Microsoft finally implements it but does so it in a manner which blocks everything having to do with, including normal usage of, the products of EVERYONE EXCEPT MICROSOFT.
Dude, did you even read the list of problem apps? Many of the programs on it are from, uh, MICROSOFT.
Yes, I did... I had the projects backwards for a bit and missed that when I was correcting them. (The "(the BSD one)" and "(GPLed)" were as much a note to me which was which as a note to any reader;-))
In which case PA would be likely (yeah, this time it is not so sure) first-to-market, their product would be better and cheaper, while PB would have no chance to compete. Again, this will not be necesarily true all the time, but I think that most of the time, it would be true.
I think first-to-market is a safe assumption unless CB bought a license to use something else. But, better is questionable, and matters relatively little anyway; technological qualities are too often not a deciding factor in the winner (witness Beta, LS-120, the other classic "the better product lost" examples). Cheaper is a safe assumption assuing both companies are properly run. But any number of reasons could make it so that PB could still prevail in the marketplace.
And if PB DOES get it's foot in the door, it could prove to be more profitable to CB than PA is to CA. Because PA would have to be GPLed, CA really couldn't charge too much for it, or another entity could just purchase it and start distributing it itself for free or for profit. It's why Windows XP Home is $200, OS X personal is $130, but Red Hat Linux personal was only $40, Mandrake is $100, and SuSE is $30, despite the Linux distributions coming with programs that do everything under the sun. If they charged more, people would just say "the heck with this, I'm downloading it", while vendors such as Apple and MS can afford to charge a lot more because working pirated versions are harder to get a hold of (not much, but they are harder) and are illegal.
Think of linux on business world vs FreeBSD on business world. I know, I know, for a lot of reasons, Linux got more spotlight when critical decisions were taken, but I don't think that the license was a minor one.
Yeah, I'm not sure why Linux has the edge that it does. That could be a good argument for your side.
On the other hand, I'd put to you that FreeBSD is hardly an inferior product to Linux anyway. So while Linus deservedly has some pride for getting Linux where it is, if you're not too concerned with popularity and more with "is this a good product", I think FreeBSD vs. Linux actually goes some way to showing my point that neither license really encourages a better product. (On the other hand, FreeBSD had a bigger base and Linux has improved quicker than BSD, so who knows.)
I think the biggest reason that the GPL gets more action is that people don't like to see their work usurped and used without compensation. But if you don't really care one way or the other, and are just doing the work for work's sake, I think neither license really has an edge.
What if the propietary modifications are under some wacky patent, and you can't emulate them.
This is a danger, and I'll admit that I didn't think of it.
So again, I don't really think that it comes down to anything more than just a philosophical discussion of what you want people to be able to do with your code. If you don't care if a company uses it without compensation, I think the BSD license makes more sense. If you do care, and want anyone who takes advantage of your code to return the favor, the GPL is more suited to you.
So... according to the GPL, can't I fork the GPL version of MySQL, not change a thing, and allow companies to use "HerSQL" for free, keeping "HerSQL" as GPL?
Yep.
Further, don't a lot of web applications that are not GPL interface with MySQL? Doesn't this violate their license?
It's in the gray area. A bit closer to the "okay" side than, say, Java's dynamic binding (which is another 'can we combine GPL and nonGPL code). That's what the guy is talking about in the article about developers should abide by the GPL and not try to find loopholes.
I'm of the opinion that, in your scenario, company CA would, had they based their project off of PB instead of PA, likely released their code anyway.
Most companies are going to be too anti-OSS to use PB. Again, in your example, say PB (the BSD one) didn't exist and CA and CB were left with only the option of using PA (GPLed). I put to you that company CB would probably not use the project anyway, and either purchase one or write their own.
For this to not be true, a company would have to oppose releasing the source of their programs, but not so much that they wouldn't submit to it in exchange for GPLed code.
Anyway, saying that either GPL or BSD doesn't make sense seems silly to me; it's a personal decision. I don't think releasing the GPL actually encourages many contributions, as most of the time companies would just turn away to other solutions.
