Can you point me to this offer? I only found this, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005... which is close to what you say, but there's no explicit offer of copyright assignment, only a feeling that the community would go along with it. The thread went nowhere, and I don't see RMS weighing in. Boy, would I have wished for a GPL'ed LLVM!
But as I said: GCC is not inferior to LLVM even after all these years, so I wouldn't exactly call it a loss to GCC. A setback yes, as now Xcode isn't free, Objective C isn't well-supported in gcc anymore, lots of people badmouth GCC (just look at the comments on this story), the resources Apple threw into LLVM are lost for GCC development etc.
Oh, and I see that I made an editing error in my original mail: I somehow dropped the part where I said that the mail by RMS that made this story was actually a response to ESR's factually challenged e-mail.
Factually incorrect: LLVM was started at the University of Illinois (see wikipedia). Apple essentially bought it when they decided that they didn't want to go GPLv3 (probably out of fear that the patent clauses would make it harder for them to sue Samsung or something, I would really love if someone could explain to me what's wrong about the GPLv3. Tivoization?). Now the biggest company on Earth has been pumping money into it for several years, and GCC is still as good or ahead. Perhaps GCC's structure isn't as bad as people make it out to be... Imagine if there wouldn't have been LLVM perhaps Xcode would be Free?
Concerning this story it might be worth pointing out that ESR tried to start a flamewar on the GCC lists with a factually incorrect rant (factoids that people around here also seem to believe are true, like "llvm error messages are better" -- gcc did a lot of work in that regard, "GCC doesn't want to be modular" -- actually, they're working on that, "GCC doesn't allow plugins or being plugged in" -- nonsense, anecdotal evidence about better optimization in LLVM etc.)
ESR's two rants can be found here and here (didn't take him too long to use a gun metaphor), replies from the gcc communities are downthread. There you will also find the most common myths about GCC and LLVM disspelled.
This is why we don't let CHICAGO economists run the world.
There are economists out there who don't believe that the market always knows The Answer.
There are good econometrists in Chicago, but when it comes to the broader economy, or even policy recommendations, they seem to fail as much as Minnesota economists. Or, as Larry Summers put it:
"There'd be a set of economists who would sit around explaining that electricity was only 4% of the economy, and so if you lost 80% of electricity you couldn't possibly have lost more than 3% of the economy, and there'd be people at Minnesota and Chicago who would be writing that paper, but it would be stupid!"
He apparently never asked for the results of the traffic study. Given that his former job was as a prosecutor, he's been doing a really bad job investigating.
An interesting theory, but I think it goes to prove once more that Christie doesn't like the fact that people commute to New York for work. Remember when he shut down a financed infrastructure project that would have helped the economy immensely and would have reduced road traffic -- well, until he shut it down based on fake reasons and outright lies? I'm talking about the second railway tunnel crossing the Hudson, for those to ADS to remember.
You missed the parts where suicide rates sank in Australia (when guns became heavily regulated), in Switzerland (when laws were changed such that military rifles had to be stored disassembled and without ammo) and in Israel (when soldiers no longer had to take their rifles home with them on weekends off). The last item specifically with the intent of lowering suicide rates, so not everybody is as dense as you pretend to be.
Yeah, like Apple would forgo an opportunity to earn money, simply because they also earn money elsewhere. They may not be desperate to make money from the data they collect, but they would be stupid (in the "maximum shareholder value" frame of reference) not to benefit from it as much as possible.
That's wrong. If a company buys assets, then it's profits decrease, but it definitely doesn't make your stake in the company any less valuable. Since stock prices reflect both the current assets of the company (after all stocks express owenrship on these assets) and the expectation of future gains (that's the speculative part), it is quite sensible for the stock price to go up for a company that invests instead of making profits.
Suppose that were true (I don't know)... who could fix it?
1) The states by setting up exchanges. I mean, they wouldn't be so spiteful as to punish the poor because they don't like a federal law. 2) The house by passing legislation that fixes this gap. Representatives from states without exchanges wouldn't want to punish the poor in their states, and most others should also be willing to fix the unescapable slight gaps in large legislation.
How are you going to determine if someone has insurance if they would die if not treated immediately? Sorry, emergency care has to be free. Unless you want to encourage poor parents not to drive their child to the emergency room because it would bankrupt them.
