Alas, if only he didn't plagiarise, and instead identified it quite explicitly as a copy (and from where), such posts could still be worthy of an upmod.
Basically I agree with you, except for the fact that Accenture used to be Andersen Consulting, which is not the same as Arthur Andersen accounting.
They used to be divisions of the same company though. They split up some time before the Enron scandal broke. I was wondering at the time what the real reason for the split might be...
Even then, there is a big risk that there is some bug in the formalization of the proof.
That doesn't matter so much. Think about it. Let's leave aside the possibility of mis-formalizing the axioms or the conclusion, since those are highly unlikely to be mis-formalized without being spotted as such pretty quickly.
Under that assumption, either you find out the proof can't be verified, and so you work out why - which means you analyse it carefully and you eventually find an error either in the proof, the formalisation, or the proof verifier. Or the proof can be verified, which means the proof is correct assuming the proof verifier is correct.
It's the proof verifier which really needs to be gone over with a fine tooth-comb - which is why I'd advocate that proof verifying software should be itself proven correct, and checked by a different piece of proof verifying software.
It's because it is the #1 argument the nuclear industry uses to oppose wind farms (often under the guise of a "public interest" pressure group). It is trotted out every single time.
Doesn't surprise me at all to know that Fox spreads this meme.
OK, simple question here from a non-scientist. Not being sarcastic, I'd genuinely like to know: How can they reliably separate out all the stuff that can't be made into oil from the stuff that can - before or after TDP? 'Cos that's what they seem to be claiming, in an offhand sort of way.
I know with alumnium and steel recycling plants can separate them out with magnets, but that's basically the limit of my knowledge of separation procedures. What do you do when you don't have magnetism to help you out?
Today's cache-sensitive architectures will probably operate at suboptimal rates with a JIT that's generating code on one hand and executing the generated code on the other.
Uhhh, I think you're missing one very important point. In a typical server environment, the rate of new code input to the system per minute will be probably quite small. JITs are not supposed to hog like 50% of the CPU time compiling code - they're supposed to take up a minute fraction of the total execution time of a process. So the overall impact should be minimal.
And yes, compiling may be slow. But compiling has always been slow! Time-shifting it is not going to help!
Unless you're repeatedly stopping and starting a Java process - which is a well-known way to get poor performance, for a number of reasons.
I agree that the restrictions on BSD-licensed code are pretty much non-existent. But my understanding of licenses is that the licensor must be the copyright holder if the license has any chance of hell of being upheld in court.
No problemo. There is something called collective copyright (or similar, can't remember the exact name). Even though I might not be the copyright holder of A,B,C, if I publish A+B+C in a specific format I can copyright that specific collective arrangement of text/code/whatever. Of course, I am still bound by the licenses of A, B and C.
If I were a judge and they both came into my court I think I'd rule in Darl's favor without even bothering to hear Alan's side of the story.
Ha ha - not funny. I think what you're missing is that judges are trained to look at facts and law, will generally frown upon lawyers making frivolous claims in court, and often have built up a somewhat geek-like familiarity with (particular areas of) law.
In other words, judges tend to be far more sensible than what you imply is the typical person in modern society. And I don't buy that anyway. If you're talking about headhunters and PHBs maybe. If you're talking about Fox News addicts, maybe. But the typical person - I don't think so.
They also should have surrended when they had no chance of winning.
They didn't.
Actually, the Japanese were willing to enter into talks, but the US wouldn't listen. The reason was quite simply because they wanted to fry thousands of people, to demonstrate to the USSR the fearsome military power of the atomic bomb. That's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. It wasn't militarily necessary. Japan was already ready to talk peace.
Simple explanation. In order to actually find out this, the PR rep might need to talk to a lot of people at AOL (it's a big company) to find out if anyone had formed any "business relationship" with Richter. Is it worth the PR rep's time to do this? No.
When it comes to distributive justice, do you think it's fair for an American with no high school degree to make twice as much money as a Chinese citizen with a Masters or PhD in electrical engineering?
I agree, it isn't, but you didn't answer the OP's question! Where are the replacement jobs for Americans going to come from? Free trade is all very well - but without a dose of protectionism or socialism you're just going to have millions more Americans unemployed and in poverty, and no-one with a heart wants to see that.
