IANAL, I should have mentioned in my original post. I think whether calling such a program derivative is fair or not depends on the situation.
If you're talking about a very minor amount of code and/or code implementing a well-known or trivial solution (ie. a quicksort implementation), then calling all of the subsequent code derivative -- even if it's another quicksort implementation -- seems excessive. OTOH, if you're talking about domain-specific, non-trivial code which you simply tear out and re-implement (perhaps even function by function with only minor refactoring); or if you're talking about a major part of a project, as in a situation where you fork an existing project, extend it and then re-implement the 50% of the code which remains from the original: in those situation I think calling the subsequent code derivative is fair.
But this is really just my intuitive opinion at this point, I can't even say that I've put too much thought into it, either; and of course it doesn't have any legal merit whatsoever.
If you add code to a GPL'd project, your code is a derived work and must be GPL-compatible (if you redistribute). I don't think it suddenly ceases to be a derived work if you remove all the other contributor's code. And your replacements for their code is a derived work, too, unless you do the clean-room reimplementation thing.
You're putting words in his mouth. He's suggesting growing a plant (any plant) shouldn't be illegal. He didn't say anything about legalizing every behavior that occurs in nature, a totally unrelated idea. I am not really saying that this approach has merits, although I do have a hard time coming up with a plant that I absolutely think should be illegal to cultivate. I guess you could still ban processing the plants in certain ways (e.g. to manufacture opium) or to sell the grown plants or their products.
If you really think a ban would help, might I remind you that bioweapons are very much illegal in this country.....wasn't much of a deterrent for the anthrax mailer, now was it? The Unabomber managed his efforts for how many years before he was finally apprehended?
So why don't you legalize bioweapons and explosives? Clearly the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) illegal to own and handle is, in fact, the reason why more people don't die from being exposed to them. More than that, the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) internationally sanctioned even for military use makes this true on a global scale. Not because of the legal deterrant, but simply because the lack of a legal chain of manufacture and distribution makes them plain unavailable. Conversely, handguns with their huge legal (civilian and LEO/military) market are widely available. I'm not too worried about domestic use by lone gunmen (since they will always find a way), but about the global destabilizing effect this easy and cheap availability has.
So a small group who wants some special privileges tries to obtain them by violence and that's a good thing for democracy?
That's not even remotely what I said. Re-read my post and try to come up with a response that actually addresses it. Hint: something along the lines of "false dichotomy" might work.
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
You're right, of course, that banning guns is a limitation of freedom. However, there does not seem to be any serious debate on whether governments should regulate the access to weapons: all functioning countries do it, including banning the access to certain kinds of weapons (e.g. rocket launchers, certain bombs). So it's really just a matter of deciding where to draw the line.
Deciding which points along the line are reasonable and at which points you start cutting into what you refer to as absolute core pieces of freedom seems, to a certain degree, arbitrary. I guess you could even call it a matter of taste. If somebody came along and suggested banning chefs knifes, I'd probably have a similar reaction to it as you.
I'd rather have some political rioting (though I abhor violence) than an apathetic populace. Democracy can deal with the former, it's dead with the latter.
I completely agree. Civilized countries split up their killing according to economical benefits and spread it in bite-sized atrocities all around the world.
I completely agree. Total public disinterest in politics is a hallmark of a really civilized country. Protest should be limited to following people on Facebook. Public protest is bad for business and should be discouraged -- if necessary, it can be exercised in a civilized manner in first amendment zones.
Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.
All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.
AFAIK RAM uses only a little amount of power, even when you have lots and lots of it. Since having more memory is bound to shave of some power consumption in other areas, it's probably the dumbest area to cut down in order to save power.
There is no single power draw figure for computers, the power draw depends on what you're doing with it. Typically, you'd look at an idle power draw and a maximum power draw. 110 W would be a very high power draw for an idle desktop computer (less so if that number includes the display), but it's not very high for a desktop computer under load. For mobile devices, the idle power draw with active wireless connection is also important (since relative to the idle power draw, the wifi requires a notable amount of power). The maximum power draw is important since it determines what kind of power supply you'll need, but since most devices spend most of their time in idle, it's an important number, as well.
