I not sure about the EPA figures, but VW advertise the golf TDI at about 50mpg extra-urban (highway). I get around 50mpg, sometimes better, overall - probably more extra-urban than urban.
And I haven't changed how I drive at all to do that.
I think that in the US market the typical diesel is still nasty high-sulphur stuff - fuel which the newer cleaner diesel engines used in Europe don't cope with very well.
So for the US market diesel has a bad reputation for pollutants - so probably simply won't appeal to people who would buy hybrid for environmental reasons.
Take boost libraries for example - lots of hairy template code, VC6 was lousy at it. VC 7.1 is excellent - better than gcc. See http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/
Personally, all the data in Oracle, (SQL Server even) or PostgreSQL wouldn't bother me, MySQL might worry me a little, MS Jet / Access worries me a lot. BerkleyDB I'm not sure about, I know a little of its heritage on unix but would be a lot less sure on other platforms.
A lot of people's experience with source control and DBs will be coloured by Visual Source Safe and Jet (which it uses). It is ok until it gets corrupted, and then you are hosed. Keeping everything in readable files CVS-style is a BIG plus point once you've been in that situation.
I'm confused on your corruption statement - you seem to say both that it never happens, and that subversion never does it but other things ("Usually it was the person using multiple servers...") do. Which is it ? And if the latter, what recovery options are there ?
I am also wary of database-based products which are tied to one particular database - makes me worried there are low level hacks being relied on. I think a lot of people (well, me for one) would like to run _one_ rdbms on _one_ db-optimised server managed by _one_ dba - not a dozen different ones all over the place which all have to be managed differently (backup Oracle here, backup Exchange (yuk) here, backup MySQL here for appY, backup SQL here for AppX and now add another special here for source control...).
With stuff in one rdbms it is also easy to relate stuff together in queries (query source control operations related to versions in a trouble tickts app, for example).
If it supported multiple (at least two) rdbms from the outset configurable via odbc/jdbc/etc., preferrably also with an open schema and "just use sql like this to get file x version y from project z" - then it would give me (for one) far more confidence that it was worth looking into further.
PS. I haven't had sourcesafe (still have to use it for some stuff) corrupt a db in over the past two years either - the horror of seeing >5yrs of the whole team's code history suddenly inaccessible (shortly after tape drive problems...) stays fresh in your mind a lot longer.
Companies may licence parts of the code from third parties, usually under other licences that do not allow unlmited source release - so they would have to re-write (clean room) to get a version that they could release source for.
Regulations (depending on your location, eg. on things like wireless cards, modems) sometimes require that stuff works within set limits (eg. power, spectrum). Often the hardware is more flexible, and the limits have to be encoded in the driver software. The law will then require the company to take resonable steps to ensure that end users can't change the software to circumvent the limits. Usually this will mean preventing release of modifiable source code.
That's just two examples - there are plenty more reasons that might apply.
May be the calculation. I am using british mpg - I still haven't got the hang of buying fuel in litres and virtually no one in the UK uses km for travel (and lt/mile is no use to anyone).
VW UK also quotes the Lupo at 78mpg extra-urban though.
I'm sure as I can be (it was a while ago) that we made around 90mpg on the AX on long distance motorway trips where we measured it. Not driving _very_ fast because it couldn't - not sure what speeds it was most efficient at. I do know it used staggeringly little fuel compared to anything else I've ever driven.
Weight & engine size may have a lot to do with it - the AX we had was 0.9L engine, the smallest Lupo diesels now are twice that. VW UK also quote golf TDI at 64mpg. 78 vs 64 doesn't sound, to me, like a huge saving for a car that must only be half the size.
Producing it worldwide is one thing. Getting it into the US is another. Small fuel-efficient cars are basically banned there, hence a lot of americans don't even know they exist.
78mpg is not particularly good though when you consider it's a diesel and that the Metro was getting 60+ off petrol in 1980, and almost ten years ago (and the car was older) I drove a Citroen AX diesel which regularly got over 90mpg. We haven't exactly made massive improvements since then.
If they had _seven_ parachutes (one each) If they were still conscious (what were the Gs from the explosion ?) If they could get a hatch open If they could get out and clear without hitting orbiter / debris (remember the orbiter is now probably a little different in shape than it would have been in training) If they could survive till pickup after landing (in ocean ? must be suited up to survive at that height, do space suits float ?)