I could even make the argument that BSD licences would help push OSS. Propriatary products incorporate the BSD'd code, and improve from it. The improvement from these spur new motivation and ideas to develop the open source software.
Isn't it interesting, the same people who defend Gore tooth-and-nail for making this grandious claim are unable to look in their own dictionaries to see that "potatoe" is a valid alternative spelling for "potato". Depends on who says something, huh?
The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary (unless you haven't entered even the 20th century yet), and Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) disagree with you. Those are all I looked in.
Probably everyone can see the ad for themselves, but here you go.
And I have to nit-pick about the "ironic"... this is not ironic. It's just a coincidence. It would be somewhat ironic if ANOTHER ad service was advertised or something like that...
Do the comment submitters ever check what they type ?
The tournament is in Abu Dhabi, as the summary says:
"The powerful computer chess engine Hydra...is taking on the many times world champion engine Shredder in a match between the two chess super computers in Abu Dhabi" -/. Summary
"The venue is Abu Dhabi or Abu Zaby" -First article
What is occuring in Dubai is the construction of the Chess Palace.
"ChessBase also points to the announcement of a "64,000 square meter International Chess City" in Dubai" -/. Summary
"FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has just unveiled a plan to build a new "chess city" in the Emirate of Dubai" -Second article
Re:Do people honestly think these look good
on
Accelerated PowerPoint?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In broad terms, I agree with you; I really hate to see text flying in and stuff like that. If you don't want it there when you load the slide, just make it appear or at least fade in quickly. Motion is distracting. (I did my last (and only major) PowerPoint presentation with white text on a black background.)
That said, saying they're never useful is almost as silly. For instance, I think the effect in the video demo they have up at 1:00 is pretty cool. Leaving that up on the screen as you wait for your presentation to start would, I think, be neat. And maybe do a really fancy, eyecandyish transition when you are making a change of subject. Sorta like how movie edits are made; most changes of angle are just cuts, but most changes of scene have a fade or dissolve or something. So they aren't without their use.
Not terribly related except on the matter of PowerPoint, but if you haven't already, be sure to download and run through the Gettysburg Address, PowerPoint style.
There's an article in last month's Computer, "In Defense of PowerPoint" by Neville Holmes. Basically he rebukes that statement, trying to say that it's just a tool, and that it really can't "make you stupid".
I've been looking high and low for a cross platform GUI tool, and the only one I particularily like is Qt. Which, of course, you have to pay lots of money for to get the Windows version (or deal with the "freeware" bit stuck in the title bars of windows). I'm gonna look into Wx.NET; just found out about that in this discussion.
Anyway, I'm reading over the FAQ for GTK#, and it says you need to have cygwin. So, my question is, does only the developer of the software need to have cygwin, and then it builds it using libraries provided with it and outputs a nice standalone application, or does everyone who wants to use it need to install cygwin? I can't seem to figure this out from the site...
"They watch a lot of TV. They watch CSI and see DNS results come back on-site! "Yes, this blood matches the victims" They see those magical computers scan ever fingerprint in the world (I love how it displays each and every mugshot as it "searches".. I mean, how long do you think it would take to download and display 100 million mugshots one by one, for about a second each?)"
This is off topic, but I've been watching a show on A&E called The First 48 (if you like CSI, New Detectives, etc., check it out) where they follow detectives around with cameras as they do actual murder investigations (usually two per show). One of the detectives said that they have to deal with people who watch CSI and stuff and go "they solved the murder on TV in 5 minutes, why can't you?"
AFAIK, it still takes a bit of specialized skill and a few minutes at least to enter fingerprints into AFIS. The operator has to go through and mark splits and ends in the ridges, centers of swirls, etc. That much isn't automated. While/if this is true, they won't really be able to check every print.
People will recognize those though... Darl could just be an innocent suggestion and would at least probably be considered. The ones you suggest would be thrown out...
Is comfort. I find touch typing much easier on my hands than the weirdish hunt-and-peck variant I used to use. (Maybe "know where it is and peck" would be a good name...)