Laptop reviews often measure and list the power draw, or you can figure it out from the battery runtime measurements. For (custom) desktops, you can get a ballpark figure by looking at the components. Most of them have a known idle and maximum power draw. The published thermal design power of CPUs and GPUs (TDP) is a fairly reliable upper bound for power draw. Under load, those two draw the vast majority of the power in an average system (no surprises there). In idle, things get more tricky, and the power draw of the mainboard (or chipset, really) becomes a factor. But most components -- e.g. regular consumer hard disks, RAM -- don't draw all that much power and are only worth worrying about when you're mobile or into silent computers (where optimizing the power draw is like 90% of the job).
Well, say you've got a high-speed passenger train coasting at 300 km/h. If you hear it coming from 1 km distance, you've got about 10 seconds to live unless you figure out what the noise is and move out of the way -- ideally with a bit extra distance since I assume standing next to the tracks as a 300 km/h train drives by isn't safe, either. Ten seconds is a fairly generous amount of time, but I also think 1 km is fairly generous example, in many situations you might not hear the train until half a kilometer or less. Since high speed rail tracks are usually quite straight, you do have a good chance of seeing the train coming from a long way, at least.
Not sure why you'd think that. There are a lot of people who want to do remote X (more remote than LAN), and NX currently seems to be the best, most convenient tool for that job.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, I should have mentioned in my original post. I think whether calling such a program derivative is fair or not depends on the situation.
If you're talking about a very minor amount of code and/or code implementing a well-known or trivial solution (ie. a quicksort implementation), then calling all of the subsequent code derivative -- even if it's another quicksort implementation -- seems excessive. OTOH, if you're talking about domain-specific, non-trivial code which you simply tear out and re-implement (perhaps even function by function with only minor refactoring); or if you're talking about a major part of a project, as in a situation where you fork an existing project, extend it and then re-implement the 50% of the code which remains from the original: in those situation I think calling the subsequent code derivative is fair.
But this is really just my intuitive opinion at this point, I can't even say that I've put too much thought into it, either; and of course it doesn't have any legal merit whatsoever.
If you add code to a GPL'd project, your code is a derived work and must be GPL-compatible (if you redistribute). I don't think it suddenly ceases to be a derived work if you remove all the other contributor's code. And your replacements for their code is a derived work, too, unless you do the clean-room reimplementation thing.
You're putting words in his mouth. He's suggesting growing a plant (any plant) shouldn't be illegal. He didn't say anything about legalizing every behavior that occurs in nature, a totally unrelated idea. I am not really saying that this approach has merits, although I do have a hard time coming up with a plant that I absolutely think should be illegal to cultivate. I guess you could still ban processing the plants in certain ways (e.g. to manufacture opium) or to sell the grown plants or their products.
It's an abbreviation for law enforcement officer.
Oh sure. I was talking about what's reasonable, not what's legal. Not that that's necessarily mutually exclusive.
If you really think a ban would help, might I remind you that bioweapons are very much illegal in this country.....wasn't much of a deterrent for the anthrax mailer, now was it? The Unabomber managed his efforts for how many years before he was finally apprehended?
So why don't you legalize bioweapons and explosives? Clearly the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) illegal to own and handle is, in fact, the reason why more people don't die from being exposed to them. More than that, the fact that bioweapons are (for the most part) internationally sanctioned even for military use makes this true on a global scale. Not because of the legal deterrant, but simply because the lack of a legal chain of manufacture and distribution makes them plain unavailable. Conversely, handguns with their huge legal (civilian and LEO/military) market are widely available. I'm not too worried about domestic use by lone gunmen (since they will always find a way), but about the global destabilizing effect this easy and cheap availability has.
Cute. I'm not from the US, though.
So a small group who wants some special privileges tries to obtain them by violence and that's a good thing for democracy?
That's not even remotely what I said. Re-read my post and try to come up with a response that actually addresses it. Hint: something along the lines of "false dichotomy" might work.
If a free society cannot stop determined crazy people, and remain free, then just how far would you propose we go with the "ban this and that" logic?