There were many reasons why that 15% didn't have coverage, including no small part of it that could afford insurance, but didn't want to pay for it. So the Democratic party grabbed hold of 100% of the market, not the 15% that was the problem
If you don't see the connection between the two than you have spent no time actually thinking about the law. People who could buy insurance but don't are usually healthy. Take them out of the risk pool, and insurance becomes more expensive for everyone, increasing the incentive not to get insurance for everyone who can do without. But even though they are healthy and don't want insurance, you know that at some point, maybe 10 years down the line, maybe 20, they will also need health care.
Sievert is the unit of what is called "equivalent dose". As such, it takes biological effects into account, and different types of radiation are taken into account differently. The measure of "dose" is the Gray, which is J/kg (energy per mass).
The thing that surprises me in this discussion is that, as far as I've browsed through the 1000+ comments, the issue of what has to be proved doesn't come up. It's proven that Zimmerman killed Martin. I would, naïve person that I am, assume that self-defence has to be proven for him to be acquitted, given that a crime (the killing) happened, the self-defence (which renders the crime legal [for lack of a better word]) would have to be proven. It seems that at least American law thinks differently, the thinking appears to be: since it's not a crime, provided it's self-defence, it is sufficent to prove that it's hard to prove that it wasn't self-defence. Which seems to make killing a much easier solution to a conflict.
If someone is wearing unusual glasses, especially if they don't look like their special in an aesthetic or fashionable way, then it is fairly natural to assume that theyre wearing them for medical reasons -- in which case it would probably be rude to ask them about it.
Just for the record: I would ask people to turn of their recording device if they want to keep my company.
So Britain's liberal-conservative government, who don't care about the poor as evidenced again and again, fail to make a project work that would help paying benefits to the poor. Why am I not surprised?
What is the purpose of highway signage? 1) Establishing speed limits and 2) Allowing you to estimate how long your trip will take. Purpose 1 is easily fulfilled if speedometers use the same units as road signage and purpose 2 is easily fulfilled if road distances are measured in the same units as velocities. Therefore there is virtually nothing to be gained in converting highway signage to metric.
On the other hand volume measures are utterly confusing in imperial units. How about changing those instead? The only question remaining would probably be whether to give car efficiencies in miles per gallon, miles per liter, liters per kilometer or some other hybrid, as this is the main point of contact between the different systems of measurement.
The gun is just putting the bullet where you aimed it. In either case, it is not the tool's fault, but rather the person behind the tool that someone was killed/injured.
I didn't claim that a weapon is at fault if it's used (BTW I'm not sure if that's meaningful in a non-colloquial sense). I claimed that a weapon is a tool whose existence would be pointless if it didn't posess the ability to (facilitate) kill(ing).
My shotgun was designed to kill birds and small game. The rest of my firearms were designed to fire a small lead ball at a target of my choosing.
Why the distinction?
That's a bit like saying a bicycle is designed as a tool for exercise while it's notdesigned to take you from A to B. What's the purpose of putting a ball on a target if not killing? Especially, if you're wearing the gun outside of a shooting range?
when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence.
None of my guns were designed to kill people. My shotgun was designed to kill birds and small game. The rest of my firearms were designed to fire a small lead ball at a target of my choosing. That is what guns are designed to do: hit what the person is aiming at. If the person is aiming at another person, then the gun might kill them. But that is the fault of the person firing the gun, not the gun itself. It is the person killing the other person. I do not and would not ever own something designed solely to kill someone.
I never got that argument. By the same logic a car is not designed to take you from A to B (it only does if you choose to). A house is not designed to provide shelter (it only does if you choose to). etc. Where does it stop becoming designed for the purpose? What's the purpose of you guns precisely?
I mean, I can support someone saying that a single-shot hunting rifle is not solely designed for killing people (it's a side-effect of its design), but for a pistol I see a totally different case (it's designed to intimidate by threat of death, there's no way to take killing out of it and still have it a purposeful instrument).
Slashdot Mirror
Can you point me to this offer? I only found this, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005... which is close to what you say, but there's no explicit offer of copyright assignment, only a feeling that the community would go along with it. The thread went nowhere, and I don't see RMS weighing in. Boy, would I have wished for a GPL'ed LLVM!
But as I said: GCC is not inferior to LLVM even after all these years, so I wouldn't exactly call it a loss to GCC. A setback yes, as now Xcode isn't free, Objective C isn't well-supported in gcc anymore, lots of people badmouth GCC (just look at the comments on this story), the resources Apple threw into LLVM are lost for GCC development etc.