You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about. (a) it doesn't; (b) the very idea that this fix somehow "requires" sending info to a server "for analysis" is wrong in so many ways it beggars belief. Please refrain from talking about things which you clearly do not understand, and help keep the signal to noise ratio high. Thank you.
The people who really need to read this stuff are non-techie, not-particularly-bright or well-informed people in the business community (i.e. PHBs). To this end, dumb open letters are good.
Non-genius people like people like them. See, just look at George W. Bush. He wasn't elected for his brains. Or rather, he was, but for his lack of them.
The concept of a derived work is not explicitly defined, nor has specific attention been paid to dynamic versus static linking.
It's not explicitly defined because that is rightly the purview of legislators and judges, not copyright licensors. As a license and not a contract, the GPL does not attempt to define derivative work - it uses the definition in copyright law. Which you can read for yourself in the case of US federal law. (It would be interesting to know if the Berne Convention or other international agreements regulate the definition of derivative work).
Unfortunately, there is not a lot of case law on the concept of derivative work as applied to software, in the US - because the GPL is rather unusual in how it creates actual controversy over what is a derivative work. With other license styles there may be theoretical debates, but only with the GPL does it seem to be a vital issue for a company to know what kind of linking is allowed. So you're right, it is ambiguous - but only because the law in many jurisdictions is likewise amiguous.
Bring on the cases, I say! Let's see how it fares in court.
3. The GPL has many bizarre concessions and terms, such as requiring those who distribute GPL software to distribute it by mail at anyone's request, charging only the cost of media.
That's not correct. If you read it - rather than relying on someone else's poor recollection, your own poor recollection, or rumour - you'll see that it actually says:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do
one of the following:
where distributing the source code separately is only one of the alternative source code distribution mechanisms specified - and it does not have to be by postal mail even then. Distributors have a choice about whether to distribute source code accompanying their product, or whether to make an offer to distribute it separately (by mail, or howsoever). The latter option is rarely used in the US, except (I allege) by companies who don't understand the Free Software ethos very well and seem to want to put roadblocks in its way.
By the way, I think you're going to have trouble making your case if you want to try and argue that the Internet is not "a medium customarily used for software interchange". And other than that, I can't see any interpretation of the GPL that accords with your FUD on that point.
OpenSource is supposed to be a place where this shouldnt happen, everyone should work together to make one single product better.
Since when was that part of the Open Source Definition?
What happens if I want to make a DTP program that does X, Y, and Z, but I don't like C/C++ and don't want to learn it, and the only current open source offerings are written in C/C++? What happens if I think the coding methods or the coding abilities of the programmers in the other projects are sub-par and find it easier to start my own project than to teach them / persuade them of my way of doing things? Are you going to say "Work together, or I'll march you to the open source gulag!"
I think you missed these key words: we can organize in every community across this country into citizen groups of individuals with technical expertise in computer programming, systems design, and working knowledge of elections.
As opposed to "Let's send someone who with no clue about electronic, who will nod cluelessly when the Diebold representative lies about the safety of the process".
He's right. His idea should be implemented. I'm not an American so I can't really get involved, but I hope some people will reading this will decide to do their bit.
Slashdot Mirror
As it is, though, he is a simple plagiarist.
Usage: "I am not very close from my mother-in-law".
No, that's not correct usage. That should be "I am not very close to".
They used to be divisions of the same company though. They split up some time before the Enron scandal broke. I was wondering at the time what the real reason for the split might be...
Hahaha! Funny isn't it! Laugh!!!! LOL!
That doesn't matter so much. Think about it. Let's leave aside the possibility of mis-formalizing the axioms or the conclusion, since those are highly unlikely to be mis-formalized without being spotted as such pretty quickly.
Under that assumption, either you find out the proof can't be verified, and so you work out why - which means you analyse it carefully and you eventually find an error either in the proof, the formalisation, or the proof verifier. Or the proof can be verified, which means the proof is correct assuming the proof verifier is correct.
It's the proof verifier which really needs to be gone over with a fine tooth-comb - which is why I'd advocate that proof verifying software should be itself proven correct, and checked by a different piece of proof verifying software.
Fuck insurance, just put in place proper training and proper audit procedures and you won't have any problems.
Doesn't surprise me at all to know that Fox spreads this meme.
I know with alumnium and steel recycling plants can separate them out with magnets, but that's basically the limit of my knowledge of separation procedures. What do you do when you don't have magnetism to help you out?