You're right, of course, that banning guns is a limitation of freedom. However, there does not seem to be any serious debate on whether governments should regulate the access to weapons: all functioning countries do it, including banning the access to certain kinds of weapons (e.g. rocket launchers, certain bombs). So it's really just a matter of deciding where to draw the line.
Deciding which points along the line are reasonable and at which points you start cutting into what you refer to as absolute core pieces of freedom seems, to a certain degree, arbitrary. I guess you could even call it a matter of taste. If somebody came along and suggested banning chefs knifes, I'd probably have a similar reaction to it as you.
I'd rather have some political rioting (though I abhor violence) than an apathetic populace. Democracy can deal with the former, it's dead with the latter.
I completely agree. Civilized countries split up their killing according to economical benefits and spread it in bite-sized atrocities all around the world.
I completely agree. Total public disinterest in politics is a hallmark of a really civilized country. Protest should be limited to following people on Facebook. Public protest is bad for business and should be discouraged -- if necessary, it can be exercised in a civilized manner in first amendment zones.
Fewer legal guns make it harder to come by guns illegally. Ban guns for people other than a few LEOs (most LEOs don't need a gun), destroy existing ones and put out a bounty: everybody who "finds" and hands in a gun to be destroyed gets a thousand bucks. European and American guns are used to kill people worldwide. I'm ashamed of being from a country that's one of the worlds biggest arms dealers. Obviously there's a lot of other things that need to be done to reduce violent crime.
All that said: free societies will never be able to stop a determined crazy person (or even a group of them) from doing harm, that's just one of the downsides we all have to live with. Worth it, though.
AFAIK RAM uses only a little amount of power, even when you have lots and lots of it. Since having more memory is bound to shave of some power consumption in other areas, it's probably the dumbest area to cut down in order to save power.
There is no single power draw figure for computers, the power draw depends on what you're doing with it. Typically, you'd look at an idle power draw and a maximum power draw. 110 W would be a very high power draw for an idle desktop computer (less so if that number includes the display), but it's not very high for a desktop computer under load. For mobile devices, the idle power draw with active wireless connection is also important (since relative to the idle power draw, the wifi requires a notable amount of power). The maximum power draw is important since it determines what kind of power supply you'll need, but since most devices spend most of their time in idle, it's an important number, as well.
Laptop reviews often measure and list the power draw, or you can figure it out from the battery runtime measurements. For (custom) desktops, you can get a ballpark figure by looking at the components. Most of them have a known idle and maximum power draw. The published thermal design power of CPUs and GPUs (TDP) is a fairly reliable upper bound for power draw. Under load, those two draw the vast majority of the power in an average system (no surprises there). In idle, things get more tricky, and the power draw of the mainboard (or chipset, really) becomes a factor. But most components -- e.g. regular consumer hard disks, RAM -- don't draw all that much power and are only worth worrying about when you're mobile or into silent computers (where optimizing the power draw is like 90% of the job).
And everybody knows it's easy to kill someone in a pool by just removing the ladder after they got in.
That's misleading, since it controls prefetching of <link rel="prefetch"> resources. Anchor tags aren't being followed. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Link_prefetching_FAQ
The F.C.C. doesn't regulate visible light
... yet! ;) SCNR.
I was unaware that the two attributes are somehow related. Some of the most "powerful" people in the world are not very trustworthy.
Essentially, we would become windswept by the solar wind and would end up without an atmosphere, much like Mars.
I don't get it, could you rephrase that as a worse analogy?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yes, I suppose that would be the lesson to take home. :)
Well, say you've got a high-speed passenger train coasting at 300 km/h. If you hear it coming from 1 km distance, you've got about 10 seconds to live unless you figure out what the noise is and move out of the way -- ideally with a bit extra distance since I assume standing next to the tracks as a 300 km/h train drives by isn't safe, either. Ten seconds is a fairly generous amount of time, but I also think 1 km is fairly generous example, in many situations you might not hear the train until half a kilometer or less. Since high speed rail tracks are usually quite straight, you do have a good chance of seeing the train coming from a long way, at least.
Not sure why you'd think that. There are a lot of people who want to do remote X (more remote than LAN), and NX currently seems to be the best, most convenient tool for that job.
Your interpretation of humanitarian law is both lopsided and overly simplistic.