But "you" can be a company/cooperative/whatever rather than a single person. This is actually quite important.
In most cases, software used as part of a job has to be licensed to company not to the individual (obvious example: MS office at work is licensed to the company. The linux kernel is no different in this regard). While used within the company it is not being distributed so long as only employees/partners/interns/whatever have access to it. (So once again the dubious point is whether a closed beta is to be considered public distribution, or not).
The problem derived from how you define "distribution". You are allowed to use and modify the code for your own use and don't need to provide source to anybody else. This is still true if you are a company instead of a single person. Is a closed beta distribution outside of your company? This is the tricky, legally dubious, question. With an NDA, the testers are part of the company and therefore public distribution hasn't occurred, I think. Of course, IANAL.
Another question is whether they are acting in accordance of the spirit of the GPL. Since they have already announced the release plans (i.e. all source available for free download) then I don't think they are. They would be within their rights to charge for access to the code, afterall.
Don't agree? Then please write your own code. The question is not whether you will think it will help or not, the question is: Are you violating GPL?
I do write my own code, most of which is released under the GPL, whilst the remainder is released under a BSD-like license. I know for a fact (I saw it whilst doing consultancy work) that at least one company uses a modified version of my GPL'd code without releasing the changes to the community. This is fine by me because it is for their internal use only. I'd argue that the closed beta tests are also for internal use only -- there was an NDA.
Many Linux distributions first see light of day as closed betas. For example, the Xandros betas have been available to only a small number of people, all of whom have signed NDAs.
As I see it, a closed beta is not a public release, and therefore not violating the GPL in any way.
In these situations, making the full source available would not help anybody (1. slower development due to extra hassle, 2. most code is available from original sources anyway, 3. modified code will be in a state of unstable flux). At the point of full release, well, that's a different matter.
I guess that all black hole detections have been made by such an indirect approach i.e. look for there effects because we can't detect them directly. (They don't conveniently glow like stars;-) )
It is clear that there is some discrepency between observable gravitational effects and theory at long range. (i.e. the voyager spacecraft are deaccellerating faster than we would expect - and the most likely explaination is due to gravitational theory.)
It is very possible that, on the scale of these galaxies, gravity doesn't behave exactly how we think it should. But I doubt the discrepency is huge.
"Black holes are invisible, but the probing eye of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope found them by measuring the velocities of stars whirling around the crowded cores. Using spectral observations, astronomers discovered that the stars orbiting the cores of M15 and G1 moved at a much faster rate, which suggested the presence of unseen massive bodies."
Assumming that you are also interested in computers (based on the fact that this is a Slashdot post):
"Computer Simulation of Liquids" by M. P. Allen, D. J. Tildesley (1997), Oxford University Press; ISBN: 0198553757
It is a bit tricky to get hold of because it is out of print, but it is the only undergraduate chemistry textbook worth its shelfspace.
With respect to understanding chemistry, what aspects interest you? Phys Chem, Organic, Bio, Inorganic, Theoretical? Understanding one won't necessarily help you understand the others. I've been studying chemistry for 10 years now, and I've given up trying to understand much of it...
First an introduction. I consider myself extremely environmental conscious. I recycle as much as possible. I never drive to work. yadda yadda yadda. I keep myself upto date with environmental issues, so I think I have an idea about what I talk about. With that said...
Do NOT support greenpeace. They are a terrorist organisation... All around the world, they support groups with interfere with the oil companies business. They damage (and in at least one case sink) military and scientific ships. They promote the destruction of crops in GM trials.
If you don't believe me do a search on google.
They have a noble cause, but they are furthering it by the wrong means. The really annoying thing is that several of my friends and even some of my family support them financially. I've tried smacking them with a clue-bat, alas with little success.
Sure this is really cool, but does anyone actually need it?
I still occassionally have to use SGI hardware, but that's only to run legacy software. Okay, so at first glance this might be useful. Unfotunately (to the best of my knowledge) you can't get the hardware without IRIX. So why not just stick with that?
I won't believe for a second that NetBSD performs as well on that hardware as IRIX does (assuming that NetBSD is compiled with gcc, and with the performance difference I see between the MIPSPro compiler vs. gcc on MIPS CPUs with my code).