If they'd had chutes they _might_ have survived (which, granted, is more chance than without).
Rubbish - the copyright holder (ie. the authors) still has all rights under the GPL, including the right to choose other licenses. Plenty of stuff has both GPL and commercial versions (eg. QT).
Does the quality of music all of a sudden take a downturn?
Not the back catalogue obviously, but then you don't purchase that from the major label.
New stuff might well go downhill - afetr all, it's being produced under different management (and probably to a fixed x-ablums y-tours z-years timetable) with less focus on art and more on $. Even the big stars don't have the creative control they want with a major - ask Prince, George Michael, etc.
Do you buy it ? - maybe if it's still good. Otherwise you put another tick in the "artist sold out" box and go look for more good independent stuff.
It doesn't, actually. What the GPL says is that the GPL doesn't grant you the right to redistribute [...]
Yeah, ok, you do have to distribute to come under that requirement - which is what I meant when I said "have to release", but I needed to add "if you release" because of course you don't _have_ to release/distribute...
an intermingling of GPL code with your proprietary code, unless that commingled body is itself licensed under terms no more onerous than the GPL.
Ah, now you're in a similar miswording trap I think - the commingled body absolutely does have to be under the GPL: "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" - to quote clause 2.
You can't add extra conditions to the GPL (which might lead you to state "no more onerous than") but, crucially, you also can't take the GPL's conditions away. You can't, for example, link GPL code to (less onerous) BSD code and release the result under BSD.
All the above is assuming you aren't the copyright holder for (all of) the code in question, if you are then you can do what you like (unless you added it to Unix & believe SCO).
Actually the GPL is not anywhere near as viral as this license - if (big if) it means what SCO say it does.
The GPL doesn't take away any rights _you_ have to _your_ code, including adding it to other products under other licences. What it says is that if you combine your code with other GPL code you have to release the result under the GPL.
SCO seem to be claiming that if you add your code to their unix code, it isn't just the resulting unix variant that is a derivative work, but your code (in isolation) is also.
If SCO are correct, if you took code from another of your products and added it to Unix you would lose the right to ship that other product. That wouldn't happen if you added that code to a GPL product.
The GPL says: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License [...then you can't distribute the work at all...]
So if you sign a licence with SCO, then that licence might impose conditions on you wrt. Linux that would be contrary to the GPL - and then you would no longer be able to copy Linux at all.
I think it will be pretty difficult (especially as they don't seem to understand the GPL) for SCO to draft a licence that forces people to pay the way they seem to want (per cpu) without imposing restrictions that would be contary to the GPL.
Actually they don't need to explicitly prohibit GPL - if they just require you to use a binary redistributable component then GPL excludes itself.
By my reckoning pretty much all GPL windows development is dodgy unless you use stuff like cygwin - because MS don't always ship C-runtime with windows OSes (even when they do it is typically several versions behind) and they only give you binary redistribution licence. That means you have a required library that you can't ship under gpl, or ship it's source, or treat it as system-exception library (since MS doesn't ship it with the OS) - so you can't write a GPLed app using MS C-runtime (or MFC or VB runtime or.NET runtime or...). But that's just IMHO and IANAL.
It would, for instance, allow the pilot to push the rudder so hard it rips off the plane (oops, bit tricky flying thereafter...).
Or alternatively it will let you punch in the wrong descent rate (eg. 3300 fpm instead of 3.3 degrees) and fly quite happily into a mountain (strasbourg '92).
Slashdot Mirror
I not sure about the EPA figures, but VW advertise the golf TDI at about 50mpg extra-urban (highway). I get around 50mpg, sometimes better, overall - probably more extra-urban than urban.
And I haven't changed how I drive at all to do that.
I think that in the US market the typical diesel is still nasty high-sulphur stuff - fuel which the newer cleaner diesel engines used in Europe don't cope with very well.
So for the US market diesel has a bad reputation for pollutants - so probably simply won't appeal to people who would buy hybrid for environmental reasons.
Depends where you are - plenty of them on the roads here in europe, and have been for some time (couple of years I think).
The US tends to lag behind on availability of efficient cars - probably becuase it makes more sense to lauch them where fuel costs are high.
Touche.
Damn - skim read document, skip preview, so quick you get it wrong, and still there are multiple people getting the point in before you...
