I find it interesting that they determined an estimate of the total mass of all the matter in the Universe before they figured out how many stars there are. You'd think they'd come up with the number of stars first, and then base the mass estimate on that.
They also said that the number may actually be too small, given that light from some parts of the Universe hasn't had time to reach us yet. So it may be impossible to determine the total size of the Universe.
One question I've always had is: when we look back in time to the creation of the Universe, we see light from that time. So the light has been traveling for 15 billion years to get to us. But if that light has been traveling that whole time toward us, how did we get here first? We would have had to have gone faster than the speed of light to get here. So if our assumptions are valid, it seems that at some point in the history of the Universe, the laws of physics as we know them were different. Was light slower then? Was there a time when the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light? Were the changes abrupt or slow-changing? Are they changing still today?
Say you have 5 servers behind a NAT box, all running SSHD. How are you going to set them all up so that they can have incoming connections? Sure, if your NAT box is a good one you can manually set up port forwarding, but that's a pain.
At that point, you'd probably want an SSH Proxy. Besides, proxies provide a lot more security than packet filters.
What about strange services like FTP that require 2 different connections? They're always a pain when using NAT, so you need to find some means of dealing with them.
FTP should die. It's counter to all networking principles to have the server initiate a connection back to the client. Besides, most of the time you'll want the security of SSH/SCP. If not, use a proxy on your NAT box.
Wow. You must be a big fan of awk. Seems like a lot of UNIX folks learn grep and sed, but never get around to awk, usually skipping straight to Perl or Python. I know one guy who says that any time you pipe 2 greps together you should use awk instead. It'd probably save me some time searching through log files if I learned how to use awk.
I would have thought of using bc before awk for math stuff though.
It must also be recognised that while the technology to build really powerful web application is there in IE, Mozilla, Opera and al, there are very few really interactive applications using those technologies, simply because there is not enough compatibility between the various standard implementations, and to work around those is too costly and difficult to manage well.
Check out TIBET from Technical Pursuit. It's a full browser application environment, built using JavaScript. They decided on JavaScript, because it's the only language guaranteed to be on the client side. When they were building out the libraries, they found that it was more powerful than they expected. They've actually extended the language, using only the language itself.
Applications have to pull down a large (1 MB plus) set of JavaScript libraries. So this isn't for web applets, or even server-based web applications. (Although it's easy for the code to communicate with the server.) It's meant for full-blown applications that will run completely in the browser.
They also include some application development tools. (I haven't taken a look at those yet.) The whole thing is available under an Open Source license or under a proprietary license if you prefer.
For $50 for a pretty good low-end model, you really can't go wrong. I bought one last year, and I'm happy with it for now, until I can get a recorder. (I'm going to build a Linux-based TiVo box with DVD recorder.) When I get something better, I'll give it to my parents -- $50 is a good deal for a couple years worth of usage.
Also, if the Next Big Format uses 12 cm discs, it'll almost definitely play current DVDs. Just like today's DVD players can play CDs and VCDs.
I had some difficulty clicking with Grimaldi himself at Rose-Hulman. Like most professors, he's odd. In this case, he's got this nasally but raspy monotone voice. Walks with his hands out to his sides, as if he had a stick shoved up his butt. A very anal retentive personality. Expected you to learn things the way he taught them. I don't recall him answering questions all that well. I did OK in his classes. They weren't terribly exciting. I think I got Bs, because I had missed a few classes, and he subtracted points for missing or coming in late.
More importantly, the manufacturer itself doesn't get the full retail sale price. Most of the purchase price goes to the distributors and retail store. Granted, if you're prosecuting, then you can claim all of those as damages to the various companies. But if it's a civil case, the manufacturer could really only claim a small fraction of the retail price.
Also, do they subtract out the costs of packaging and distribution? The pirated copy did not incur those costs, so it doesn't make much sense to include them in the damages.
Wow, excellent proposal. They had me going there. The first half of the proposal actually seemed reasonable, if not particularly C-like. It was only when they said that variables should be limited to a single character that I started to worry.
Apparently you didn't read the whole entry on dictionary.com! Here's one of the parts you missed:
One and the other; each:
rings on either hand.
See the and in there?;)
You're off base, and just want to prove that you're right, instead of actually looking at what the words mean.
Actually, I don't think "either" matters that much, since I think section 2 still holds under the conventional interpretation even if your argument about "either" holds. You didn't seem to address that part of my argument. You'll also note that there's not a lot of support for your interpretation of the wording. (You could make the argument that it's because everyone on Slashdot is pro-GPL, but there are always people here willing to stand up to convention. Also, I've not seen anyone on other sites supporting your interpretation.)
