On the graphics thing, I don't see why not Java. Next gen phones will have HW accelerated 3d graphics. Check out the TI OMAP 2420 embedded multimedia processor specifications for a look at what the future may bring.
Waste of time, money and effort like the whole rest of the SETI project. There may well be someone out there, but they are nowhere we can ever communicate with, never mind go to. It saddens me, but the universe is not like Star Trek.
The thing is though that people know who McDonalds is, and go there regularly (or so I've heard). Few people have heard of the RIAA, and nobody purchases from them directly. The article is not "Britney Spears sues a child", or "Sony Music sues a Child", or "HMV sues a child", it's at least one level removed from all that. If the RIAA's reputation is destroyed, it basically affects nobody very much.
Making my life doing Software Integration hell, let me tell you. They might be "Electrical Engineers", but they sure as hell aren't "Software Engineers", and whatever discipline they are taught as EE's appears not to involve any Engineering Process whatsoever (a bit rich coming from CompSci graduate, but there you go).
Well, certainly there is dogmatism in science. Scientists are human after all, and have concious and unconcious biases. The thing about science though is that it is able to overcome these human flaws (even if it might often take longer than one would hope). The dogma in this case was overturned after all, in spite of (m|b)millions of dollars worth of antacid industry and established scientific wisdom saying it shouldn't be.
I think your book analogy is a bad one. Copyright does not cover usage. Only issues related to copying (hence why it is important for software to have a license since it is copied all the time). The license for software of course might limit your usage in return for the ability to do limited copying, but the same is not really true for a book. Most people are not copying books, so they don't need the author's permission to use it, or have any license with him.
Well because mostly nobody knows or cares who you are on those hundreds of routers out there leading to google, whereas whoever has access to your pc or network knows exactly who you are.
Probably because using a numeric keypad is hard to enter stuff with. If the voice query worked well it would be a lot faster especially for > 1 word searches. It would of course have to work very well for it to be anything other than a gimmick, but hey, maybe it does.
What you say about money is true to a certain extent, but most jobs in the same industry are not *that* much different. It'd have to be a special job indeed for the magnitude of the "greater sense of self-satisfaction" from doing your work to outweigh the "greater sense of self-satisfaction" from being well rewarded for doing your work. I am dubious whether there are many jobs in the sw industry that are that much special. They all seem pretty similar to me once you get past the superficial differences.
And if you had it, why would you be a more legitimate owner than some other Tom McPhail, Dick McPhail, Harry McPhail, or any of the many McPhails in the world? You have no more legitimate reason to own it than the current owners.
Cygwin is ok, but not great. It is fine if you want to emulate linux on windows, but it doesn't play nice with native applications. Native ports of the GNU stuff is better in almost all cases. Of course since cygwin is emulating linux it has a lot more software than there are proper native ports.
Well, the law isn't the same as English, and corporations are people as far as the law is concerned, and employees are acting as part of the corporate body. The GPL doesn't need to give corporate persons additional rights. If it wants to exclude them, it needs to explicitly state so.
If and only if you follow certain requirements, including giving permission for anyone getting access to those other copies (including 3rd parties) authority to request the source code.
Not anybody getting access. Anybody you "copy and distribute" the software to, and so on to third parties.
That's not what the GPL says. It only uses the word "distribute", it doesn't require that the distribution go to someone else.
Well, apart form the fact that it's not distribution unless someone gets it, the GPL does not only say "distribute". It mentions recipients in this regard. See below:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The only vague part that I can see is this special case of one type of program:
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
Do Employees count as users? It's debatable, but I don't think so. They are there in their capacity as part of the company. It is the company that is the user.
Situation A is correct. You cannot copy XP to more than one of your computers without a license to do so.
Situation B is incorrect, because the GPL explicitly allows you to circumvent copyright law for yourself (the corporation). You can put it on as many of your own computers as you like, but only courtesy of this specific clause in the GPL. When you distribute it to someone else (e.g. a customer) the rest of the GPL applies, but you are not distributing it to the employees just as you were not distributing XP to them.
It's as users that programmers discover the GPL. Why else is it that there are more programming tools than anything else (excepting perhaps half finished mp3 players) in the GPL world?
It's the people who expect developers to provide GPL applications that the developers have no interest in or would recieve no reciprocation for, like all the people asking for Law or Medical related GPL software on ask slashdot a few months back, that are the ones who need their heads examined (perhaps with GPL head examining software).
I disagree with your last paragraph. Those people are not using the software. They are using the service that the service provider provides by his usage of the software. He could change that software and they would never notice. However you are correct, a service always depends on the person providing it. If you want to free the service in addition to freeing the the software, then that's a whole nother license than was accepted by the people who accepted GPL2.
Well, if unless they want to license the patent or drop the functionality, it looks like spurred by this patent they will have to come up with some "new, truly innovative, technologies";)
Not for long. Digital signature is mandatory for installations on Symbian OS v9. There *might* be *some* freedom to override that depending on your manufacturer and operator, but I wouldn't count on it.
