Linux being under the GPL doesn't make all programs on the whole ubuntu or fedora ISO gpl licensed. It all depends on the situation. Yes, the GPL needs more care to work with, and there are certainly more risks than with BSD licenses, but you have risks with BSD licenses as well. E.g. imagine if someone took some non open source code and licensed it under BSD without any agreement by the copyright holder. Then if you use that code thinking all fine its bsd licensed get into trouble as well.
The GPL is very important to not have a strategic disadvantage to closed source competition. If you are BSD licensed, your closed source competitors can simply take the code parts that are better in your program than in theirs. Not so for the GPL.
Also, x264 is still protected by patents, so you'd have to pay someone in one case or another.
Even a MS EULA doesn't tell me what I can do with the software I use or create
The GPL doesn't restrict _usage_ of a program. If you just run GIMP to create an image, that image's copyright is yours, and yours only. If you use GCC to compile a program, that program is yours (its a bit more complicated here, as there is a tiny statically linked part but that has an extra exception from the GPL that turns off the copyleft part). The GPL only restricts redistributions of the program, or parts of it. I am pretty sure that the MS EULA completely forbids you to redistribute any parts of the OS to people without a valid license license AT ALL. The GPL gives you more options here than the MS EULA: instead of a strict ban of redistribution, it gives you certain rules you have to abide with. Maybe if you don't like to copyleft something, then you won't want to redistribute, but you do have more options than the MS EULA gives you.
The only restriction the GPL imposes is to prevent you to take away freedom. Thus, the GPL is only "non-free" to those who want to restrict or remove freedom.
Well there is one exception of course, its compatibility with other copyleft licenses. See the whole ZFS license debacle. But that's a negative side effect, and not what the GPL was designed for (however precisely what the CDDL was designed for, but thats a different story).
Most js libraries were made to help people develop proprietary JS solutions. The GPL is simply nothing their creators would want for them. Similar to game engines, here people want to use them to develop proprietary games with. Non copyleft licenses are good for these use cases. But in other domains, like the kernel or for compilers, copyleft makes just far more sense, otherwise you'll start accumulating proprietary tiny bits and pieces.
"The music-streaming market is very competitive these days"... That means that its good for the customers, because streaming services can't afford to rip them off.
No. Members of a government need to be auditable. Thats why there are so strict laws and regulations about government communication preservation. Both for historians, and more importantly, the press. Just look at brazil how well it works there (compared to the US), only possible because the press has hard proof about the corruption.
This auditability is ensured on infrastructure that is given to government officials. Although it can be manipulated inside the government, that's much harder as if it were on a private server.
It's just as likely that the NSA or some other US government entity hacked her server.
I doubt that the NSA or other agency wants to do actions against one of the higher ups. They are designed to follow their commands, not to spy on them. If they hack the politicians, their practices will just be questioned far more likely. Of course, if there is a judicial order, they will act against them, as they should, but not without one.
Or is the claim that she wiped the server in such a way that it is no longer readable by the US government or even "God", but somehow can still be read by foreign governments?
No. But even the most secure form of wiping doesn't help you if someone hacked and downloaded all data before you wiped. It does help you however if the public demands access and you fear whether the FBI might turn up and seize your computers in the future.
The wiping just means that she is very secure from her own state interfering with her. But it doesn't say anything about how easy it was for third party states to gain information from her email server before it was wiped. So her servers might be secure from the justice system, but not secure from third parties. Both these aspects are how it shouldn't be.
Also, its not because these companies are profit greedy. They are as greedy as you can get, I don't doubt that. But they are doing it because streaming in HD just wastes too much bandwidth. For mobile phones, the BTS's are very rare, so you share it with many people. Its totally different for cable bound internet. Or even wifi that then goes over cables again for that matter. There is a technical argument in throttling videos.
So I completely agree with them doing this. Maybe they should throttle all traffic, and not just videos, because its probably hard to decide what is video and what is not from the ISP perspective (except its unencrypted).
On.1 milirad, the star would emit approx 2.5*10^-10 of its total output (2.2*10^-10 = (.1/(1000*pi*2)^2). That would mean 1.6*^10^14 Watts for proxima centauri.
Err sorry, this should read (.1/(1000*pi*2))^2 and 1.6*^10-14.
I'm not sure we have a transmitter though that we can blast over the distance and still be captured, so we can add a few more years to that.
In order for us to be able to measure a signal from a probe, it would have to be not just bright enough for us to detect it, it would also have to be bright enough to discernably change the light we get from the star.
This page says that it is possible to outshine a star for brief moments (few nanoseconds) using lasers: https://www.princeton.edu/~wil...
I've done some back of the envelope calculations to verify that. And while its totally wrong that one 10 000 th of the output of a star is 4 joules per ns, it should still be possible to build a laser that outshines proxima centauri.
According to wikipedia, proxima centauri has a luminosity of 0.0017 times the luminosity of the sun, which is 382.8 * 10^24 Watts. So it has 6.5 * 10^23 Watts of luminosity.
Let's assume the laser has a beam divergence of.1 millirad. This page has an example for a red (1064 nm) laser, but we want to shoot a blue one as proxima centauri is mostly red so doesn't have much blue luminosity: https://www.rp-photonics.com/b...