Please tell me I'm completely wrong.
This does look really cool though -- maybe the basis of an IRIX emulator? I'd love to ditch those ugly SGI boxes;)
Yes, I agree. In fact it is much more likely that brute-force email address detection was used than AOL TW (owner of road-runner) selling the user list.
(Besides the fact that any decent ISP should be able to detect and block this type of probing...) It means that changing email addresses will not help in eliminating spam from your inbox. That judge has probably smoked too much weed;)
A couple of months ago I signed up for a Road-runner cable connection. At the time I hadn't finished putting my new PC together so I didn't connect for about the first 4 days. Guess what I saw when I did check my road-runner POP account for the first time......that's right, two emails offering me the chance of earning a degree, now, based on work-experience. Hmmm.
Needless to say, I've never have, nor will, use that email address. I dread to think how much junk has collected in that inbox so far.
I find it difficult to beleive that somehow Europeans are societally more environmentally conscious because of (even partially) moral reasons, We will have to continue to disagree on that point then. (And I disagree strongly. Just look at the amount of environmental activism in Northern Europe and compare that to the US).
No, I was not referring to the final paragraph of your post, I was in fact parodizing a well known television show, named Jeopardy. Oh. I've never watched that.
The randomness I referred to isn't referring to the relevance, but the degree of organization and coherence. Okay, fair enough. I have a habit of making what appear to me to be obvious jumps.
Anyway, I'd better go and celebrate the US independance from the British now;-)
...we also both earned our "Flamebait" mod points.;-) Indeed.
Before I respond further, I would like to reiterate the fact that my very first comment "As a European, why doesn't that surprise me?" was refering to the genuine belief in Europe, rightly or wrongly, that Americans drive huge gas-guzzling monster vehicles. It wasn't intended as a dig at the US or its peoples. To be honest, I found your initial reply to that email fairly offencive. But moving on...
I work in a department with three Europeans for every American. I like that. I work with 3 Asians for every American. I would like that if I could convince them to drink some beer;-)
That is that the European ideas are so often presented to us as "further proof of our European moral and intellectual superiority to you disgusting Americans", while the Japanese ideas tend to be presented as "here's how we're solving this problem". This is a cultural issue. Us Europeans use this tone even when (or maybe especially when?) debating within the European communities. When discussing Americans, the word "disgusting" should probably be replaced by "selfish" to make it correlate with the honest opinion of an average Briton. Of course, this is nothing more than a gross stereotype. Unfortunately for the US, there are significant issues with outsider's opinions of it. This is a important problem since the US is now the world's dominant super-power. My belief that these opinions stem from (a) the selfish political behaviour of the US (i.e. the Kyoto agreement) (b) the disdain seemingly-exhibited by the American people for anyone that has morals or culture which are considered non-American.
Now this discussion is definitely far far offtopic!!! So I'll just say that I like the US and its peoples, even if I do not like the way that it is currently screwing with the planet. Likewise, I like the Europeans, even if the British are stuck up their own arses and the French smell of garlic;-)
Hardly! Although I must admit that it is much easier to be less wasteful of resources and more ecologically aware whilst in Europe.
I could have bought a huge SUV or truck, but I chose not to (of course, many people need those but many more, like me, don't). Regardless, I walk, bike or catch a bus to work everyday instead of driving. I consider myself to be responsible member of this _global_ society; for example, I expend considerable effort to recycle my garbage which, believe me, is not easy around here. Maybe other parts of the US are different?
Your evidence? That *you*, a European, own a lower gas mileage car in America than you own in Europe. So, if an American stole money in Paris but not in New York, would that be further proof that Europeans were thieves?
No, my little anecdote was highlighting the undeniable fact that what consitutes an efficient car is not considered equally in Europe and the US.
Ummm, Europe deals with feul efficiencies better than the united states for a simple reason: Gas is very expensive. Yes, that is one reason. Another reason is that the European consumers care about pumping the environment full of CO2.
The fact that very few Us teams entered a EUROPEAN contest says very little. I don't dispute that. My comments, generally, say very little too.