Slashdot Mirror
On the graphics thing, I don't see why not Java. Next gen phones will have HW accelerated 3d graphics. Check out the TI OMAP 2420 embedded multimedia processor specifications for a look at what the future may bring.
Is it any faster on the computers we were using 10 years ago? Or is it just riding the performance wave like everything else?
Waste of time, money and effort like the whole rest of the SETI project. There may well be someone out there, but they are nowhere we can ever communicate with, never mind go to. It saddens me, but the universe is not like Star Trek.
It can be used to implement coroutines in C. Google for "coroutines in C". any of the first bunch of links talk about it.
Corporations are people too.
The thing is though that people know who McDonalds is, and go there regularly (or so I've heard). Few people have heard of the RIAA, and nobody purchases from them directly. The article is not "Britney Spears sues a child", or "Sony Music sues a Child", or "HMV sues a child", it's at least one level removed from all that. If the RIAA's reputation is destroyed, it basically affects nobody very much.
Actually, very few people survive the acidy environment of the stomach.
:)
*Ahem*
Well, certainly there is dogmatism in science. Scientists are human after all, and have concious and unconcious biases. The thing about science though is that it is able to overcome these human flaws (even if it might often take longer than one would hope). The dogma in this case was overturned after all, in spite of (m|b)millions of dollars worth of antacid industry and established scientific wisdom saying it shouldn't be.
Happiness is a warm bum.
I think your book analogy is a bad one. Copyright does not cover usage. Only issues related to copying (hence why it is important for software to have a license since it is copied all the time). The license for software of course might limit your usage in return for the ability to do limited copying, but the same is not really true for a book. Most people are not copying books, so they don't need the author's permission to use it, or have any license with him.
But it is wierdly eroded surface!
Well because mostly nobody knows or cares who you are on those hundreds of routers out there leading to google, whereas whoever has access to your pc or network knows exactly who you are.
Probably because using a numeric keypad is hard to enter stuff with. If the voice query worked well it would be a lot faster especially for > 1 word searches. It would of course have to work very well for it to be anything other than a gimmick, but hey, maybe it does.
What you say about money is true to a certain extent, but most jobs in the same industry are not *that* much different. It'd have to be a special job indeed for the magnitude of the "greater sense of self-satisfaction" from doing your work to outweigh the "greater sense of self-satisfaction" from being well rewarded for doing your work. I am dubious whether there are many jobs in the sw industry that are that much special. They all seem pretty similar to me once you get past the superficial differences.
And if you had it, why would you be a more legitimate owner than some other Tom McPhail, Dick McPhail, Harry McPhail, or any of the many McPhails in the world? You have no more legitimate reason to own it than the current owners.
Cygwin is ok, but not great. It is fine if you want to emulate linux on windows, but it doesn't play nice with native applications. Native ports of the GNU stuff is better in almost all cases. Of course since cygwin is emulating linux it has a lot more software than there are proper native ports.
Well, the law isn't the same as English, and corporations are people as far as the law is concerned, and employees are acting as part of the corporate body. The GPL doesn't need to give corporate persons additional rights. If it wants to exclude them, it needs to explicitly state so.
Not anybody getting access. Anybody you "copy and distribute" the software to, and so on to third parties.
Well, apart form the fact that it's not distribution unless someone gets it, the GPL does not only say "distribute". It mentions recipients in this regard. See below:
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The only vague part that I can see is this special case of one type of program:
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
Do Employees count as users? It's debatable, but I don't think so. They are there in their capacity as part of the company. It is the company that is the user.
Situation A is correct. You cannot copy XP to more than one of your computers without a license to do so.
Situation B is incorrect, because the GPL explicitly allows you to circumvent copyright law for yourself (the corporation). You can put it on as many of your own computers as you like, but only courtesy of this specific clause in the GPL. When you distribute it to someone else (e.g. a customer) the rest of the GPL applies, but you are not distributing it to the employees just as you were not distributing XP to them.
It's as users that programmers discover the GPL. Why else is it that there are more programming tools than anything else (excepting perhaps half finished mp3 players) in the GPL world?
It's the people who expect developers to provide GPL applications that the developers have no interest in or would recieve no reciprocation for, like all the people asking for Law or Medical related GPL software on ask slashdot a few months back, that are the ones who need their heads examined (perhaps with GPL head examining software).
I disagree with your last paragraph. Those people are not using the software. They are using the service that the service provider provides by his usage of the software. He could change that software and they would never notice. However you are correct, a service always depends on the person providing it. If you want to free the service in addition to freeing the the software, then that's a whole nother license than was accepted by the people who accepted GPL2.
Well, if unless they want to license the patent or drop the functionality, it looks like spurred by this patent they will have to come up with some "new, truly innovative, technologies" ;)
Not for long. Digital signature is mandatory for installations on Symbian OS v9. There *might* be *some* freedom to override that depending on your manufacturer and operator, but I wouldn't count on it.