"Sorry, I do not understand how knowing what a car was doing X seconds before a crash intrudes on civil liberties in anyway"
Because if it turns out you did something stupid in those seconds, you could be charged with vehicular homicide based on the evidence of the black box that you were required to have.
Seems like it would be easier to ascertain the truth in court with scientific readings, rather than with two parties' lawyers arguing with each other.
That's why I think it should be available. However, I can certainly see how forcing people to carry a device in their car that would provide potentially incriminating evidence could be seen as a violation of search and seizure and the right against self incrimination.
However, I think the public good of having what would probably be a significantly higher rate of correctly assigning blame in accidents outweighs the privacy issue, at least from a philosophical standpoint. Not sure about a legal one.
1) The black box will register things such as speed, acceleration, position of the steering wheel, gear shift, pedals, emergency brake, etc.
2) It will not monitor stuff such as GPS
3) It will loop every [30] seconds or so (just a suggestion, maybe a little more)
4) Data will only be available following a crash in which injuries or serious physical damage resulted or with the owner's consent.
5) Optionally, this information will not be available to insurance companies or for prosecution in either civil or criminal cases. I think that the data should be available, but I can see valid objections to this.
That way the safety people get what they want -- a system that will provide information about what happens in a crash -- while not acting very big brothery.
Oops. I remember reading about that before, but had forgotten. I was thinking of the problems with storing H2 in a safe manner in cars and such, and extrapolated that those powering laptops would work the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft finally implements it but does so it in a manner which blocks everything having to do with, including normal usage of, the products of EVERYONE EXCEPT MICROSOFT.
Dude, did you even read the list of problem apps? Many of the programs on it are from, uh, MICROSOFT.
I'm going to guess you wanted to say PA here
;-))
Yes, I did... I had the projects backwards for a bit and missed that when I was correcting them. (The "(the BSD one)" and "(GPLed)" were as much a note to me which was which as a note to any reader
In which case PA would be likely (yeah, this time it is not so sure) first-to-market, their product would be better and cheaper, while PB would have no chance to compete. Again, this will not be necesarily true all the time, but I think that most of the time, it would be true.
I think first-to-market is a safe assumption unless CB bought a license to use something else. But, better is questionable, and matters relatively little anyway; technological qualities are too often not a deciding factor in the winner (witness Beta, LS-120, the other classic "the better product lost" examples). Cheaper is a safe assumption assuing both companies are properly run. But any number of reasons could make it so that PB could still prevail in the marketplace.
And if PB DOES get it's foot in the door, it could prove to be more profitable to CB than PA is to CA. Because PA would have to be GPLed, CA really couldn't charge too much for it, or another entity could just purchase it and start distributing it itself for free or for profit. It's why Windows XP Home is $200, OS X personal is $130, but Red Hat Linux personal was only $40, Mandrake is $100, and SuSE is $30, despite the Linux distributions coming with programs that do everything under the sun. If they charged more, people would just say "the heck with this, I'm downloading it", while vendors such as Apple and MS can afford to charge a lot more because working pirated versions are harder to get a hold of (not much, but they are harder) and are illegal.
Think of linux on business world vs FreeBSD on business world. I know, I know, for a lot of reasons, Linux got more spotlight when critical decisions were taken, but I don't think that the license was a minor one.
Yeah, I'm not sure why Linux has the edge that it does. That could be a good argument for your side.
On the other hand, I'd put to you that FreeBSD is hardly an inferior product to Linux anyway. So while Linus deservedly has some pride for getting Linux where it is, if you're not too concerned with popularity and more with "is this a good product", I think FreeBSD vs. Linux actually goes some way to showing my point that neither license really encourages a better product. (On the other hand, FreeBSD had a bigger base and Linux has improved quicker than BSD, so who knows.)
I think the biggest reason that the GPL gets more action is that people don't like to see their work usurped and used without compensation. But if you don't really care one way or the other, and are just doing the work for work's sake, I think neither license really has an edge.
What if the propietary modifications are under some wacky patent, and you can't emulate them.