Despite what you may believe, words are almost always a little vague, and subject to some interpretation. Even in carefully-worded contracts. I think you have shown that the wording in question can be interpretted in more than one way. I just don't think that a judge is likely to find your interpretation more valid than the conventional interpretation.
Search Microsoft copyrighted code and you'll find UC Regents in there - BSD Unix. They've copyrighted BSD code that they co-opted.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. Yes, I'm fully aware that Microsoft includes code derived from BSD. But the BSD license allows anyone to "co-opt" the code and incorporate it into proprietary copyrighted code. As it happens, I also have a CD with some GPLed code distributed by Microsoft -- GNU utilities from their Windows Resource Kit. (I find that especially interesting given Microsoft's FUD a year or so back that using GPLed code would cause you to have to GPL all your code.)
Try it sometime.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to try. Co-opting BSD code and adding some of my copyrighted code to it?
Yes, the OS will be able to run 64-bit apps, but it sounds like not much of the OS itself will have even been re-compiled. And you're right that there are things you can do to optimize performance on 64-bit systems beyond just re-compiling and making sure things are 64-bit safe.
As far as binaries containing 32-bit and 64-bit versions, NeXT has long had "fat binaries". (Not sure if MacOS had fat binaries in the transition from 68K to PowerPC.) The executable would have versions for multiple CPUs, and the OS would chose the right one. I suspect that's still easily supported in Mac OS X.
As the article said though, often you'll have a 32-bit app with a few optionally-used 64-bit sections.
You don't have to re-write code to make it 64-bit. You just have to re-compile it. Granted, you have to make sure it's 64-bit safe code, but there's not all that much effort involved in that. Basically, you just can't assume that you have 32-bit integers and pointers.
For instance, the Linux kernel was made 64-bit safe in version 2.0, when they added support for the Alpha architecture. It's one code base that can be compiled for different architectures, some 32-bit, some 64-bit. There's not a whole lot of 64-bit specific code.
Most Open Source programs are 64-bit clean now. I'd think Apple's programmers would have been working to make sure all the Mac OS X code is 64-bit clean.
Yes, it is easy to comply with the GPL. That's kind of the point.
And as a matter of fact, the author of BusyBox, which is used in the LinkSys WAP, was taking actions to sue LinkSys for this violation. I'm not sure if he's proceeding with that now that they've released the code. The GPL really doesn't say that you can comply after the fact and get away with it. It says that you must comply in order to distribute the program.
As far as worried about being sued for using GPLed code, I fail to see how it's any different than being sued for using proprietary code. Try taking some of Microsoft's code without following their contracts and see how far you get. I don't see how Microsoft would lose market penetration if they were to sue somebody for using their code without permission.
The only paradox I see in suing for violations of the GPL, is the fact that there's very little direct damages caused by distributing it. You probably can't expect to get much more than statutory damages. To do that, you'd have to register your copyright with the Library of Congress, and you'd only get $100,000 at the most.
BTW, technically there is no such thing as a violation of the GPL. Either you implicitly agree to it by following it, or you implicitly disagree with it by not following it. If you disagree with it, it does not apply. Instead, default copyright law applies. So if you do not agree to the GPL, you are violating copyright law, not the GPL. (It's hard to violate a contract you never agreed to.)
The GPL doesn't say you have to release your mods, but only a list of the changes and what dates. Have you actually read the GPL?
I've read and analyzed the GPL license many times. It's pretty clear (in spirit and literally) in stating that you must release any modifications if you distribute modified binaries.
a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
Your interpretation of this to not mean both is pretty shaky. Try replacing the word "either" with the word "both" in the text. That'd mean that a derived work is 2 separate things. Besides, Section 2 of the GPL is effective even without the definition of "work based on the Program":
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: [...] b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
The other problem with the GPL is that there is conjecture and opinion throughout, not fact, as there must be in an Agreement.
The opinion portions of the license are only in the "Preamble" and the "How To Apply These Terms" sections. The "Terms and Conditions" section is clearly marked as the only part constituting the actual agreement. Also, it says "If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public".
The first time the GPL gets tried in court it will get thrown out because it's full of opinion [...] Stallman tried to force his opinions on everyone else's work.
But if the GPL gets thrown out, then you have no right to distribute or modify the programs under the GPL. (Because default copyright law does not allow those.) So I'm not sure it can even be thrown out. If it does, what would happen? Would the judge say that distribution of all the GPL code out there is now illegal? Or would he say that it's all in the Public Domain? Neither choice would make sense.
