That's why most of us use the graphical version instead. It works well-enough. The only problem is when installing packages directly over the internet and a dependency package turns out to be needed too.
This new OSL is no different. You can use the software without accepting the license.
Perhaps you are confusing the bit about 'public performance'? 'Public performance' is prohibited by copyright law, so you wouldn't be able to do that anyway unless a license which you accepted explicitly allowed it.
I don't think the new OSI license could be called aggressive.
Like all of this kind of license, copyright law provides the restrictions on copying/distribution/'public performance', not the license. So the 'default' is that you can't do these things.
The main 'selling point' of the GPL is that it only grants permission to copy/distribute if you don't hold back as secret anything you added yourself.
What is new in this license is the condition that only those who are 'good citizens' wrt patents are granted permission. This is why I think it is a very good idea indeed.
My main point though: Since the default is that you can't copy/distribute/'publicly perform' a copyrighted work, any license that grants you permissions to do these things cannot be called aggressive, since it does no more than to give you the right to do something you otherwise would not be allowed to do by copyright law.
One final note: There seems to be an impression that filing a patent lawsuit would trigger immediate termination of your license to use the software. I don't think this is correct. It is only distribution and 'public performance' rights that would be terminated. I think that means you can continue using it in-house - much as you can modify and keep secret GPL software provided you don't try to distribute it.
Rather than responding to my joke dialogue by mistrepresenting the views of evolutionists, you might like to answer the points raised by it.
That's a bit rich coming from someone who obviously thinks it is funny to misrepresent the views of creationists. I don't think there is any point to answer raised by your 'joke' dialog that hasn't already been answered.
Just for the record, I'm not a creationist, but I am a Christian.
Now someone please mod original post as troll, this one as off-topic, and we'll get back to the Bombardier Beetle.
Ok, I've been well-and-truly trolled, but what the heck...
You said God was a designer and creator. Why? The simplest reason is that he just wanted to. Anyone who is creative has an urge to create things. God is creative - that is part of his character according to the Bible. He is also infinitely generous and loving. It's hard to be generous and loving when you haven't got anyone other than yourself to be generous and loving to.
I had some more questions, but they've temporarily slipped my mind Don't worry about it. When you remember, a Google search will probably point you in the right direction. Alternatively, you could look into Alpha.
I'm sure the finding isn't against natural selection, but I don't think it makes any case for natural selection.
I don't see any practical difference between storing up a whole load of micro-mutations that as a whole produce a step-change benefit in a given environment ('letting go' of them all at once), and hoping for a single step-change macro-mutation that is beneficial.
You'll agree that the chances of a single macro-mutation that produces a step-change benefit are very small - so small as to be insignificant. E.g. an eye doesn't evolve all in one go.
Natural selection gets around these impossibly small odds by testing each micro-mutation one at a time. The probability of a good micro-mutation is still small, but not insignificantly small. They do happen, and evolution is the sum of the ones that worked out. That's my understanding anyway.
But, if you don't actually test out the micro-mutations as you go along, then I would expect the probablity of getting a good sequence of micro-mutations would be pretty-much on par with that of getting a good macro-mutation - i.e. insignificant. So how does this new idea help?
(Note, IANAB, and I'm not using 'macro-mutation' and 'micro-mutation' in any specific technical sense.)
Yes, that's a fair point, but it still is based on the philosophy of controlling the appearance rather than guiding it. If the native widget set doesn't support backgrounds on buttons, it is perfectly valid for a standards-compliant browser to render the button without the suggested background.
I'm not saying that it is wrong for Mozilla to provide its own widget set to render buttons with background images if you really want that. But I personally would prefer it to use the native set in order to take on the look-and-feel of the system and to take advantage of native optimisations, and not worry if the appearance of the page varies somewhat between operating systems. YMMV.
One of the major points about web standards is that a page isn't supposed to look exactly the same regardless of the software used to display it. HTML is not supposed to control presentation. CSS is itself only supposed to be a guide. The sooner we can abandon the obsession with controlling every last pixel the better.
So, Mr Cornelius. I seem to have underestimated you. It appears that my evil plan to hide my nefarious activities in Peru and Vietnam by publishing the information openly on the internet has badly backfired...
In all seriousness, I don't see the use of strong encryption as necessarily suspect. I think everyone should make up their own mind on that, based on their view of what they do and don't mind others knowing about themselves. I personally would only bother with it for something that I wanted to keep private. Some things are just too boring to bother keeping private;-)
And yes, I stand corrected on the 11 Sept stuff - now you mention it I do remember hearing that codewords were used instead of encryption.