Given average life expectancy is about 80 years, this would mean average age of conviction around 15yrs. Clearly bullshit.
Checking the document clearly shows it is 65 months.
And the average % of that sentence actually served is 50% or so - so that is about 3yrs. Funnily enough pretty close to post you criticise...
Take boost libraries for example - lots of hairy template code, VC6 was lousy at it. VC 7.1 is excellent - better than gcc. See http://boost.sourceforge.net/regression-logs/
Yeah me too, and as soon as I can afford to pay someone to make my coffee...
Personally, all the data in Oracle, (SQL Server even) or PostgreSQL wouldn't bother me, MySQL might worry me a little, MS Jet / Access worries me a lot. BerkleyDB I'm not sure about, I know a little of its heritage on unix but would be a lot less sure on other platforms.
A lot of people's experience with source control and DBs will be coloured by Visual Source Safe and Jet (which it uses). It is ok until it gets corrupted, and then you are hosed. Keeping everything in readable files CVS-style is a BIG plus point once you've been in that situation.
I'm confused on your corruption statement - you seem to say both that it never happens, and that subversion never does it but other things ("Usually it was the person using multiple servers...") do. Which is it ? And if the latter, what recovery options are there ?
I am also wary of database-based products which are tied to one particular database - makes me worried there are low level hacks being relied on. I think a lot of people (well, me for one) would like to run _one_ rdbms on _one_ db-optimised server managed by _one_ dba - not a dozen different ones all over the place which all have to be managed differently (backup Oracle here, backup Exchange (yuk) here, backup MySQL here for appY, backup SQL here for AppX and now add another special here for source control...).
With stuff in one rdbms it is also easy to relate stuff together in queries (query source control operations related to versions in a trouble tickts app, for example).
If it supported multiple (at least two) rdbms from the outset configurable via odbc/jdbc/etc., preferrably also with an open schema and "just use sql like this to get file x version y from project z" - then it would give me (for one) far more confidence that it was worth looking into further.
PS. I haven't had sourcesafe (still have to use it for some stuff) corrupt a db in over the past two years either - the horror of seeing >5yrs of the whole team's code history suddenly inaccessible (shortly after tape drive problems...) stays fresh in your mind a lot longer.
In some, common, cases they cannot. Eg.
Companies may licence parts of the code from third parties, usually under other licences that do not allow unlmited source release - so they would have to re-write (clean room) to get a version that they could release source for.
Regulations (depending on your location, eg. on things like wireless cards, modems) sometimes require that stuff works within set limits (eg. power, spectrum). Often the hardware is more flexible, and the limits have to be encoded in the driver software. The law will then require the company to take resonable steps to ensure that end users can't change the software to circumvent the limits. Usually this will mean preventing release of modifiable source code.
That's just two examples - there are plenty more reasons that might apply.
and I've never heard anything about bad relations between Turkey and Greece
You need to look up "cyprus".
May be the calculation. I am using british mpg - I still haven't got the hang of buying fuel in litres and virtually no one in the UK uses km for travel (and lt/mile is no use to anyone).
VW UK also quotes the Lupo at 78mpg extra-urban though.
I'm sure as I can be (it was a while ago) that we made around 90mpg on the AX on long distance motorway trips where we measured it. Not driving _very_ fast because it couldn't - not sure what speeds it was most efficient at. I do know it used staggeringly little fuel compared to anything else I've ever driven.
Weight & engine size may have a lot to do with it - the AX we had was 0.9L engine, the smallest Lupo diesels now are twice that. VW UK also quote golf TDI at 64mpg. 78 vs 64 doesn't sound, to me, like a huge saving for a car that must only be half the size.
Producing it worldwide is one thing. Getting it into the US is another. Small fuel-efficient cars are basically banned there, hence a lot of americans don't even know they exist.
78mpg is not particularly good though when you consider it's a diesel and that the Metro was getting 60+ off petrol in 1980, and almost ten years ago (and the car was older) I drove a Citroen AX diesel which regularly got over 90mpg. We haven't exactly made massive improvements since then.
If they had a parachute they would have survived.
If they had _seven_ parachutes (one each)
If they were still conscious (what were the Gs from the explosion ?)
If they could get a hatch open
If they could get out and clear without hitting orbiter / debris (remember the orbiter is now probably a little different in shape than it would have been in training)
If they could survive till pickup after landing (in ocean ? must be suited up to survive at that height, do space suits float ?)