I own a car in Georgia, and it gets 42 miles to the gallon, andit is considered pretty efficient, but I miss your point. My point being that the subjective view of what is considered efficient is warped somewhere mid-atlantic.
I'm sorry, that is incorrect. Presuming that you refer to the final paragraph of my post, then no - it is not incorrect.
You must state your post in the form of a reasonably intelligent statement (not just a bunch of random thoughts that occured to you.) What on the slashdot forums? (Actually I believed, and still do, that that comment was very relevent to the thread)
If you are going to post anything that may be considered as vaguely anti-American, do it as an anonymous coward.
I'm now being personally attacked, off-forum, as some kind of anti-American zealot. As someone that made the choice to move to the US, that's something that I am definitely not.
In Europe, and probably elsewhere, American cars have a reputation for being gas-guzzlers. Live with it.
I finished my post with a dig at the price of fuel in the UK. I notice that none of the British took particular offence to that.
I was infering that this was more evidence that Americans don't care about the environment. Yes, yes, I know that's a hugely prejudiced generalisation. I guess I should have put one of those little smilies after that comment.
I was simply pointing out that this is further (completely tongue-in-cheek, unsubstantial) proof that that the Americans (as a generalisation) don't care about the environment. (...at least enough to worry about having efficient cars, anyway.)
I own a car in California that does 28 miles to the gallon (after conversion to UK sized units) and that was actually adevertised as being extremely efficient. My car in the UK does 34 miles to the gallon and no one there would consider that to be particularly efficient.
Don't even get me started on the amount of electricity that gets needlessly wasted in California. But it's cheap, right? And I won't be on this planet in 80 years time, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
;) Where are the laywers when you need them?
Except, I would have written "probably can" instead.
But "you" can be a company/cooperative/whatever rather than a single person. This is actually quite important.
In most cases, software used as part of a job has to be licensed to company not to the individual (obvious example: MS office at work is licensed to the company. The linux kernel is no different in this regard). While used within the company it is not being distributed so long as only employees/partners/interns/whatever have access to it. (So once again the dubious point is whether a closed beta is to be considered public distribution, or not).
The problem derived from how you define "distribution". You are allowed to use and modify the code for your own use and don't need to provide source to anybody else. This is still true if you are a company instead of a single person. Is a closed beta distribution outside of your company? This is the tricky, legally dubious, question. With an NDA, the testers are part of the company and therefore public distribution hasn't occurred, I think. Of course, IANAL.
Another question is whether they are acting in accordance of the spirit of the GPL. Since they have already announced the release plans (i.e. all source available for free download) then I don't think they are. They would be within their rights to charge for access to the code, afterall.
Don't agree? Then please write your own code. The question is not whether you will think it will help or not, the question is: Are you violating GPL?
I do write my own code, most of which is released under the GPL, whilst the remainder is released under a BSD-like license. I know for a fact (I saw it whilst doing consultancy work) that at least one company uses a modified version of my GPL'd code without releasing the changes to the community. This is fine by me because it is for their internal use only. I'd argue that the closed beta tests are also for internal use only -- there was an NDA.
Many Linux distributions first see light of day as closed betas. For example, the Xandros betas have been available to only a small number of people, all of whom have signed NDAs.
As I see it, a closed beta is not a public release, and therefore not violating the GPL in any way.
In these situations, making the full source available would not help anybody (1. slower development due to extra hassle, 2. most code is available from original sources anyway, 3. modified code will be in a state of unstable flux). At the point of full release, well, that's a different matter.
Doh, I meant pioneer spacecraft, not voyager. Whoops.
I guess that all black hole detections have been made by such an indirect approach i.e. look for there effects because we can't detect them directly. (They don't conveniently glow like stars ;-) )
It is clear that there is some discrepency between observable gravitational effects and theory at long range. (i.e. the voyager spacecraft are deaccellerating faster than we would expect - and the most likely explaination is due to gravitational theory.)
It is very possible that, on the scale of these galaxies, gravity doesn't behave exactly how we think it should. But I doubt the discrepency is huge.