On.1 milirad, the star would emit approx 2.5*10^-10 of its total output (2.2*10^-10 = (.1/(1000*pi*2)^2). That would mean 1.6*^10^14 Watts for proxima centauri.
If you say that.1% of the star's total emitted light is blue at the specific wavelength you are sending, you have to divide by 1000.
Per nanosecond, it would be 163 joule. Theoretically possible, but question is whether you can build a sender and receiver (and get the sender into the right place).
Its their website, and if you don't like what facebook does, don't visit it. Its not that its almost unavoidable like e.g. windows for certain situations (custom software, etc).
LaTeX is not free of problems either. They are just different. If you care, you take the time to fix them, if you don't you don't fix them. Simple as that.
You get an economic benefit from mistreating and neglecting her. If she freaks out, you don't have to pay for the outcome, the federals do. Just look at japan, where tepco now got money from the government to clean up the fukushima mess. And in this case, the feds have to pay as well.
So if there is no consequence to fear, why shouldn't you mistreat and neglect her?
I don't think that this submission was particularly biased. Nuclear technology does get lots of subventions by the state, some of them in the form that the state takes over if there is an accident like this.
I've seen lots of MS spam lately, that's far more unpleasant to read.
Shouldn't this unsettle us if one of the most "progressed" 1984 states in the world copies the concept of life streaming to use it against its own people?
Yes, the high percentage of devs on linux/mac computers has scared microsoft (if trends continue, the next stack overflow developer survey will have less than 50% of devs on windows). Even though they do annoy customers, they still cling to their monopoly, as it allows them to annoy customers.
They didn't do it because they liked linux. They did it to convince devs to move from linux to windows, because now the devs can enjoy both the features of the linux world and the features of the windows world.
It should be a lesson that if you build on proprietary technologies, you might end up in a mess if the owner of the technology abandons it in favor of a better alternative. Use open non proprietary technologies, they live much much longer. Take TCP for example, everyone still uses it. There were probably tons of proprietary competitors to TCP, but all of them died because in the long (and I mean decades) run, open solutions win.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux being under the GPL doesn't make all programs on the whole ubuntu or fedora ISO gpl licensed. It all depends on the situation. Yes, the GPL needs more care to work with, and there are certainly more risks than with BSD licenses, but you have risks with BSD licenses as well. E.g. imagine if someone took some non open source code and licensed it under BSD without any agreement by the copyright holder. Then if you use that code thinking all fine its bsd licensed get into trouble as well.
The GPL is very important to not have a strategic disadvantage to closed source competition. If you are BSD licensed, your closed source competitors can simply take the code parts that are better in your program than in theirs. Not so for the GPL.
Also, x264 is still protected by patents, so you'd have to pay someone in one case or another.
Even a MS EULA doesn't tell me what I can do with the software I use or create
The GPL doesn't restrict _usage_ of a program. If you just run GIMP to create an image, that image's copyright is yours, and yours only. If you use GCC to compile a program, that program is yours (its a bit more complicated here, as there is a tiny statically linked part but that has an extra exception from the GPL that turns off the copyleft part). The GPL only restricts redistributions of the program, or parts of it. I am pretty sure that the MS EULA completely forbids you to redistribute any parts of the OS to people without a valid license license AT ALL. The GPL gives you more options here than the MS EULA: instead of a strict ban of redistribution, it gives you certain rules you have to abide with. Maybe if you don't like to copyleft something, then you won't want to redistribute, but you do have more options than the MS EULA gives you.
Each open source license has its goals and principles, and none is "bad" or "evil" from itself.
The only restriction the GPL imposes is to prevent you to take away freedom. Thus, the GPL is only "non-free" to those who want to restrict or remove freedom.
Well there is one exception of course, its compatibility with other copyleft licenses. See the whole ZFS license debacle. But that's a negative side effect, and not what the GPL was designed for (however precisely what the CDDL was designed for, but thats a different story).
Most js libraries were made to help people develop proprietary JS solutions. The GPL is simply nothing their creators would want for them. Similar to game engines, here people want to use them to develop proprietary games with. Non copyleft licenses are good for these use cases. But in other domains, like the kernel or for compilers, copyleft makes just far more sense, otherwise you'll start accumulating proprietary tiny bits and pieces.
"The music-streaming market is very competitive these days" ... That means that its good for the customers, because streaming services can't afford to rip them off.
The "justice system" is a third party.
No. Members of a government need to be auditable. Thats why there are so strict laws and regulations about government communication preservation. Both for historians, and more importantly, the press. Just look at brazil how well it works there (compared to the US), only possible because the press has hard proof about the corruption.
This auditability is ensured on infrastructure that is given to government officials. Although it can be manipulated inside the government, that's much harder as if it were on a private server.
It's just as likely that the NSA or some other US government entity hacked her server.
I doubt that the NSA or other agency wants to do actions against one of the higher ups. They are designed to follow their commands, not to spy on them. If they hack the politicians, their practices will just be questioned far more likely. Of course, if there is a judicial order, they will act against them, as they should, but not without one.
