I hope you do not sell your embedded linux with the changes to customers without giving out the source code? That would count for redistribution unless you only use it internally.
We distribute all changes to Linux in sources. There is nothing (nor there should be) proprietary in there, Linux is a wonderful, flexible OS, it provides a foundation for all kinds of software without a need to be contaminated by application logic.
Your lawyers and HR will not appreciate giving out million or hundreds of thousands of labor they made to competitors and various exploit writers.
Our lawyers have no problems with that, as we comply with all licenses and contracts involved -- of all things, GPL is among the most straightforward ones. Our HR department has nothing to do with licensing.
Remember you are asking the company to ship its crown jewels away if they license it with GPL.
No. Just no. I work for a company that uses embedded Linux, running all kinds of proprietary software. Linux and utilities are GPL, proprietary software is not, the latter runs on the former without any problems.
Now, if "crown jewels" were someone's extra-special version of GPL software, I wouldn't want to use it for reasons other than licensing -- the motivation would be suspect.
There is enough embedded systems and in-house development to make the opinions of all all dinky app-store-bound developers completely irrelevant. The last time around with DOS software, a negligible minority of individual developers were able support themselves by writing anything sold to consumers -- that market, with exception of games, was quickly monopolized by Microsoft and Adobe. This time, things are shaping up in exactly the same way. Meanwhile, embedded systems and large IT/Internet-basdd services were developed with constantly growing percentage of Open Source and specifically GPL licensed software, and successfull thwarted at least two waves of Microsoft attacks on them.
First of all, you have no proof of that. SAAS, as restrictive as it is, is not affected by GPL at all. Second, go fuck yourself anyway. We write software, we distribute it under licenses that parasites like your "few SAAS providers and other software producers" are afraid of. If they don't like it, they can always ask Oracle to buy their shitty companies.
Getting a bunch of people to sign a petition or approve of a policy is pretty close to liking some random thing.
But that's not speech by people who signed the petition, it's the speech by person who originated it. A petition posted with a bunch of fake signatures is still free speech (but it would be fraud to submit it).
If she "won't stop going on about" things even after asked to stop, it would be a valid reason because it creates a hostile work environment and impedes her function as an employee.
If her job is related to handling anything related to Obama or Democrats' policies, and he refuses to work on it, then it would be a valid reason, too.
If she is not an actual employee but self-employed and performs services for businesses as a consultant, it would be a valid reason to not hire her later.
If she is actually an employee and merely expresses the opinion, then no.
Second of all, who is censoring who here? Someone got fired because their boss didn't like their opinion. In a private business (see next sentence before you jump on this) that's perfectly fine; freedom of association and all that, I don't have to work for people I don't like and I shouldn't have to let people I don't like work for me either; I've quit a job in part because of the owner's political expressions, why should the other way around be any different.
Actually, no. US labor laws suck donkey balls, but they don't suck donkey balls THAT much.
"Free speech" protection protect the speech itself and affect ability of government to keep the speaker from distributing it. In itself, a record of clicking on a button in a privately run web site is not worthy of protection. Facebook distributing the summary of those record is protected, however Facebook is not the party being threatened or attacked. So no "free speech" issues are involved here.
On the other hand, selective termination of employees who expressed their opinions and supported a competing election campaign, likely is a violation of several labor laws. Even if Sheriff's office by any chance is exempt from labor laws, employees may be able to prove that the cause of termination is fraudulent, intended to conceal the true reason behind termination.
I think, it's extremely stupid to try to try to use "free speech" protection (that exists to protect all speech, no matter how true, false or opinionated), when the real issue is protection of a person from private retaliation through public channels, especially when deception of the public is involved.
The same can be said for pretty much advance in science in the last 50 years. If you're truly interested in what can and cannot be predicted - given correct models, there's a science studying that, complexity theory.
There is more to science than messing with statistics in artificial environments.
Right, and Qt added an application-specific mechanism that solved one narrowly defined problem in a very effective but not generalized way. This is why it's not in the language.