From the press release:
"Black holes are invisible, but the probing eye of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope found them by measuring the velocities of stars whirling around the crowded cores. Using spectral observations, astronomers discovered that the stars orbiting the cores of M15 and G1 moved at a much faster rate, which suggested the presence of unseen massive bodies."
Assumming that you are also interested in computers (based on the fact that this is a Slashdot post):
"Computer Simulation of Liquids" by M. P. Allen, D. J. Tildesley (1997), Oxford University Press; ISBN: 0198553757
It is a bit tricky to get hold of because it is out of print, but it is the only undergraduate chemistry textbook worth its shelfspace.
With respect to understanding chemistry, what aspects interest you? Phys Chem, Organic, Bio, Inorganic, Theoretical? Understanding one won't necessarily help you understand the others. I've been studying chemistry for 10 years now, and I've given up trying to understand much of it...
First an introduction. I consider myself extremely environmental conscious. I recycle as much as possible. I never drive to work. yadda yadda yadda. I keep myself upto date with environmental issues, so I think I have an idea about what I talk about. With that said...
Do NOT support greenpeace. They are a terrorist organisation... All around the world, they support groups with interfere with the oil companies business. They damage (and in at least one case sink) military and scientific ships. They promote the destruction of crops in GM trials.
If you don't believe me do a search on google.
They have a noble cause, but they are furthering it by the wrong means. The really annoying thing is that several of my friends and even some of my family support them financially. I've tried smacking them with a clue-bat, alas with little success.
Beer is a useful tool for bulking up.
Sure this is really cool, but does anyone actually need it?
;)
I still occassionally have to use SGI hardware, but that's only to run legacy software. Okay, so at first glance this might be useful. Unfotunately (to the best of my knowledge) you can't get the hardware without IRIX. So why not just stick with that?
I won't believe for a second that NetBSD performs as well on that hardware as IRIX does (assuming that NetBSD is compiled with gcc, and with the performance difference I see between the MIPSPro compiler vs. gcc on MIPS CPUs with my code).
Please tell me I'm completely wrong.
This does look really cool though -- maybe the basis of an IRIX emulator? I'd love to ditch those ugly SGI boxes
Yes, I agree. In fact it is much more likely that brute-force email address detection was used than AOL TW (owner of road-runner) selling the user list.
;)
(Besides the fact that any decent ISP should be able to detect and block this type of probing...) It means that changing email addresses will not help in eliminating spam from your inbox. That judge has probably smoked too much weed
A couple of months ago I signed up for a Road-runner cable connection. At the time I hadn't finished putting my new PC together so I didn't connect for about the first 4 days. Guess what I saw when I did check my road-runner POP account for the first time... ...that's right, two emails offering me the chance of earning a degree, now, based on work-experience. Hmmm.
Needless to say, I've never have, nor will, use that email address. I dread to think how much junk has collected in that inbox so far.
The algorithm he used was NOT a genetic algorithm, although it could be called an evolutionary algorithm. comp.ai.genetic FAQ
I find it difficult to beleive that somehow Europeans are societally more environmentally conscious because of (even partially) moral reasons,
;-)
We will have to continue to disagree on that point then. (And I disagree strongly. Just look at the amount of environmental activism in Northern Europe and compare that to the US).
No, I was not referring to the final paragraph of your post, I was in fact parodizing a well known television show, named Jeopardy.
Oh. I've never watched that.
The randomness I referred to isn't referring to the relevance, but the degree of organization and coherence.
Okay, fair enough. I have a habit of making what appear to me to be obvious jumps.
Anyway, I'd better go and celebrate the US independance from the British now
...we also both earned our "Flamebait" mod points. ;-)
;-)
;-)
;-)
Indeed.
Before I respond further, I would like to reiterate the fact that my very first comment "As a European, why doesn't that surprise me?" was refering to the genuine belief in Europe, rightly or wrongly, that Americans drive huge gas-guzzling monster vehicles. It wasn't intended as a dig at the US or its peoples. To be honest, I found your initial reply to that email fairly offencive. But moving on...
I work in a department with three Europeans for every American. I like that.
I work with 3 Asians for every American. I would like that if I could convince them to drink some beer
That is that the European ideas are so often presented to us as "further proof of our European moral and intellectual superiority to you disgusting Americans", while the Japanese ideas tend to be presented as "here's how we're solving this problem".