The GPL is actually a pretty straight-forward contract, compared to other software licenses such as Microsoft EULAs. And it doesn't take away any existing rights you have -- it just specifies the conditions you must follow to gain additional rights. And it's hard to make the case that Stallman is trying to force his opinions on anyone; he doesn't make anyone apply the GPL to their code. If you want to use the GPL, or derive your code from existing GPLed code, that's fine; if you don't, that's fine too -- choose your own license for your own code. It's people telling me that I shouldn't use the GPL for my own code that are trying to force their opinions. (And trying to say that code derived from GPLed code doesn't give me a choice is a red herring. Try deriving code from Microsoft copyrighted code and see how much choice you have there.)
There's a German translation of the GPL. It's not an "official" or legally approved translation. But I don't see any reason that you couldn't license your (new) software under a German version of the GPL. Even using the English version, the availablity of the German version should probably be sufficient to guarantee understanding.
I'm not sure if it's possible, since the face-recognition data probably has to be "fuzzy". But if there's any data that is exact, you could just hash that.
That wasn't the question. The question was is $1999 or $2000 bigger? The answer is that (within a reasonable margin of error) they are the same. Your conscious mind will easily tell you that 10000 is larger than 9. Obviously, you'll listen to your conscious mind. But in the case in question, your conscious mind tells you they're basically the same. So your unconscious could easily have some effect in that case.
Another point I could make is that $1999.99 looks bigger than $2000 because it has more digits.
I don't know if I'm atypical in this respect, but when I see lots of 9s, I tend to think "big". When I see 0s, I tend to think "nothing". I wonder if other people have those same initial reactions. I really think marketing folks should do some more psychological studies. It'd be funny if it turned out they were unwittingly discouraging buyers at a subconscious level.
It seems odd that they'd use a patent-encumbered format. You're required to use a licensed encoder and player. So the information is still not "freely" accessible to the general public. I'd like to see them switch to Ogg Vorbis.
Interesting case. (For those who haven't clicked the link to the MP3 or text of the decision, it says that laws against inter-racial marriages are unconstitutional, under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.)
It seems that you could apply almost exactly the same argument to same-sex marriages (and other anti-homosexual laws). The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about race; it says the laws should apply to all people equally.
You could make an argument that the 14th Amendment would apply to age distinctions as well, invalidating arbitrary ages for various things -- marriage, drinking, driving, etc. But the court also said that you do have to consider reasonable factors.
He's "trapped in a hand-to-mouth existence"? Maybe if he got off his ass and worked hard, he wouldn't be living "hand-to-mouth". Anyway, the term implies that you have to work hard for every meal. This guy definitely doesn't fit the bill.
It seems like apples to oranges when they compare its strength to steel. Steel can be easily formed into large solid structures. Their measurement of nanotube strength is just for a single microscopic strand. You'd have to somehow combine the strands to form a useful macroscopic structure. And the strentgh of that structure would be more dependent on how the strands are connected.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it interesting that they determined an estimate of the total mass of all the matter in the Universe before they figured out how many stars there are. You'd think they'd come up with the number of stars first, and then base the mass estimate on that.
They also said that the number may actually be too small, given that light from some parts of the Universe hasn't had time to reach us yet. So it may be impossible to determine the total size of the Universe.
One question I've always had is: when we look back in time to the creation of the Universe, we see light from that time. So the light has been traveling for 15 billion years to get to us. But if that light has been traveling that whole time toward us, how did we get here first? We would have had to have gone faster than the speed of light to get here. So if our assumptions are valid, it seems that at some point in the history of the Universe, the laws of physics as we know them were different. Was light slower then? Was there a time when the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light? Were the changes abrupt or slow-changing? Are they changing still today?
At that point, you'd probably want an SSH Proxy. Besides, proxies provide a lot more security than packet filters.
FTP should die. It's counter to all networking principles to have the server initiate a connection back to the client. Besides, most of the time you'll want the security of SSH/SCP. If not, use a proxy on your NAT box.
Actually, Microsoft will not indemnify you for patent infringement for using their product.
Wow. You must be a big fan of awk. Seems like a lot of UNIX folks learn grep and sed, but never get around to awk, usually skipping straight to Perl or Python. I know one guy who says that any time you pipe 2 greps together you should use awk instead. It'd probably save me some time searching through log files if I learned how to use awk.
I would have thought of using bc before awk for math stuff though.
Check out TIBET from Technical Pursuit. It's a full browser application environment, built using JavaScript. They decided on JavaScript, because it's the only language guaranteed to be on the client side. When they were building out the libraries, they found that it was more powerful than they expected. They've actually extended the language, using only the language itself.
Applications have to pull down a large (1 MB plus) set of JavaScript libraries. So this isn't for web applets, or even server-based web applications. (Although it's easy for the code to communicate with the server.) It's meant for full-blown applications that will run completely in the browser.