No. C++ contains four distinct and unrelated parts of its language (C, C preprocessor, classes, templates), however they are all parts of the language, not runtine/library. Slots/signals are very much specific to the type of a library that Qt is, so it should not be inside a language. If a general-purpose macro mechanism could be made (C++ already has two, C preprocessor and templates) so slots/signals can be implemented on top of it, that macro mechanism can be allowed in the language.
Actually, it's a little different. Current fiat currencies create money through debt. They don't create money at a constant, predictable rate. If someone wants to borrow money and the bank approves it: bam; new money is poofed into existence.
As a legal fiction, yes, but in practice, debt more of an excuse for setting a rate that can't accidentally float away from the rate of growth of the market. As long as the amount of products being traded on the market increases, new money would have to be created to maintain it. Debt merely keeps track of where those money went, however for the central bank the total amount of outstanding debt is based not on the ability of market participants to pay back the loans (what would determine risk for a regular bank) but on the size of the market. The risk for the central bank is not that loans will not be paid back to support operation of the bank but that the economy will be damaged by wrong incentives or mismatch between expected and actual results of supposedly safe behavior of the market's participants -- central bank is the only institution that can loan money, can receive payment for those loans, but can't actually pay anyone using money it "owns".
Regular, commercial, banks can't "create" or "destroy" money without central bank doing it, therefore their idea of what "loan" is merely shares a name and formal procedures with the currency emission done by the central bank.
The other advantage of Bitcoin is that it is arguably more fair than our current banking system, which has "special" players (banks) who are allowed to poof money into existence and hence become very rich by doing precisely nothing.
From the point of view of "special" status being assigned arbitrarily -- yes. But uneven initial distribution of bitcoins is a problem of exactly the same type, it is just masked by the "merit" of mining. The problem is, the cost of mining in the initial stages is so much lower than the value of bitcoins (or the whole thing collapses later), the difference between being arbitrarily named a bank and being involved in mining (or initial stages of mining) is superficial. The implied assumption was that since mining is accessible to everyone, the initial distribution will not be skewed to form one or few self-proclaimed central banks. This condition is not stable -- once someone with any significant amount of resources recognizes the value of bitcoins (assuming there is much of it), he can easily take over a large percentage of bitcoins (and use bitcoins to perpetuate the advantage by buying more computing power, depleting the remaining bitcoins faster).
When more than one such player will appear, they will have to compete with each other, what guarantees either runaway concentration of new currency in the hands of two people, or collusion between them that produces an entity with total control over bitcoins. The fact that those same actions would cause destruction of bitcoins value is not a sufficient disincentive because dropping bitcoins value is less of a threat than reduced number of bitcoins in the hands of such "miner".
IMHO, there is still a major problem, though. The first is that it doesn't matter how much you can divide bitcoins up, if you have 0, there is nothing you can do. You need to get *some*. The second problem is the way new bitcoins are distributed. It's better now with mining pools, but at first people were receiving bitcoins in 50 BTC increments. So either you had lots of bitcoins or no bitcoins. The number of people with fractional bitcoins was small. Trading was/is done in large increments even though bitcoins are scarce.
Right, same problem, but I think, a potential for abuse makes it much worse.
But, Bitcoin does not have to be a standard currency. It works well as an exchange mechanism on the internet. Not that many people accept it right now, but looking at the trading graphs, volume seems to be relat
The videos look absolutely identical until the last part with birds, a clearly pathological case of "make benchmark to fit the product" type. In both videos the view of birds is highly distorted at the end, and no details other than a whole screen filled with slow-moving high-frequency pattern, are visible. x264 example keeps the birds distinct while VP8 blurs them, but neither provides usable details -- those videos have to be encoded at higher rate to be watchable, no matter what.
But then a large percentage of this currency will end up in the hands of a single organization, thus making it unusable as a currency. The only reason why currency has value when hoarded (or, in other terms, has liquidity) is that the same kind of currency is constantly circulated, so potential influx of currency that is currently out of circulation does not noticeably decrease the value of a unit of this currency.
This is also why central banks can issue more of their currency -- the rate at which they issue it is predictable, so new units do not appear on the market significantly faster than new products (inflation is slow and predictable). If there is an expectation that central bank will issue currency faster, market react by dropping the value associated with the unit of the currency (increasing the rate of inflation) because people expect more currency to be present with the same amount of products being traded with it.