Your comments deserve a reply. As it happens, I am a British citizen and I have also been to both Peru and Vietnam - so I suppose that means I might be a target for surveillance... Well, that's fine by me. I have nothing to hide.
I also don't have a problem with government agencies sharing information in order to track down the real crooks. International cooperation is important. The real crooks are probably using strong encryption anyway. At least MI6 and the CIA will be able to eliminate me from their enquiries quickly 8-)
I don't think you get it. The fact is, some people (like me for instance) are not at all bothered by what you describe. I understand what you say, and actually, I don't usually mind copies of my emails sitting on servers all around the world.
Of course, I have nothing against anyone using encryption. I'd use it myself if I felt it was needed for a particular message. But I don't see ubiqitous encryption as a golden age.
Maybe you missed my point. It is not and should not be the planes that need to change. It is the UWB implementations themselves that need to be right. If a UWB device causes measurable interference, then it simply shouldn't be used anywhere that interference might matter.
The promise of UWB is that the interference they put out is insignificant to other devices. If that is so, then all well and good. But if they do cause interference, then surely would be extremely irresponsible to use them anywhere that might matter, whether it is on an aircraft, or near someone using a mobile phone, or wherever else.
It's not the planes that are broken. The concern is that UWB devices if improperly implemented could cause interference. From the article:
With appropriate technical standards, UWB devices can operate using spectrum occupied by existing radio services without causing interference - at least in theory.
The article also states that UWB devices are unlikely to appear in consumer devices much before 2004, giving plenty of time for appropriate standards to be set to avoid such problems. It's not a big deal.
After all, courts have recently been arguing that video games cannot be protected speech; these games make it patently obvious that this view is insane.
Alternatively, it could just be that these games are not really a form of social comment after all.
No more deadlines
on
Hacker Survey
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They said that they expect an open source project leader to create the initial code base, integrate submissions, open minds to options, and provide motivation, but not to determine or delegate tasks, recruit contributors, or manage timing.
I.e. do the unglamerous bits and leave others to cherry-pick. And never impose deadlines on the team members.
I think most programmers would want this of their managers, whether they are working on open source or not!
On a simple network, you won't get out-of-sequence packets with UDP.
Out-of-sequence delivery happens when there is more than one possible route for the packet, such as occurs over the internet. On the internet, routing is done on a case-by-case best effort basis. It's possible then for the first packet to be sent via a longer route than the second and therefore for the second packet to arrive first.
So remember - UDP across a LAN is quite a different beast to UDP across the internet.
Of course, I was referring to the observation that radioactive decay is apparently a truly random process, and there is no known physical means by which the half-life of a particular isotope can be altered.
You can smack atoms with neutrons and stuff to transmute them into other (more or less stable) isotopes. I knew that, naturally P-)
It is entirely too likely that someone... will develope a sure-fire method of forever rendering nuclear waste inert.
Isn't that rather a huge leap of faith? So far, there is nothing known in science to suggest that this might be even in-principle possible. Have a look at a basic course in Quantum Mechanics. It seems altogether far more likely that we will develop some novel and absolutely safe non-nuclear power source before then, probably based on black holes and perpetual motion 8-)
The geologist/archaeologist was just a quick off-the-cuff example. My point was that you just can't ensure the safety of something like that for such a huge timescale.
I'll admit that this site is probably about as good as any, but the idea that you have to keep 77000 tons of deadly radioactive material isolated for the next 10000 years just scares me. Civilizations rise and fall in such timescales. Who is going to know it is there, even 1000 years from now? What happens if some geologist of the future unknowingly takes a core sample in just the wrong place, to name just one of many not entirely unlikely scenarios.
For goodness sake, my local council doesn't even know where all its buried services are located under the roads and pavements. Do we really think we can preserve data and ensure political stability for 10000 years?
This has to be the biggest argument against nuclear power. Forget the operational safety aspects. We just can't guarantee the long-term safety of the waste.
Slashdot Mirror
Inst is text-based and command-line driven.
That's why most of us use the graphical version instead. It works well-enough. The only problem is when installing packages directly over the internet and a dependency package turns out to be needed too.
This new OSL is no different. You can use the software without accepting the license.