This is a cultural issue. Us Europeans use this tone even when (or maybe especially when?) debating within the European communities.
When discussing Americans, the word "disgusting" should probably be replaced by "selfish" to make it correlate with the honest opinion of an average Briton. Of course, this is nothing more than a gross stereotype. Unfortunately for the US, there are significant issues with outsider's opinions of it. This is a important problem since the US is now the world's dominant super-power. My belief that these opinions stem from (a) the selfish political behaviour of the US (i.e. the Kyoto agreement) (b) the disdain seemingly-exhibited by the American people for anyone that has morals or culture which are considered non-American.
Now this discussion is definitely far far offtopic!!! So I'll just say that I like the US and its peoples, even if I do not like the way that it is currently screwing with the planet. Likewise, I like the Europeans, even if the British are stuck up their own arses and the French smell of garlic
PS All Americans drive inefficient vehicles.
Hardly! Although I must admit that it is much easier to be less wasteful of resources and more ecologically aware whilst in Europe.
I could have bought a huge SUV or truck, but I chose not to (of course, many people need those but many more, like me, don't). Regardless, I walk, bike or catch a bus to work everyday instead of driving. I consider myself to be responsible member of this _global_ society; for example, I expend considerable effort to recycle my garbage which, believe me, is not easy around here. Maybe other parts of the US are different?
PER CAPITA (that is per human being)
;-)
:-(
I particularly liked how you pointed out the definition or per capita
Is it genetic or cultural?
Definitely cultural.
Your evidence? That *you*, a European, own a lower gas mileage car in America than you own in Europe. So, if an American stole money in Paris but not in New York, would that be further proof that Europeans were thieves?
No, my little anecdote was highlighting the undeniable fact that what consitutes an efficient car is not considered equally in Europe and the US.
Ummm, Europe deals with feul efficiencies better than the united states for a simple reason: Gas is very expensive.
Yes, that is one reason. Another reason is that the European consumers care about pumping the environment full of CO2.
The fact that very few Us teams entered a EUROPEAN contest says very little.
I don't dispute that. My comments, generally, say very little too.
I own a car in Georgia, and it gets 42 miles to the gallon, andit is considered pretty efficient, but I miss your point.
My point being that the subjective view of what is considered efficient is warped somewhere mid-atlantic.
I'm sorry, that is incorrect.
Presuming that you refer to the final paragraph of my post, then no - it is not incorrect.
You must state your post in the form of a reasonably intelligent statement (not just a bunch of random thoughts that occured to you.)
What on the slashdot forums? (Actually I believed, and still do, that that comment was very relevent to the thread)
If you are going to post anything that may be considered as vaguely anti-American, do it as an anonymous coward.
I'm now being personally attacked, off-forum, as some kind of anti-American zealot. As someone that made the choice to move to the US, that's something that I am definitely not.
In Europe, and probably elsewhere, American cars have a reputation for being gas-guzzlers. Live with it.
I finished my post with a dig at the price of fuel in the UK. I notice that none of the British took particular offence to that.
No, it doesn't surprise me.
I was infering that this was more evidence that Americans don't care about the environment. Yes, yes, I know that's a hugely prejudiced generalisation. I guess I should have put one of those little smilies after that comment.
(PS Neither Europe nor America are countries)
I was simply pointing out that this is further (completely tongue-in-cheek, unsubstantial) proof that that the Americans (as a generalisation) don't care about the environment. (...at least enough to worry about having efficient cars, anyway.)
I own a car in California that does 28 miles to the gallon (after conversion to UK sized units) and that was actually adevertised as being extremely efficient. My car in the UK does 34 miles to the gallon and no one there would consider that to be particularly efficient.
Don't even get me started on the amount of electricity that gets needlessly wasted in California. But it's cheap, right? And I won't be on this planet in 80 years time, right?
The only US team who participated this year scored 69th, with 1136mpg (483km with 1l).
As a European, why doesn't that surprise me?
Hmmm. The US "gas" would still cost approximately the same as the UK "gas" per km.