However this is not significantly different from a situation when large fraction of available currency is hoarded by an organization that plans to use this currency. There is no way to predict how fast this "locked up" currency is going to be spent, so everyone else who uses the same currency is in danger of facing a sudden influx of new units of currency into the market, diluting the value per unit. That undermines the safety of currency used for transactions, and creates an incentive for market participants to switch to another currency, and once enough participants do so, currency loses its value completely.
But what if those new bitcoin overlords will foresee this and start spending new currency right away, thus creating a somewhat predictable influx?
Not really much of a difference. Since it's new currency units created out of nothing, it will create a constant influx of products into the hand of one entity that effectively taxes the market that way. When there is an expectation that all participants, by "mining", create new units of currency while participating in the market, this influx evens out for each participant, however when "mining" is skewed toward one participant, market becomes unfair to the rest, so they switch to another currency, just like in the above described case of hoarding.
To think of it, if someone had a goal to destroy bitcoin, that would be a great strategy to accomplish this (and this is also why bitcoin is just as vulnerable to manipulation as other forms of currency).
When they don't bother, but play lip-service to the fact it's arguable by restating their position ("yes, it is proprietary"), it's a red flag for intellectual dishonesty.
I am just sick and tired of closed things being called "open" just because there is no way to enforce proper use of the word. In 90's, I think, at least 80% of data formats, protocols and infrastructure products had names "OpenSomething" despite being completely closed in all possible ways. In 2000s a great shift happened -- companies who do that, placed some actual effort into creating the impression of "open standard" while keeping things as proprietary as ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't that the claim, US and other NATO countries' media makes every time a victim of their invasion tries to place any air defenses in their cities?
By this logic, any Monarchist in US has an obligation to kill himself.
I hope you do not sell your embedded linux with the changes to customers without giving out the source code? That would count for redistribution unless you only use it internally.
We distribute all changes to Linux in sources. There is nothing (nor there should be) proprietary in there, Linux is a wonderful, flexible OS, it provides a foundation for all kinds of software without a need to be contaminated by application logic.
Your lawyers and HR will not appreciate giving out million or hundreds of thousands of labor they made to competitors and various exploit writers.
Our lawyers have no problems with that, as we comply with all licenses and contracts involved -- of all things, GPL is among the most straightforward ones. Our HR department has nothing to do with licensing.
No, in order to be scientific, the validity of conclusion must not depend on anyone being aware of it.
Remember you are asking the company to ship its crown jewels away if they license it with GPL.
No. Just no.
I work for a company that uses embedded Linux, running all kinds of proprietary software. Linux and utilities are GPL, proprietary software is not, the latter runs on the former without any problems.
Now, if "crown jewels" were someone's extra-special version of GPL software, I wouldn't want to use it for reasons other than licensing -- the motivation would be suspect.
There is enough embedded systems and in-house development to make the opinions of all all dinky app-store-bound developers completely irrelevant. The last time around with DOS software, a negligible minority of individual developers were able support themselves by writing anything sold to consumers -- that market, with exception of games, was quickly monopolized by Microsoft and Adobe. This time, things are shaping up in exactly the same way. Meanwhile, embedded systems and large IT/Internet-basdd services were developed with constantly growing percentage of Open Source and specifically GPL licensed software, and successfull thwarted at least two waves of Microsoft attacks on them.
I'm just a messenger, just what I've seen.
First of all, you have no proof of that. SAAS, as restrictive as it is, is not affected by GPL at all.
Second, go fuck yourself anyway. We write software, we distribute it under licenses that parasites like your "few SAAS providers and other software producers" are afraid of. If they don't like it, they can always ask Oracle to buy their shitty companies.
Everything you just claimed is false.
Getting a bunch of people to sign a petition or approve of a policy is pretty close to liking some random thing.
But that's not speech by people who signed the petition, it's the speech by person who originated it. A petition posted with a bunch of fake signatures is still free speech (but it would be fraud to submit it).
If she "won't stop going on about" things even after asked to stop, it would be a valid reason because it creates a hostile work environment and impedes her function as an employee.
