If i remember my optics last night (last year they decided to cover it *after* all assessment for they year finished so i didnt listen very hard) then there's a law that says n_1 x sin(a_1) = n_2 x sin(a_2) where n_1 and n_2 are the refractive indices of the media and a_1 and a_2 are the angles of incidence and refraction. Now if you want the light coming in perpendicular to the disc that gives an angle of refraction a_2 of 0 => sin(a_2)=0 => sin(a_1)=0 or n_1=0. So you need a material with a refractive index of 0 (vacuum? wild guess:), nothing practical anyway), or send the light in already perpendicular, which is nonsense. Obviously this is also true for more than 2 layers... maybe if you got reflection involved?
Okay, I've been thinking about this and the possibility of getting an implementation of these standards to the GPL via BSD, and have realised why this has absolutely no credibility.
Scenario 1: An implementation can be released under the BSD license, which can then be 'forked' by a third party (the fork being GPL) and the original abandoned. Microsoft can do nothing. This license means nothing.
Scenario 2: For some reason in the license, the action outlined above is not possible. This must be due to something in the license. If it just says 'you may not relicense under GPL' you just relicense under the X license (say) and then under GPL. The only way microsoft can get around this is to say something like:
If you redistribute source of this program or of a derived work of this program this paragraph must remain intact, and the GPL or other IPR must not be used.
Now what do we call that, boys and girls? A viral license.
RMS's bogeyman was closed source, MS's is the GPL. They both discovered that if you want to release the source, you need a viral license. Unfortunately for microsoft, that makes their whole excuse for eradicating the GPL collapse. Oops.
If you read the article, you would see it is part of their settlement with the DoJ. Now _I_ have no right to complain, I am not a US citizen. But if it was my DoJ I would be seriously pissed off that the settlement will apply only to companies. Antitrust legislation is for the people (as is all legislation, in theory).
Given the readership of slashdot, there *had* to be *someone* who installed the old version recently. But I swear I just finished compiling this an hor ago!
Step 1: Person A reads docs, creates bsd-licensed patch to samba (or bsd-licensed example code, etc). Step 2: Person B takes Person A's bsd-licensed code and merges it into samba etc. This is legal under the bsd license. Step 3: Profit!
Sorry, but it _has_ to be the other way round. KDE does not begin with G and thus is unsuitable for use on GNU G/ GLinux. The upcoming GNU/GNOME G.0 must be gthe standard gdesktop. Yours sincerely, GRMS
Re:Considering I don't use Windows...
on
iPod on Windows
·
· Score: 2
That was no troll, that was a simpsons quote (Kent brockman). I'm sorry, but if you have not seen every simpsons episode at least twice, uncheck 'willing to moderate';-)
Slashdot Mirror
If i remember my optics last night (last year they decided to cover it *after* all assessment for they year finished so i didnt listen very hard) then there's a law that says n_1 x sin(a_1) = n_2 x sin(a_2) where n_1 and n_2 are the refractive indices of the media and a_1 and a_2 are the angles of incidence and refraction. Now if you want the light coming in perpendicular to the disc that gives an angle of refraction a_2 of 0 => sin(a_2)=0 => sin(a_1)=0 or n_1=0. So you need a material with a refractive index of 0 (vacuum? wild guess :), nothing practical anyway), or send the light in already perpendicular, which is nonsense. Obviously this is also true for more than 2 layers... maybe if you got reflection involved?
Scenario 1: An implementation can be released under the BSD license, which can then be 'forked' by a third party (the fork being GPL) and the original abandoned. Microsoft can do nothing. This license means nothing.
Scenario 2: For some reason in the license, the action outlined above is not possible. This must be due to something in the license. If it just says 'you may not relicense under GPL' you just relicense under the X license (say) and then under GPL. The only way microsoft can get around this is to say something like:
If you redistribute source of this program or of a derived work of this program this paragraph must remain intact, and the GPL or other IPR must not be used.
Now what do we call that, boys and girls? A viral license.
RMS's bogeyman was closed source, MS's is the GPL. They both discovered that if you want to release the source, you need a viral license. Unfortunately for microsoft, that makes their whole excuse for eradicating the GPL collapse. Oops.
If you read the article, you would see it is part of their settlement with the DoJ. Now _I_ have no right to complain, I am not a US citizen. But if it was my DoJ I would be seriously pissed off that the settlement will apply only to companies. Antitrust legislation is for the people (as is all legislation, in theory).
Maybe it will whither.
(It's a joke, give me -1 Unfunny rather than -1 Offtopic ;-)
Given the readership of slashdot, there *had* to be *someone* who installed the old version recently. But I swear I just finished compiling this an hor ago!
Step 1: Person A reads docs, creates bsd-licensed patch to samba (or bsd-licensed example code, etc).
Step 2: Person B takes Person A's bsd-licensed code and merges it into samba etc. This is legal under the bsd license.
Step 3: Profit!
Gee, I didn't know electromagnetism knew about sharks! Seriously, what do they mean?
Sorry, but it _has_ to be the other way round. KDE does not begin with G and thus is unsuitable for use on GNU G/ GLinux. The upcoming GNU/GNOME G.0 must be gthe standard gdesktop. Yours sincerely, GRMS
proprietary mp3 storage format
windows media player to ease use for normal users
urge to kill rising... rising...
Quoth the .sig: I don't think you get it yet.
Oh, it was a joke. Urge to kill falling.
Gee, talk about a welfare state...
Not necessary perhaps, but it certainly helps:
Interviewer: It says here you invented the turing machine.
You: Hire me, and you can patent it.
So I guess it's really only half a problem as well then. You can tell a physicist, they will never use 0.5 and Quanta in the same sentence.
Head.Bang(Table);
J Bloggs (if he sees this at all) will just see 'java bad'.
I can't figure out why they would need any.
Here we have 325m people. Count them. Your budget is $50m.
(Yes I know censuses (censi?) aren't just for counting...)
Wasn't that the ad line for Windows ME? They meant less likely and easier than the next version.
That's not a bug, it's a feature!
We expect to release the source code around mid April 2002
To quote Homer: 40 seconds? But I want it NOW!
Any of the winners care to link to their source? (Obviously nothing would get past the lameness filter ;-)
Did you *have* to use the names Bill and Monica in a story about lubricant?
+1 Insightful? Blinding flash of the obvious?
Repeat after me: When I used to be an instrumentation tech, we resoldbatteries all of the time.
(Note to the humour impaired: -1 Not Funny, not -1 Wrong.)
Duh! When this clock breaks the mercury will go everywhere! They already went through this phase with thermometers.
That was no troll, that was a simpsons quote (Kent brockman). I'm sorry, but if you have not seen every simpsons episode at least twice, uncheck 'willing to moderate' ;-)
You'll be sending bounce messages back and forth for years.