This is a danger, and I'll admit that I didn't think of it.
So again, I don't really think that it comes down to anything more than just a philosophical discussion of what you want people to be able to do with your code. If you don't care if a company uses it without compensation, I think the BSD license makes more sense. If you do care, and want anyone who takes advantage of your code to return the favor, the GPL is more suited to you.
I always thought it was the other way around - that 'i.e.' stood for something like 'in exampli'
;-)
For the longest time, I did to...
Thought both were for example, one from the English "in example", one from the latin.
So... according to the GPL, can't I fork the GPL version of MySQL, not change a thing, and allow companies to use "HerSQL" for free, keeping "HerSQL" as GPL?
Yep.
Further, don't a lot of web applications that are not GPL interface with MySQL? Doesn't this violate their license?
It's in the gray area. A bit closer to the "okay" side than, say, Java's dynamic binding (which is another 'can we combine GPL and nonGPL code). That's what the guy is talking about in the article about developers should abide by the GPL and not try to find loopholes.
I'm of the opinion that, in your scenario, company CA would, had they based their project off of PB instead of PA, likely released their code anyway.
Most companies are going to be too anti-OSS to use PB. Again, in your example, say PB (the BSD one) didn't exist and CA and CB were left with only the option of using PA (GPLed). I put to you that company CB would probably not use the project anyway, and either purchase one or write their own.
For this to not be true, a company would have to oppose releasing the source of their programs, but not so much that they wouldn't submit to it in exchange for GPLed code.
Anyway, saying that either GPL or BSD doesn't make sense seems silly to me; it's a personal decision. I don't think releasing the GPL actually encourages many contributions, as most of the time companies would just turn away to other solutions.
I could even make the argument that BSD licences would help push OSS. Propriatary products incorporate the BSD'd code, and improve from it. The improvement from these spur new motivation and ideas to develop the open source software.
Rush Limbaugh is broadcast on AM!
(And to balance things out, so is Al Frankin IIRC, but I wouldn't compare the two)
Isn't it interesting, the same people who defend Gore tooth-and-nail for making this grandious claim are unable to look in their own dictionaries to see that "potatoe" is a valid alternative spelling for "potato". Depends on who says something, huh?
The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary (unless you haven't entered even the 20th century yet), and Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) disagree with you. Those are all I looked in.
You're wrong.
The OED lists it as a variant, but only from the 16th to the 19th century.
Otherwise, (I enjoy having fresh earth between my fingers) it may not be
Unless you're Atlas, and are actually holding Earth between your fingers.
Um, you insensitive clod.
The abbreviation 'i.e.' does NOT mean 'for example.' If you want 'for example', use 'e.g.'
The former is an abbreviation for the latin 'id est', which means 'that is'. It's a rephrasing of what came before.
Your use is probably not strictly wrong, as reading it with 'that is' works, just 'e.g.' ('exempli grati') would work better.
Probably everyone can see the ad for themselves, but here you go.
And I have to nit-pick about the "ironic"... this is not ironic. It's just a coincidence. It would be somewhat ironic if ANOTHER ad service was advertised or something like that...
Do the comment submitters ever check what they type ?
The tournament is in Abu Dhabi, as the summary says:
"The powerful computer chess engine Hydra...is taking on the many times world champion engine Shredder in a match between the two chess super computers in Abu Dhabi"
-/. Summary
"The venue is Abu Dhabi or Abu Zaby"
-First article
What is occuring in Dubai is the construction of the Chess Palace.
"ChessBase also points to the announcement of a "64,000 square meter International Chess City" in Dubai"
-/. Summary
"FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has just unveiled a plan to build a new "chess city" in the Emirate of Dubai"
-Second article
In broad terms, I agree with you; I really hate to see text flying in and stuff like that. If you don't want it there when you load the slide, just make it appear or at least fade in quickly. Motion is distracting. (I did my last (and only major) PowerPoint presentation with white text on a black background.)