Uhhh, I think you're missing one very important point. In a typical server environment, the rate of new code input to the system per minute will be probably quite small. JITs are not supposed to hog like 50% of the CPU time compiling code - they're supposed to take up a minute fraction of the total execution time of a process. So the overall impact should be minimal.
And yes, compiling may be slow. But compiling has always been slow! Time-shifting it is not going to help!
Unless you're repeatedly stopping and starting a Java process - which is a well-known way to get poor performance, for a number of reasons.
No problemo. There is something called collective copyright (or similar, can't remember the exact name). Even though I might not be the copyright holder of A,B,C, if I publish A+B+C in a specific format I can copyright that specific collective arrangement of text/code/whatever. Of course, I am still bound by the licenses of A, B and C.
Ha ha - not funny. I think what you're missing is that judges are trained to look at facts and law, will generally frown upon lawyers making frivolous claims in court, and often have built up a somewhat geek-like familiarity with (particular areas of) law.
In other words, judges tend to be far more sensible than what you imply is the typical person in modern society. And I don't buy that anyway. If you're talking about headhunters and PHBs maybe. If you're talking about Fox News addicts, maybe. But the typical person - I don't think so.
Zero, because all Concordes were temporarily grounded after the incident, IIRC.
They didn't.
Actually, the Japanese were willing to enter into talks, but the US wouldn't listen. The reason was quite simply because they wanted to fry thousands of people, to demonstrate to the USSR the fearsome military power of the atomic bomb. That's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed. It wasn't militarily necessary. Japan was already ready to talk peace.
I agree, it isn't, but you didn't answer the OP's question! Where are the replacement jobs for Americans going to come from? Free trade is all very well - but without a dose of protectionism or socialism you're just going to have millions more Americans unemployed and in poverty, and no-one with a heart wants to see that.
Non-genius people like people like them. See, just look at George W. Bush. He wasn't elected for his brains. Or rather, he was, but for his lack of them.
How do you know that for sure? Have you seen the OEM agreements?
It's not explicitly defined because that is rightly the purview of legislators and judges, not copyright licensors. As a license and not a contract, the GPL does not attempt to define derivative work - it uses the definition in copyright law. Which you can read for yourself in the case of US federal law. (It would be interesting to know if the Berne Convention or other international agreements regulate the definition of derivative work).
Unfortunately, there is not a lot of case law on the concept of derivative work as applied to software, in the US - because the GPL is rather unusual in how it creates actual controversy over what is a derivative work. With other license styles there may be theoretical debates, but only with the GPL does it seem to be a vital issue for a company to know what kind of linking is allowed. So you're right, it is ambiguous - but only because the law in many jurisdictions is likewise amiguous.
Bring on the cases, I say! Let's see how it fares in court.
3. The GPL has many bizarre concessions and terms, such as requiring those who distribute GPL software to distribute it by mail at anyone's request, charging only the cost of media.
That's not correct. If you read it - rather than relying on someone else's poor recollection, your own poor recollection, or rumour - you'll see that it actually says:
where distributing the source code separately is only one of the alternative source code distribution mechanisms specified - and it does not have to be by postal mail even then. Distributors have a choice about whether to distribute source code accompanying their product, or whether to make an offer to distribute it separately (by mail, or howsoever). The latter option is rarely used in the US, except (I allege) by companies who don't understand the Free Software ethos very well and seem to want to put roadblocks in its way.By the way, I think you're going to have trouble making your case if you want to try and argue that the Internet is not "a medium customarily used for software interchange". And other than that, I can't see any interpretation of the GPL that accords with your FUD on that point.
Since when was that part of the Open Source Definition?
What happens if I want to make a DTP program that does X, Y, and Z, but I don't like C/C++ and don't want to learn it, and the only current open source offerings are written in C/C++? What happens if I think the coding methods or the coding abilities of the programmers in the other projects are sub-par and find it easier to start my own project than to teach them / persuade them of my way of doing things? Are you going to say "Work together, or I'll march you to the open source gulag!"
As opposed to "Let's send someone who with no clue about electronic, who will nod cluelessly when the Diebold representative lies about the safety of the process".
He's right. His idea should be implemented. I'm not an American so I can't really get involved, but I hope some people will reading this will decide to do their bit.
$MY_SLASHDOT_USERNAME AT $MY_SLASHDOT_USERNAME DOT ORG.
How is your cunning plan going to work then?