other licenses on their compatability with it. Some of are simply a little tired of listening to their complaints when they find something unacceptable.
And I think the rest of us who use the Python software are obligated to follow the new license
Legally, you aren't, unless you upgrade, since my understanding is that licenses can't be altered retroactively (yet). Morally, who cares? Do what you like.