Perhaps you are confusing the bit about 'public performance'? 'Public performance' is prohibited by copyright law, so you wouldn't be able to do that anyway unless a license which you accepted explicitly allowed it.
I don't think the new OSI license could be called aggressive.
Like all of this kind of license, copyright law provides the restrictions on copying/distribution/'public performance', not the license. So the 'default' is that you can't do these things.
The main 'selling point' of the GPL is that it only grants permission to copy/distribute if you don't hold back as secret anything you added yourself.
What is new in this license is the condition that only those who are 'good citizens' wrt patents are granted permission. This is why I think it is a very good idea indeed.
My main point though: Since the default is that you can't copy/distribute/'publicly perform' a copyrighted work, any license that grants you permissions to do these things cannot be called aggressive, since it does no more than to give you the right to do something you otherwise would not be allowed to do by copyright law.
One final note: There seems to be an impression that filing a patent lawsuit would trigger immediate termination of your license to use the software. I don't think this is correct. It is only distribution and 'public performance' rights that would be terminated. I think that means you can continue using it in-house - much as you can modify and keep secret GPL software provided you don't try to distribute it.
I quite liked Ed Felten's idea to use the work 'tinker' to mean what we understand by 'hack' (as in 'Freedom to tinker').
I'm just still not sure what to call a hacker. A tinkerer, or tinker? It doesn't quite have the same connotations really.
Rather than responding to my joke dialogue by mistrepresenting the views of evolutionists, you might like to answer the points raised by it.
That's a bit rich coming from someone who obviously thinks it is funny to misrepresent the views of creationists. I don't think there is any point to answer raised by your 'joke' dialog that hasn't already been answered.
Just for the record, I'm not a creationist, but I am a Christian.
Now someone please mod original post as troll, this one as off-topic, and we'll get back to the Bombardier Beetle.
Ok, I've been well-and-truly trolled, but what the heck...
You said God was a designer and creator. Why?
The simplest reason is that he just wanted to. Anyone who is creative has an urge to create things. God is creative - that is part of his character according to the Bible. He is also infinitely generous and loving. It's hard to be generous and loving when you haven't got anyone other than yourself to be generous and loving to.
I had some more questions, but they've temporarily slipped my mind
Don't worry about it. When you remember, a Google search will probably point you in the right direction. Alternatively, you could look into Alpha.
I'm sure the finding isn't against natural selection, but I don't think it makes any case for natural selection.
I don't see any practical difference between storing up a whole load of micro-mutations that as a whole produce a step-change benefit in a given environment ('letting go' of them all at once), and hoping for a single step-change macro-mutation that is beneficial.
You'll agree that the chances of a single macro-mutation that produces a step-change benefit are very small - so small as to be insignificant. E.g. an eye doesn't evolve all in one go.
Natural selection gets around these impossibly small odds by testing each micro-mutation one at a time. The probability of a good micro-mutation is still small, but not insignificantly small. They do happen, and evolution is the sum of the ones that worked out. That's my understanding anyway.
But, if you don't actually test out the micro-mutations as you go along, then I would expect the probablity of getting a good sequence of micro-mutations would be pretty-much on par with that of getting a good macro-mutation - i.e. insignificant. So how does this new idea help?
(Note, IANAB, and I'm not using 'macro-mutation' and 'micro-mutation' in any specific technical sense.)
Yes, that's a fair point, but it still is based on the philosophy of controlling the appearance rather than guiding it. If the native widget set doesn't support backgrounds on buttons, it is perfectly valid for a standards-compliant browser to render the button without the suggested background.
I'm not saying that it is wrong for Mozilla to provide its own widget set to render buttons with background images if you really want that. But I personally would prefer it to use the native set in order to take on the look-and-feel of the system and to take advantage of native optimisations, and not worry if the appearance of the page varies somewhat between operating systems. YMMV.
Mozilla is about web standards, right?
One of the major points about web standards is that a page isn't supposed to look exactly the same regardless of the software used to display it. HTML is not supposed to control presentation. CSS is itself only supposed to be a guide. The sooner we can abandon the obsession with controlling every last pixel the better.
So, Mr Cornelius. I seem to have underestimated you. It appears that my evil plan to hide my nefarious activities in Peru and Vietnam by publishing the information openly on the internet has badly backfired...