That said, saying they're never useful is almost as silly. For instance, I think the effect in the video demo they have up at 1:00 is pretty cool. Leaving that up on the screen as you wait for your presentation to start would, I think, be neat. And maybe do a really fancy, eyecandyish transition when you are making a change of subject. Sorta like how movie edits are made; most changes of angle are just cuts, but most changes of scene have a fade or dissolve or something. So they aren't without their use.
Not terribly related except on the matter of PowerPoint, but if you haven't already, be sure to download and run through the Gettysburg Address, PowerPoint style.
There's an article in last month's Computer, "In Defense of PowerPoint" by Neville Holmes. Basically he rebukes that statement, trying to say that it's just a tool, and that it really can't "make you stupid".
I've been looking high and low for a cross platform GUI tool, and the only one I particularily like is Qt. Which, of course, you have to pay lots of money for to get the Windows version (or deal with the "freeware" bit stuck in the title bars of windows). I'm gonna look into Wx.NET; just found out about that in this discussion.
Anyway, I'm reading over the FAQ for GTK#, and it says you need to have cygwin. So, my question is, does only the developer of the software need to have cygwin, and then it builds it using libraries provided with it and outputs a nice standalone application, or does everyone who wants to use it need to install cygwin? I can't seem to figure this out from the site...
"They watch a lot of TV. They watch CSI and see DNS results come back on-site! "Yes, this blood matches the victims" They see those magical computers scan ever fingerprint in the world (I love how it displays each and every mugshot as it "searches".. I mean, how long do you think it would take to download and display 100 million mugshots one by one, for about a second each?)"
This is off topic, but I've been watching a show on A&E called The First 48 (if you like CSI, New Detectives, etc., check it out) where they follow detectives around with cameras as they do actual murder investigations (usually two per show). One of the detectives said that they have to deal with people who watch CSI and stuff and go "they solved the murder on TV in 5 minutes, why can't you?"
AFAIK, it still takes a bit of specialized skill and a few minutes at least to enter fingerprints into AFIS. The operator has to go through and mark splits and ends in the ridges, centers of swirls, etc. That much isn't automated. While/if this is true, they won't really be able to check every print.
People will recognize those though... Darl could just be an innocent suggestion and would at least probably be considered. The ones you suggest would be thrown out...
Everyone knows that random statements of "X is dead" are always to be taken seriously...
BSD is dead.
Both parties are hell-bent on destroying this nation and it's freedoms.
As would any third party that managed to get into the presidency after it spent a couple terms there.
Is comfort. I find touch typing much easier on my hands than the weirdish hunt-and-peck variant I used to use. (Maybe "know where it is and peck" would be a good name...)
"Sorry, I do not understand how knowing what a car was doing X seconds before a crash intrudes on civil liberties in anyway"
Because if it turns out you did something stupid in those seconds, you could be charged with vehicular homicide based on the evidence of the black box that you were required to have.
Seems like it would be easier to ascertain the truth in court with scientific readings, rather than with two parties' lawyers arguing with each other.
That's why I think it should be available. However, I can certainly see how forcing people to carry a device in their car that would provide potentially incriminating evidence could be seen as a violation of search and seizure and the right against self incrimination.
However, I think the public good of having what would probably be a significantly higher rate of correctly assigning blame in accidents outweighs the privacy issue, at least from a philosophical standpoint. Not sure about a legal one.
How 'bout we set up the following system:
1) The black box will register things such as speed, acceleration, position of the steering wheel, gear shift, pedals, emergency brake, etc.
2) It will not monitor stuff such as GPS
3) It will loop every [30] seconds or so (just a suggestion, maybe a little more)
4) Data will only be available following a crash in which injuries or serious physical damage resulted or with the owner's consent.
5) Optionally, this information will not be available to insurance companies or for prosecution in either civil or criminal cases. I think that the data should be available, but I can see valid objections to this.
That way the safety people get what they want -- a system that will provide information about what happens in a crash -- while not acting very big brothery.
Oops. I remember reading about that before, but had forgotten. I was thinking of the problems with storing H2 in a safe manner in cars and such, and extrapolated that those powering laptops would work the same.