They also include some application development tools. (I haven't taken a look at those yet.) The whole thing is available under an Open Source license or under a proprietary license if you prefer.
For $50 for a pretty good low-end model, you really can't go wrong. I bought one last year, and I'm happy with it for now, until I can get a recorder. (I'm going to build a Linux-based TiVo box with DVD recorder.) When I get something better, I'll give it to my parents -- $50 is a good deal for a couple years worth of usage.
Also, if the Next Big Format uses 12 cm discs, it'll almost definitely play current DVDs. Just like today's DVD players can play CDs and VCDs.
I had some difficulty clicking with Grimaldi himself at Rose-Hulman. Like most professors, he's odd. In this case, he's got this nasally but raspy monotone voice. Walks with his hands out to his sides, as if he had a stick shoved up his butt. A very anal retentive personality. Expected you to learn things the way he taught them. I don't recall him answering questions all that well. I did OK in his classes. They weren't terribly exciting. I think I got Bs, because I had missed a few classes, and he subtracted points for missing or coming in late.
More importantly, the manufacturer itself doesn't get the full retail sale price. Most of the purchase price goes to the distributors and retail store. Granted, if you're prosecuting, then you can claim all of those as damages to the various companies. But if it's a civil case, the manufacturer could really only claim a small fraction of the retail price.
Also, do they subtract out the costs of packaging and distribution? The pirated copy did not incur those costs, so it doesn't make much sense to include them in the damages.
I thought the campaign was supposed to be named Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).
[Apologies to Saturday Night Live.]
Wow, excellent proposal. They had me going there. The first half of the proposal actually seemed reasonable, if not particularly C-like. It was only when they said that variables should be limited to a single character that I started to worry.
See the and in there? ;)
Actually, I don't think "either" matters that much, since I think section 2 still holds under the conventional interpretation even if your argument about "either" holds. You didn't seem to address that part of my argument. You'll also note that there's not a lot of support for your interpretation of the wording. (You could make the argument that it's because everyone on Slashdot is pro-GPL, but there are always people here willing to stand up to convention. Also, I've not seen anyone on other sites supporting your interpretation.)
Despite what you may believe, words are almost always a little vague, and subject to some interpretation. Even in carefully-worded contracts. I think you have shown that the wording in question can be interpretted in more than one way. I just don't think that a judge is likely to find your interpretation more valid than the conventional interpretation.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. Yes, I'm fully aware that Microsoft includes code derived from BSD. But the BSD license allows anyone to "co-opt" the code and incorporate it into proprietary copyrighted code. As it happens, I also have a CD with some GPLed code distributed by Microsoft -- GNU utilities from their Windows Resource Kit. (I find that especially interesting given Microsoft's FUD a year or so back that using GPLed code would cause you to have to GPL all your code.)
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to try. Co-opting BSD code and adding some of my copyrighted code to it?
Yes, the OS will be able to run 64-bit apps, but it sounds like not much of the OS itself will have even been re-compiled. And you're right that there are things you can do to optimize performance on 64-bit systems beyond just re-compiling and making sure things are 64-bit safe.
As far as binaries containing 32-bit and 64-bit versions, NeXT has long had "fat binaries". (Not sure if MacOS had fat binaries in the transition from 68K to PowerPC.) The executable would have versions for multiple CPUs, and the OS would chose the right one. I suspect that's still easily supported in Mac OS X.
As the article said though, often you'll have a 32-bit app with a few optionally-used 64-bit sections.
You don't have to re-write code to make it 64-bit. You just have to re-compile it. Granted, you have to make sure it's 64-bit safe code, but there's not all that much effort involved in that. Basically, you just can't assume that you have 32-bit integers and pointers.
For instance, the Linux kernel was made 64-bit safe in version 2.0, when they added support for the Alpha architecture. It's one code base that can be compiled for different architectures, some 32-bit, some 64-bit. There's not a whole lot of 64-bit specific code.
Most Open Source programs are 64-bit clean now. I'd think Apple's programmers would have been working to make sure all the Mac OS X code is 64-bit clean.
Yes, it is easy to comply with the GPL. That's kind of the point.
And as a matter of fact, the author of BusyBox, which is used in the LinkSys WAP, was taking actions to sue LinkSys for this violation. I'm not sure if he's proceeding with that now that they've released the code. The GPL really doesn't say that you can comply after the fact and get away with it. It says that you must comply in order to distribute the program.