Oh, and I see that I made an editing error in my original mail: I somehow dropped the part where I said that the mail by RMS that made this story was actually a response to ESR's factually challenged e-mail.
Factually incorrect: LLVM was started at the University of Illinois (see wikipedia). Apple essentially bought it when they decided that they didn't want to go GPLv3 (probably out of fear that the patent clauses would make it harder for them to sue Samsung or something, I would really love if someone could explain to me what's wrong about the GPLv3. Tivoization?). Now the biggest company on Earth has been pumping money into it for several years, and GCC is still as good or ahead. Perhaps GCC's structure isn't as bad as people make it out to be ... Imagine if there wouldn't have been LLVM perhaps Xcode would be Free?
Concerning this story it might be worth pointing out that ESR tried to start a flamewar on the GCC lists with a factually incorrect rant (factoids that people around here also seem to believe are true, like "llvm error messages are better" -- gcc did a lot of work in that regard, "GCC doesn't want to be modular" -- actually, they're working on that, "GCC doesn't allow plugins or being plugged in" -- nonsense, anecdotal evidence about better optimization in LLVM etc.)
ESR's two rants can be found here and here (didn't take him too long to use a gun metaphor), replies from the gcc communities are downthread. There you will also find the most common myths about GCC and LLVM disspelled.
This is why we don't let CHICAGO economists run the world.
There are economists out there who don't believe that the market always knows The Answer.
There are good econometrists in Chicago, but when it comes to the broader economy, or even policy recommendations, they seem to fail as much as Minnesota economists. Or, as Larry Summers put it:
"There'd be a set of economists who would sit around explaining that electricity was only 4% of the economy, and so if you lost 80% of electricity you couldn't possibly have lost more than 3% of the economy, and there'd be people at Minnesota and Chicago who would be writing that paper, but it would be stupid!"
He apparently never asked for the results of the traffic study. Given that his former job was as a prosecutor, he's been doing a really bad job investigating.
An interesting theory, but I think it goes to prove once more that Christie doesn't like the fact that people commute to New York for work. Remember when he shut down a financed infrastructure project that would have helped the economy immensely and would have reduced road traffic -- well, until he shut it down based on fake reasons and outright lies? I'm talking about the second railway tunnel crossing the Hudson, for those to ADS to remember.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/nyregion/report-disputes-christies-reason-for-halting-tunnel-project-in-2010.html
You missed the parts where suicide rates sank in Australia (when guns became heavily regulated), in Switzerland (when laws were changed such that military rifles had to be stored disassembled and without ammo) and in Israel (when soldiers no longer had to take their rifles home with them on weekends off). The last item specifically with the intent of lowering suicide rates, so not everybody is as dense as you pretend to be.
Best regards.
I'm curious as to what subcultures you're referring to?
You may find this article interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2013/12/gun_ownership_causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html
Yes, less guns means less suicides, as everybody who has ever talked to anyone whose suicide attempt failed will understand.
Cash's value is uncertain
Its value is that you can pay taxes with it. Have fun figuring out VATs when doing business in bitcoin.
Yeah, like Apple would forgo an opportunity to earn money, simply because they also earn money elsewhere. They may not be desperate to make money from the data they collect, but they would be stupid (in the "maximum shareholder value" frame of reference) not to benefit from it as much as possible.
Well, who pumped money in there first?
Cannot blame anybody for playing along.
That's wrong. If a company buys assets, then it's profits decrease, but it definitely doesn't make your stake in the company any less valuable. Since stock prices reflect both the current assets of the company (after all stocks express owenrship on these assets) and the expectation of future gains (that's the speculative part), it is quite sensible for the stock price to go up for a company that invests instead of making profits.
Suppose that were true (I don't know) ... who could fix it?
1) The states by setting up exchanges. I mean, they wouldn't be so spiteful as to punish the poor because they don't like a federal law.
2) The house by passing legislation that fixes this gap. Representatives from states without exchanges wouldn't want to punish the poor in their states, and most others should also be willing to fix the unescapable slight gaps in large legislation.
Oh wait ...
How are you going to determine if someone has insurance if they would die if not treated immediately? Sorry, emergency care has to be free. Unless you want to encourage poor parents not to drive their child to the emergency room because it would bankrupt them.
