It's not new, but the only difference here is that people want to take software with licenses too restrictive to be Open Source and call it "Open Source". They should call it something else.
The Open Source Initiative, contrary to some folks here on Slashdot, has expressed its purpose as the preservation of software freedom. They did that in an official statement of the board regarding the license acceptance process.
The Open Source definition, the definition of what is really Open Source and what is not, started out life as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. So, a Free Software definition. Once upon a time, there were some people who posed Open Source as an opposition to Free Software. Fortunately, those folks are no longer associated with OSI.
I don't speak for the OSI board. I am, however, co-founder and current standards chair and member of the license committee. So I might know what I'm talking about:-)
As far as I can tell, these various licenses in discussion are not Open Source licenses and won't be accepted as Open Source licenses. The folks who promote them can use any license they wish, as long as they don't call it Open Source. I suggest they do that. I even help them, for free, as long as they are clear that conflicts witbh Open Source should be avoided.
You can't have been reading me that much if this surprises you. I've never believed in cryptocurrency, and have rejected at least one board position in a cryptocurrency company.
I can't believe a retraction would ever be necessary.
Basing the value of something on the cost of production is a common economic fallacy.
Say you drill a well, and you don't hit water. It was very expensive to drill. Its sales value, however, it's not the cost of construction but the useful value to someone else. Which might well be zero if there's no use for someone to drill that same well deeper. This is true for many products, and it's been a very painful lesson about software development in particular for many companies.
So I don't believe the cost of producing a Bitcoin has anything to do with its continuing value. It's only the value of using it to another person. And that could well go to zero.
The premise here is that people will suddenly see the value of cryptocurrency, and not some better cryptocurrency that they create then, but the old cryptocurrency. The problem with this is that the naive folks who bought cryptocurrency on its run up, mortgaging their homes and running up their credit cards, aren't going to be in the market that way a second time.
It's over. It only goes down from here. It never had any intrinsic value, and the folks who were in denial about that have had to face it now.
Someone I know took a 4-year degree in computer science without ever touching a terminal. Holey cards, line printers, and batch processing all of the way. Imagine all of that time and having no concept of interactive software.
I think if it stopped beaconing after standing still for 5 minutes, it would satisfy most needs. There are a few corner cases where the car has to be able to order the fob to beacon anyway. For example, if the car says "I'm about to lock the door, let me know where you are so that I don't lock the keys inside", it has to beacon. Obviously if you go to sleep in your car and then push "start" and nothing happens, you will have to shake the fob. Sorry.
Yes. The whole point is not to have to push a button to open the car door. You have key key in your pocket, and touch the door handle and it unlocks by itself. This is how it works on my Prius and Jeep.
At the very least, the key fob should have a motion sensor, and should not be beaconing when it's not been moving for a few minutes. That would defeat this particular exploit.
Hate to break it to you guys, but reusable rockets were demonstrated over 25 years ago. Yeah, I know, amazing stuff.
Not really. We had a few things that hovered a few hundred feet over concrete, like DC-X and Rotary Rocket and a more recent NASA experimental lander. The only "reusable" rocket to make orbit was the Space Shuttle, and that was so reusable that refurbishment cost more than an expendable Falcon Heavy launch. In fact the cost per launch of the Space Shuttle was about 5 times what a reusable Falcon Heavy launch would cost for a civilian satellite and about 3 times what government launches cost (government wants a lot more qualification and paperwork).
So, SpaceX Falcon 9 is the first practical reusable first stage, which is a big deal because the second stage only has 1 engine, vs. 9, and supposedly Dragon is somewhat reusable, although proof that it costs less to recycle than build anew is rather thin so far.
I remember watching TV of the astronauts being recovered by the Hornet. A ship which housed some 3000 crew, and got about 18 feet per gallon of oil burned. It's in Alameda now (where they keep the naval wessels:-) and you can walk around a lot of it unsupervised, and get a tour of the rest.
It was overkill then, but I am not aware of a smaller helicopter carrier in service back then.
And now, we have a lot better idea of where the capsule is coming down.
Fork him then. Create a web site with "old Linus" responses to every email he sends to the kernel list. Link them appropriately. Make a disclaimer that it's sarcasm. It should be quite a hoot:-)
My favorite is the translated quote of Alain Charmeau, CEO of Ariane:
Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times - we would build exactly one rocket per year. That makes no sense. I can not tell my teams: "Goodbye, see you next year!"
By the way, I was at Vandenberg a few weeks ago, and the landing burn is loud, even though it's one engine rather than 9. And then these two sonic booms come and bang on your chest! And that was at least 5 miles away from the pad.
Something about having an immensely powerful rocket ship shooting flames in the general direction of the antenna, while also causing sonic booms and sound loud enough to kill a person seems to disrupt the satellite link. Who knew:-)
I don't really believe that. Since someone was going to say it anyway, I might as well get there first. Elon can smoke as many doobies on video as he wants, he's shown us a path to space that I had given up hope of seeing in my lifetime. So, I'm a fan.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not new, but the only difference here is that people want to take software with licenses too restrictive to be Open Source and call it "Open Source". They should call it something else.