If her job is related to handling anything related to Obama or Democrats' policies, and he refuses to work on it, then it would be a valid reason, too.
If she is not an actual employee but self-employed and performs services for businesses as a consultant, it would be a valid reason to not hire her later.
If she is actually an employee and merely expresses the opinion, then no.
Second of all, who is censoring who here? Someone got fired because their boss didn't like their opinion. In a private business (see next sentence before you jump on this) that's perfectly fine; freedom of association and all that, I don't have to work for people I don't like and I shouldn't have to let people I don't like work for me either; I've quit a job in part because of the owner's political expressions, why should the other way around be any different.
Actually, no. US labor laws suck donkey balls, but they don't suck donkey balls THAT much.
"Free speech" protection protect the speech itself and affect ability of government to keep the speaker from distributing it. In itself, a record of clicking on a button in a privately run web site is not worthy of protection. Facebook distributing the summary of those record is protected, however Facebook is not the party being threatened or attacked. So no "free speech" issues are involved here.
On the other hand, selective termination of employees who expressed their opinions and supported a competing election campaign, likely is a violation of several labor laws. Even if Sheriff's office by any chance is exempt from labor laws, employees may be able to prove that the cause of termination is fraudulent, intended to conceal the true reason behind termination.
I think, it's extremely stupid to try to try to use "free speech" protection (that exists to protect all speech, no matter how true, false or opinionated), when the real issue is protection of a person from private retaliation through public channels, especially when deception of the public is involved.
The same can be said for pretty much advance in science in the last 50 years. If you're truly interested in what can and cannot be predicted - given correct models, there's a science studying that, complexity theory.
There is more to science than messing with statistics in artificial environments.
Except usually none of that is anywhere close to reality unless market participants agree to listen to economists.
Development of stable self-fulfilling prophecies may qualify as engineering or art but that's definitely not science.
Right, and Qt added an application-specific mechanism that solved one narrowly defined problem in a very effective but not generalized way. This is why it's not in the language.
When was last time anyone but Microsoft was allowed to change anything in C# language standard?
No. C++ contains four distinct and unrelated parts of its language (C, C preprocessor, classes, templates), however they are all parts of the language, not runtine/library. Slots/signals are very much specific to the type of a library that Qt is, so it should not be inside a language. If a general-purpose macro mechanism could be made (C++ already has two, C preprocessor and templates) so slots/signals can be implemented on top of it, that macro mechanism can be allowed in the language.
Actually, it's a little different. Current fiat currencies create money through debt. They don't create money at a constant, predictable rate. If someone wants to borrow money and the bank approves it: bam; new money is poofed into existence.
As a legal fiction, yes, but in practice, debt more of an excuse for setting a rate that can't accidentally float away from the rate of growth of the market. As long as the amount of products being traded on the market increases, new money would have to be created to maintain it. Debt merely keeps track of where those money went, however for the central bank the total amount of outstanding debt is based not on the ability of market participants to pay back the loans (what would determine risk for a regular bank) but on the size of the market. The risk for the central bank is not that loans will not be paid back to support operation of the bank but that the economy will be damaged by wrong incentives or mismatch between expected and actual results of supposedly safe behavior of the market's participants -- central bank is the only institution that can loan money, can receive payment for those loans, but can't actually pay anyone using money it "owns".
Regular, commercial, banks can't "create" or "destroy" money without central bank doing it, therefore their idea of what "loan" is merely shares a name and formal procedures with the currency emission done by the central bank.
The other advantage of Bitcoin is that it is arguably more fair than our current banking system, which has "special" players (banks) who are allowed to poof money into existence and hence become very rich by doing precisely nothing.
From the point of view of "special" status being assigned arbitrarily -- yes. But uneven initial distribution of bitcoins is a problem of exactly the same type, it is just masked by the "merit" of mining. The problem is, the cost of mining in the initial stages is so much lower than the value of bitcoins (or the whole thing collapses later), the difference between being arbitrarily named a bank and being involved in mining (or initial stages of mining) is superficial. The implied assumption was that since mining is accessible to everyone, the initial distribution will not be skewed to form one or few self-proclaimed central banks. This condition is not stable -- once someone with any significant amount of resources recognizes the value of bitcoins (assuming there is much of it), he can easily take over a large percentage of bitcoins (and use bitcoins to perpetuate the advantage by buying more computing power, depleting the remaining bitcoins faster).