There were many reasons why that 15% didn't have coverage, including no small part of it that could afford insurance, but didn't want to pay for it. So the Democratic party grabbed hold of 100% of the market, not the 15% that was the problem
If you don't see the connection between the two than you have spent no time actually thinking about the law. People who could buy insurance but don't are usually healthy. Take them out of the risk pool, and insurance becomes more expensive for everyone, increasing the incentive not to get insurance for everyone who can do without. But even though they are healthy and don't want insurance, you know that at some point, maybe 10 years down the line, maybe 20, they will also need health care.
Sievert is the unit of what is called "equivalent dose". As such, it takes biological effects into account, and different types of radiation are taken into account differently. The measure of "dose" is the Gray, which is J/kg (energy per mass).
The thing that surprises me in this discussion is that, as far as I've browsed through the 1000+ comments, the issue of what has to be proved doesn't come up. It's proven that Zimmerman killed Martin. I would, naïve person that I am, assume that self-defence has to be proven for him to be acquitted, given that a crime (the killing) happened, the self-defence (which renders the crime legal [for lack of a better word]) would have to be proven. It seems that at least American law thinks differently, the thinking appears to be: since it's not a crime, provided it's self-defence, it is sufficent to prove that it's hard to prove that it wasn't self-defence. Which seems to make killing a much easier solution to a conflict.
trying to automatically determine which time zone any particular visitor to the site happens to be in (by, what, IP address tracing?).
This might help: getTimezoneOffset documentation.
If someone is wearing unusual glasses, especially if they don't look like their special in an aesthetic or fashionable way, then it is fairly natural to assume that theyre wearing them for medical reasons -- in which case it would probably be rude to ask them about it.
Just for the record: I would ask people to turn of their recording device if they want to keep my company.
So Britain's liberal-conservative government, who don't care about the poor as evidenced again and again, fail to make a project work that would help paying benefits to the poor. Why am I not surprised?
What is the purpose of highway signage? 1) Establishing speed limits and 2) Allowing you to estimate how long your trip will take. Purpose 1 is easily fulfilled if speedometers use the same units as road signage and purpose 2 is easily fulfilled if road distances are measured in the same units as velocities. Therefore there is virtually nothing to be gained in converting highway signage to metric.
On the other hand volume measures are utterly confusing in imperial units. How about changing those instead? The only question remaining would probably be whether to give car efficiencies in miles per gallon, miles per liter, liters per kilometer or some other hybrid, as this is the main point of contact between the different systems of measurement.
BTW you answered
The gun is just putting the bullet where you aimed it. In either case, it is not the tool's fault, but rather the person behind the tool that someone was killed/injured.
I didn't claim that a weapon is at fault if it's used (BTW I'm not sure if that's meaningful in a non-colloquial sense). I claimed that a weapon is a tool whose existence would be pointless if it didn't posess the ability to (facilitate) kill(ing).
Sorry, only saw you reply now.
You said:
My shotgun was designed to kill birds and small game. The rest of my firearms were designed to fire a small lead ball at a target of my choosing.
Why the distinction?
That's a bit like saying a bicycle is designed as a tool for exercise while it's notdesigned to take you from A to B. What's the purpose of putting a ball on a target if not killing? Especially, if you're wearing the gun outside of a shooting range?
when you tell someone you own a device designed to kill people they give you an odd look and get uncomfortable, once that happens you'll see a real drop in guns and violence.
None of my guns were designed to kill people. My shotgun was designed to kill birds and small game. The rest of my firearms were designed to fire a small lead ball at a target of my choosing. That is what guns are designed to do: hit what the person is aiming at. If the person is aiming at another person, then the gun might kill them. But that is the fault of the person firing the gun, not the gun itself. It is the person killing the other person. I do not and would not ever own something designed solely to kill someone.
I never got that argument. By the same logic a car is not designed to take you from A to B (it only does if you choose to). A house is not designed to provide shelter (it only does if you choose to). etc. Where does it stop becoming designed for the purpose? What's the purpose of you guns precisely?
I mean, I can support someone saying that a single-shot hunting rifle is not solely designed for killing people (it's a side-effect of its design), but for a pistol I see a totally different case (it's designed to intimidate by threat of death, there's no way to take killing out of it and still have it a purposeful instrument).
I know I'm late for a nice flamefest, but I'm sure someone will point out how Krugman was wrong about this when he discussed it almost two years ago: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/thank-you-boeing/