Actually, Open Source and Free Software are not different in this regard. Free Software requires that you be able to run the software for any purpose.
The Open Source Initiative, contrary to some folks here on Slashdot, has expressed its purpose as the preservation of software freedom. They did that in an official statement of the board regarding the license acceptance process.
The Open Source definition, the definition of what is really Open Source and what is not, started out life as the Debian Free Software Guidelines. So, a Free Software definition. Once upon a time, there were some people who posed Open Source as an opposition to Free Software. Fortunately, those folks are no longer associated with OSI.
I don't speak for the OSI board. I am, however, co-founder and current standards chair and member of the license committee. So I might know what I'm talking about :-)
As far as I can tell, these various licenses in discussion are not Open Source licenses and won't be accepted as Open Source licenses. The folks who promote them can use any license they wish, as long as they don't call it Open Source. I suggest they do that. I even help them, for free, as long as they are clear that conflicts witbh Open Source should be avoided.
You can't have been reading me that much if this surprises you. I've never believed in cryptocurrency, and have rejected at least one board position in a cryptocurrency company.
I can't believe a retraction would ever be necessary.
I'm really confident about this one.
It's not as if the world has any shortage of currency.
Basing the value of something on the cost of production is a common economic fallacy. Say you drill a well, and you don't hit water. It was very expensive to drill. Its sales value, however, it's not the cost of construction but the useful value to someone else. Which might well be zero if there's no use for someone to drill that same well deeper. This is true for many products, and it's been a very painful lesson about software development in particular for many companies. So I don't believe the cost of producing a Bitcoin has anything to do with its continuing value. It's only the value of using it to another person. And that could well go to zero.
The premise here is that people will suddenly see the value of cryptocurrency, and not some better cryptocurrency that they create then, but the old cryptocurrency. The problem with this is that the naive folks who bought cryptocurrency on its run up, mortgaging their homes and running up their credit cards, aren't going to be in the market that way a second time.
It's over. It only goes down from here. It never had any intrinsic value, and the folks who were in denial about that have had to face it now.
Someone I know took a 4-year degree in computer science without ever touching a terminal. Holey cards, line printers, and batch processing all of the way. Imagine all of that time and having no concept of interactive software.
This really is a case where a picture is worth a thousand words.
I think if it stopped beaconing after standing still for 5 minutes, it would satisfy most needs. There are a few corner cases where the car has to be able to order the fob to beacon anyway. For example, if the car says "I'm about to lock the door, let me know where you are so that I don't lock the keys inside", it has to beacon. Obviously if you go to sleep in your car and then push "start" and nothing happens, you will have to shake the fob. Sorry.
Yes. The whole point is not to have to push a button to open the car door. You have key key in your pocket, and touch the door handle and it unlocks by itself. This is how it works on my Prius and Jeep.
At the very least, the key fob should have a motion sensor, and should not be beaconing when it's not been moving for a few minutes. That would defeat this particular exploit.
That doesn't mean what you think it does.
Go do it yourself. And note that the Falcon Heavy demo is now past the orbit of Mars.
Not really. We had a few things that hovered a few hundred feet over concrete, like DC-X and Rotary Rocket and a more recent NASA experimental lander. The only "reusable" rocket to make orbit was the Space Shuttle, and that was so reusable that refurbishment cost more than an expendable Falcon Heavy launch. In fact the cost per launch of the Space Shuttle was about 5 times what a reusable Falcon Heavy launch would cost for a civilian satellite and about 3 times what government launches cost (government wants a lot more qualification and paperwork).
So, SpaceX Falcon 9 is the first practical reusable first stage, which is a big deal because the second stage only has 1 engine, vs. 9, and supposedly Dragon is somewhat reusable, although proof that it costs less to recycle than build anew is rather thin so far.
Do please tell Mr. Rogozin that we have the trampoline he ordered.
I remember watching TV of the astronauts being recovered by the Hornet. A ship which housed some 3000 crew, and got about 18 feet per gallon of oil burned. It's in Alameda now (where they keep the naval wessels :-) and you can walk around a lot of it unsupervised, and get a tour of the rest.
It was overkill then, but I am not aware of a smaller helicopter carrier in service back then.
And now, we have a lot better idea of where the capsule is coming down.
Fork him then. Create a web site with "old Linus" responses to every email he sends to the kernel list. Link them appropriately. Make a disclaimer that it's sarcasm. It should be quite a hoot :-)
My favorite is the translated quote of Alain Charmeau, CEO of Ariane:
Probably. But you want to see it realtime, don't you?
By the way, I was at Vandenberg a few weeks ago, and the landing burn is loud, even though it's one engine rather than 9. And then these two sonic booms come and bang on your chest! And that was at least 5 miles away from the pad.
Something about having an immensely powerful rocket ship shooting flames in the general direction of the antenna, while also causing sonic booms and sound loud enough to kill a person seems to disrupt the satellite link. Who knew :-)
I don't really believe that. Since someone was going to say it anyway, I might as well get there first. Elon can smoke as many doobies on video as he wants, he's shown us a path to space that I had given up hope of seeing in my lifetime. So, I'm a fan.
Not any longer.