When more than one such player will appear, they will have to compete with each other, what guarantees either runaway concentration of new currency in the hands of two people, or collusion between them that produces an entity with total control over bitcoins. The fact that those same actions would cause destruction of bitcoins value is not a sufficient disincentive because dropping bitcoins value is less of a threat than reduced number of bitcoins in the hands of such "miner".
IMHO, there is still a major problem, though. The first is that it doesn't matter how much you can divide bitcoins up, if you have 0, there is nothing you can do. You need to get *some*. The second problem is the way new bitcoins are distributed. It's better now with mining pools, but at first people were receiving bitcoins in 50 BTC increments. So either you had lots of bitcoins or no bitcoins. The number of people with fractional bitcoins was small. Trading was/is done in large increments even though bitcoins are scarce.
Right, same problem, but I think, a potential for abuse makes it much worse.
But, Bitcoin does not have to be a standard currency. It works well as an exchange mechanism on the internet. Not that many people accept it right now, but looking at the trading graphs, volume seems to be relat
The videos look absolutely identical until the last part with birds, a clearly pathological case of "make benchmark to fit the product" type. In both videos the view of birds is highly distorted at the end, and no details other than a whole screen filled with slow-moving high-frequency pattern, are visible. x264 example keeps the birds distinct while VP8 blurs them, but neither provides usable details -- those videos have to be encoded at higher rate to be watchable, no matter what.
But then a large percentage of this currency will end up in the hands of a single organization, thus making it unusable as a currency. The only reason why currency has value when hoarded (or, in other terms, has liquidity) is that the same kind of currency is constantly circulated, so potential influx of currency that is currently out of circulation does not noticeably decrease the value of a unit of this currency.
This is also why central banks can issue more of their currency -- the rate at which they issue it is predictable, so new units do not appear on the market significantly faster than new products (inflation is slow and predictable). If there is an expectation that central bank will issue currency faster, market react by dropping the value associated with the unit of the currency (increasing the rate of inflation) because people expect more currency to be present with the same amount of products being traded with it.
However this is not significantly different from a situation when large fraction of available currency is hoarded by an organization that plans to use this currency. There is no way to predict how fast this "locked up" currency is going to be spent, so everyone else who uses the same currency is in danger of facing a sudden influx of new units of currency into the market, diluting the value per unit. That undermines the safety of currency used for transactions, and creates an incentive for market participants to switch to another currency, and once enough participants do so, currency loses its value completely.
But what if those new bitcoin overlords will foresee this and start spending new currency right away, thus creating a somewhat predictable influx?
Not really much of a difference. Since it's new currency units created out of nothing, it will create a constant influx of products into the hand of one entity that effectively taxes the market that way. When there is an expectation that all participants, by "mining", create new units of currency while participating in the market, this influx evens out for each participant, however when "mining" is skewed toward one participant, market becomes unfair to the rest, so they switch to another currency, just like in the above described case of hoarding.
To think of it, if someone had a goal to destroy bitcoin, that would be a great strategy to accomplish this (and this is also why bitcoin is just as vulnerable to manipulation as other forms of currency).
And if there was no slavery, there would be no classical culture. Let's all go back to obsolete crap!
Doing that would eradicate the culture of entrepreneurship that Stanford so excellently exemplifies.
Good! It's like lawyers -- you only need them because your enemies have them.
Yeah, right, C and C++ are SO FRAGMENTED!
Should we go again through Microsoft "open" standards being pushed through various standardization processes against all rules?
When they don't bother, but play lip-service to the fact it's arguable by restating their position ("yes, it is proprietary"), it's a red flag for intellectual dishonesty.
I am just sick and tired of closed things being called "open" just because there is no way to enforce proper use of the word. In 90's, I think, at least 80% of data formats, protocols and infrastructure products had names "OpenSomething" despite being completely closed in all possible ways. In 2000s a great shift happened -- companies who do that, placed some actual effort into creating the impression of "open standard" while keeping things as proprietary as ever.