If they'd had chutes they _might_ have survived (which, granted, is more chance than without).
Launch date got put back 24hrs after the (BBC) article was posted - check the main bbc news site for a brief article on the delay.
As well as the balloon record they are flying some remote controlled (from the gondola) drone which I expect is going to be a record height too.
So we have very high altitude unmanned drone being tested - now that sounds like the military's cup of tea...
Rubbish - the copyright holder (ie. the authors) still has all rights under the GPL, including the right to choose other licenses. Plenty of stuff has both GPL and commercial versions (eg. QT).
Millenium.
Kris Kristofferson was the hero / crash investigator.
Can't remember who played the hot chicks.
Does the quality of music all of a sudden take a downturn?
Not the back catalogue obviously, but then you don't purchase that from the major label.
New stuff might well go downhill - afetr all, it's being produced under different management (and probably to a fixed x-ablums y-tours z-years timetable) with less focus on art and more on $. Even the big stars don't have the creative control they want with a major - ask Prince, George Michael, etc.
Do you buy it ? - maybe if it's still good. Otherwise you put another tick in the "artist sold out" box and go look for more good independent stuff.
British is 230 (used to be 240) - which is now EU standard, dunno about Aussie.
It doesn't, actually. What the GPL says is that the GPL doesn't grant you the right to redistribute [...]
Yeah, ok, you do have to distribute to come under that requirement - which is what I meant when I said "have to release", but I needed to add "if you release" because of course you don't _have_ to release/distribute...
an intermingling of GPL code with your proprietary code, unless that commingled body is itself licensed under terms no more onerous than the GPL.
Ah, now you're in a similar miswording trap I think - the commingled body absolutely does have to be under the GPL: "the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" - to quote clause 2.
You can't add extra conditions to the GPL (which might lead you to state "no more onerous than") but, crucially, you also can't take the GPL's conditions away. You can't, for example, link GPL code to (less onerous) BSD code and release the result under BSD.
All the above is assuming you aren't the copyright holder for (all of) the code in question, if you are then you can do what you like (unless you added it to Unix & believe SCO).
Since we're writing this on thirteenth August,
"patched August 31, 2003"
(particularly following "already") is some pretty wierd tense construction.
To write it correctly you probably need "Dr Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations". HTH
Actually the GPL is not anywhere near as viral as this license - if (big if) it means what SCO say it does.
The GPL doesn't take away any rights _you_ have to _your_ code, including adding it to other products under other licences. What it says is that if you combine your code with other GPL code you have to release the result under the GPL.
SCO seem to be claiming that if you add your code to their unix code, it isn't just the resulting unix variant that is a derivative work, but your code (in isolation) is also.
If SCO are correct, if you took code from another of your products and added it to Unix you would lose the right to ship that other product. That wouldn't happen if you added that code to a GPL product.
The GPL says:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License [...then you can't distribute the work at all...]
So if you sign a licence with SCO, then that licence might impose conditions on you wrt. Linux that would be contrary to the GPL - and then you would no longer be able to copy Linux at all.
I think it will be pretty difficult (especially as they don't seem to understand the GPL) for SCO to draft a licence that forces people to pay the way they seem to want (per cpu) without imposing restrictions that would be contary to the GPL.
Nope - that bit is talking about the article subject but not relevant to the part of my post which you quoted. The relevant section would be
this one
Actually they don't need to explicitly prohibit GPL - if they just require you to use a binary redistributable component then GPL excludes itself.
.NET runtime or...). But that's just IMHO and IANAL.
By my reckoning pretty much all GPL windows development is dodgy unless you use stuff like cygwin - because MS don't always ship C-runtime with windows OSes (even when they do it is typically several versions behind) and they only give you binary redistribution licence. That means you have a required library that you can't ship under gpl, or ship it's source, or treat it as system-exception library (since MS doesn't ship it with the OS) - so you can't write a GPLed app using MS C-runtime (or MFC or VB runtime or
Actually the airbus probably would.
It would, for instance, allow the pilot to push the rudder so hard it rips off the plane (oops, bit tricky flying thereafter...).
Or alternatively it will let you punch in the wrong descent rate (eg. 3300 fpm instead of 3.3 degrees) and fly quite happily into a mountain (strasbourg '92).