Or is the claim that she wiped the server in such a way that it is no longer readable by the US government or even "God", but somehow can still be read by foreign governments?
No. But even the most secure form of wiping doesn't help you if someone hacked and downloaded all data before you wiped. It does help you however if the public demands access and you fear whether the FBI might turn up and seize your computers in the future.
The wiping just means that she is very secure from her own state interfering with her. But it doesn't say anything about how easy it was for third party states to gain information from her email server before it was wiped. So her servers might be secure from the justice system, but not secure from third parties. Both these aspects are how it shouldn't be.
and make bernie the candidate. He has better chances at winning against mr trump and he wants to do real change.
Also, its not because these companies are profit greedy. They are as greedy as you can get, I don't doubt that. But they are doing it because streaming in HD just wastes too much bandwidth. For mobile phones, the BTS's are very rare, so you share it with many people. Its totally different for cable bound internet. Or even wifi that then goes over cables again for that matter. There is a technical argument in throttling videos.
So I completely agree with them doing this. Maybe they should throttle all traffic, and not just videos, because its probably hard to decide what is video and what is not from the ISP perspective (except its unencrypted).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
On .1 milirad, the star would emit approx 2.5*10^-10 of its total output (2.2*10^-10 = (.1/(1000*pi*2)^2). That would mean 1.6*^10^14 Watts for proxima centauri.
Err sorry, this should read (.1/(1000*pi*2))^2 and 1.6*^10-14.
I'm not sure we have a transmitter though that we can blast over the distance and still be captured, so we can add a few more years to that.
In order for us to be able to measure a signal from a probe, it would have to be not just bright enough for us to detect it, it would also have to be bright enough to discernably change the light we get from the star.
This page says that it is possible to outshine a star for brief moments (few nanoseconds) using lasers: https://www.princeton.edu/~wil...
I've done some back of the envelope calculations to verify that. And while its totally wrong that one 10 000 th of the output of a star is 4 joules per ns, it should still be possible to build a laser that outshines proxima centauri.
According to wikipedia, proxima centauri has a luminosity of 0.0017 times the luminosity of the sun, which is 382.8 * 10^24 Watts. So it has 6.5 * 10^23 Watts of luminosity.
Let's assume the laser has a beam divergence of .1 millirad.
This page has an example for a red (1064 nm) laser, but we want to shoot a blue one as proxima centauri is mostly red so doesn't have much blue luminosity: https://www.rp-photonics.com/b...
On .1 milirad, the star would emit approx 2.5*10^-10 of its total output (2.2*10^-10 = (.1/(1000*pi*2)^2). That would mean 1.6*^10^14 Watts for proxima centauri.
If you say that .1% of the star's total emitted light is blue at the specific wavelength you are sending, you have to divide by 1000.
Per nanosecond, it would be 163 joule. Theoretically possible, but question is whether you can build a sender and receiver (and get the sender into the right place).
Its their website, and if you don't like what facebook does, don't visit it. Its not that its almost unavoidable like e.g. windows for certain situations (custom software, etc).
LaTeX is not free of problems either. They are just different. If you care, you take the time to fix them, if you don't you don't fix them. Simple as that.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ci...
If you go by that "mother of demos", then apple did not invent the mouse and that is heresy. So its clearly a fake!
Why would that be the case? Are they illuminati who want to destroy humanity or something?
You get an economic benefit from mistreating and neglecting her. If she freaks out, you don't have to pay for the outcome, the federals do. Just look at japan, where tepco now got money from the government to clean up the fukushima mess. And in this case, the feds have to pay as well.
So if there is no consequence to fear, why shouldn't you mistreat and neglect her?
I don't think that this submission was particularly biased. Nuclear technology does get lots of subventions by the state, some of them in the form that the state takes over if there is an accident like this.
I've seen lots of MS spam lately, that's far more unpleasant to read.
Because someone has to pay for the mishap. And that is in this case the feds.
So, essentially a $2 billion subvention for nuclear technology.
Shouldn't this unsettle us if one of the most "progressed" 1984 states in the world copies the concept of life streaming to use it against its own people?
Yes, the high percentage of devs on linux/mac computers has scared microsoft (if trends continue, the next stack overflow developer survey will have less than 50% of devs on windows). Even though they do annoy customers, they still cling to their monopoly, as it allows them to annoy customers.
They didn't do it because they liked linux. They did it to convince devs to move from linux to windows, because now the devs can enjoy both the features of the linux world and the features of the windows world.
You should be greatful for the hard work lennart poettering is doing in eliminating so many pointless little programs and all putting them into pid 1.
It should be a lesson that if you build on proprietary technologies, you might end up in a mess if the owner of the technology abandons it in favor of a better alternative. Use open non proprietary technologies, they live much much longer. Take TCP for example, everyone still uses it. There were probably tons of proprietary competitors to TCP, but all of them died because in the long (and I mean decades) run, open solutions win.
Three KDE applications I really like (and use, although I don't do much profiling so not using kcachegrind that often):
* KDE connect
* Kcachegrind
* Kate
Yes, there are totally shitty ones I don't like for example amarok. But some of the KDE programs are really good and useful etc.