;-)
In all seriousness, I don't see the use of strong encryption as necessarily suspect. I think everyone should make up their own mind on that, based on their view of what they do and don't mind others knowing about themselves. I personally would only bother with it for something that I wanted to keep private. Some things are just too boring to bother keeping private
And yes, I stand corrected on the 11 Sept stuff - now you mention it I do remember hearing that codewords were used instead of encryption.
Your comments deserve a reply. As it happens, I am a British citizen and I have also been to both Peru and Vietnam - so I suppose that means I might be a target for surveillance... Well, that's fine by me. I have nothing to hide.
I also don't have a problem with government agencies sharing information in order to track down the real crooks. International cooperation is important. The real crooks are probably using strong encryption anyway. At least MI6 and the CIA will be able to eliminate me from their enquiries quickly 8-)
I don't think you get it. The fact is, some people (like me for instance) are not at all bothered by what you describe. I understand what you say, and actually, I don't usually mind copies of my emails sitting on servers all around the world.
Of course, I have nothing against anyone using encryption. I'd use it myself if I felt it was needed for a particular message. But I don't see ubiqitous encryption as a golden age.
Maybe you missed my point. It is not and should not be the planes that need to change. It is the UWB implementations themselves that need to be right. If a UWB device causes measurable interference, then it simply shouldn't be used anywhere that interference might matter.
The promise of UWB is that the interference they put out is insignificant to other devices. If that is so, then all well and good. But if they do cause interference, then surely would be extremely irresponsible to use them anywhere that might matter, whether it is on an aircraft, or near someone using a mobile phone, or wherever else.
It's not the planes that are broken. The concern is that UWB devices if improperly implemented could cause interference. From the article:
With appropriate technical standards, UWB devices can operate using spectrum occupied by existing radio services without causing interference - at least in theory.
The article also states that UWB devices are unlikely to appear in consumer devices much before 2004, giving plenty of time for appropriate standards to be set to avoid such problems. It's not a big deal.
After all, courts have recently been arguing that video games cannot be protected speech; these games make it patently obvious that this view is insane.
Alternatively, it could just be that these games are not really a form of social comment after all.
You don't need to bother with WINE. Cabextract will do the job just nicely.
So rename the shortcut...
They said that they expect an open source project leader to create the initial code base, integrate submissions, open minds to options, and provide motivation, but not to determine or delegate tasks, recruit contributors, or manage timing.
I.e. do the unglamerous bits and leave others to cherry-pick. And never impose deadlines on the team members.
I think most programmers would want this of their managers, whether they are working on open source or not!
On a simple network, you won't get out-of-sequence packets with UDP.
Out-of-sequence delivery happens when there is more than one possible route for the packet, such as occurs over the internet. On the internet, routing is done on a case-by-case best effort basis. It's possible then for the first packet to be sent via a longer route than the second and therefore for the second packet to arrive first.
So remember - UDP across a LAN is quite a different beast to UDP across the internet.
I don't think there is any argument that this existing waste should be stored in as safe-a-way as possible.
The real argument is: "Should we be producing any more?"
Of course, I was referring to the observation that radioactive decay is apparently a truly random process, and there is no known physical means by which the half-life of a particular isotope can be altered.
You can smack atoms with neutrons and stuff to transmute them into other (more or less stable) isotopes. I knew that, naturally P-)
Ahem. Read the parent. He was talking about radioactivity of the reactor vessel, not the fuel/waste product.
It is entirely too likely that someone ... will develope a sure-fire method of forever rendering nuclear waste inert.
Isn't that rather a huge leap of faith? So far, there is nothing known in science to suggest that this might be even in-principle possible. Have a look at a basic course in Quantum Mechanics. It seems altogether far more likely that we will develop some novel and absolutely safe non-nuclear power source before then, probably based on black holes and perpetual motion 8-)
The geologist/archaeologist was just a quick off-the-cuff example. My point was that you just can't ensure the safety of something like that for such a huge timescale.
I'll admit that this site is probably about as good as any, but the idea that you have to keep 77000 tons of deadly radioactive material isolated for the next 10000 years just scares me. Civilizations rise and fall in such timescales. Who is going to know it is there, even 1000 years from now? What happens if some geologist of the future unknowingly takes a core sample in just the wrong place, to name just one of many not entirely unlikely scenarios.
For goodness sake, my local council doesn't even know where all its buried services are located under the roads and pavements. Do we really think we can preserve data and ensure political stability for 10000 years?
This has to be the biggest argument against nuclear power. Forget the operational safety aspects. We just can't guarantee the long-term safety of the waste.