As far as worried about being sued for using GPLed code, I fail to see how it's any different than being sued for using proprietary code. Try taking some of Microsoft's code without following their contracts and see how far you get. I don't see how Microsoft would lose market penetration if they were to sue somebody for using their code without permission.
The only paradox I see in suing for violations of the GPL, is the fact that there's very little direct damages caused by distributing it. You probably can't expect to get much more than statutory damages. To do that, you'd have to register your copyright with the Library of Congress, and you'd only get $100,000 at the most.
BTW, technically there is no such thing as a violation of the GPL. Either you implicitly agree to it by following it, or you implicitly disagree with it by not following it. If you disagree with it, it does not apply. Instead, default copyright law applies. So if you do not agree to the GPL, you are violating copyright law, not the GPL. (It's hard to violate a contract you never agreed to.)
I've read and analyzed the GPL license many times. It's pretty clear (in spirit and literally) in stating that you must release any modifications if you distribute modified binaries.
Your interpretation of this to not mean both is pretty shaky. Try replacing the word "either" with the word "both" in the text. That'd mean that a derived work is 2 separate things. Besides, Section 2 of the GPL is effective even without the definition of "work based on the Program":
The opinion portions of the license are only in the "Preamble" and the "How To Apply These Terms" sections. The "Terms and Conditions" section is clearly marked as the only part constituting the actual agreement. Also, it says "If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public".
But if the GPL gets thrown out, then you have no right to distribute or modify the programs under the GPL. (Because default copyright law does not allow those.) So I'm not sure it can even be thrown out. If it does, what would happen? Would the judge say that distribution of all the GPL code out there is now illegal? Or would he say that it's all in the Public Domain? Neither choice would make sense.
The GPL is actually a pretty straight-forward contract, compared to other software licenses such as Microsoft EULAs. And it doesn't take away any existing rights you have -- it just specifies the conditions you must follow to gain additional rights. And it's hard to make the case that Stallman is trying to force his opinions on anyone; he doesn't make anyone apply the GPL to their code. If you want to use the GPL, or derive your code from existing GPLed code, that's fine; if you don't, that's fine too -- choose your own license for your own code. It's people telling me that I shouldn't use the GPL for my own code that are trying to force their opinions. (And trying to say that code derived from GPLed code doesn't give me a choice is a red herring. Try deriving code from Microsoft copyrighted code and see how much choice you have there.)
There's a German translation of the GPL. It's not an "official" or legally approved translation. But I don't see any reason that you couldn't license your (new) software under a German version of the GPL. Even using the English version, the availablity of the German version should probably be sufficient to guarantee understanding.
I'm not sure if it's possible, since the face-recognition data probably has to be "fuzzy". But if there's any data that is exact, you could just hash that.
That wasn't the question. The question was is $1999 or $2000 bigger? The answer is that (within a reasonable margin of error) they are the same. Your conscious mind will easily tell you that 10000 is larger than 9. Obviously, you'll listen to your conscious mind. But in the case in question, your conscious mind tells you they're basically the same. So your unconscious could easily have some effect in that case.
Another point I could make is that $1999.99 looks bigger than $2000 because it has more digits.
I don't know if I'm atypical in this respect, but when I see lots of 9s, I tend to think "big". When I see 0s, I tend to think "nothing". I wonder if other people have those same initial reactions. I really think marketing folks should do some more psychological studies. It'd be funny if it turned out they were unwittingly discouraging buyers at a subconscious level.
It seems odd that they'd use a patent-encumbered format. You're required to use a licensed encoder and player. So the information is still not "freely" accessible to the general public. I'd like to see them switch to Ogg Vorbis.
Interesting case. (For those who haven't clicked the link to the MP3 or text of the decision, it says that laws against inter-racial marriages are unconstitutional, under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.)
It seems that you could apply almost exactly the same argument to same-sex marriages (and other anti-homosexual laws). The 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about race; it says the laws should apply to all people equally.
You could make an argument that the 14th Amendment would apply to age distinctions as well, invalidating arbitrary ages for various things -- marriage, drinking, driving, etc. But the court also said that you do have to consider reasonable factors.
At first I read that as "every even numbered highway". I thought that was pretty weird to skip all the odd-numbered highways.
He's "trapped in a hand-to-mouth existence"? Maybe if he got off his ass and worked hard, he wouldn't be living "hand-to-mouth". Anyway, the term implies that you have to work hard for every meal. This guy definitely doesn't fit the bill.
You're not thinking like management.
It seems like apples to oranges when they compare its strength to steel. Steel can be easily formed into large solid structures. Their measurement of nanotube strength is just for a single microscopic strand. You'd have to somehow combine the strands to form a useful macroscopic structure. And the strentgh of that structure would be more dependent on how the strands are connected.