there are always values for A and B for any C and viceversa for any A and B there is always a value of C.
Yes, but thene you would be assigning specific values of a, b, and c.
You can only say that "a^2+b^2=c^2" is a theorem if it holds for all a, b, and c. (e.g. "a^2-b^2 = (a+b)(a-b)" holds for all values of a and b). Otherwise, you need to define what a, b, and c you are talking about in order to have a complete theorem.
Telepathy/Empathy also supports Jingle. Coccinella (two "c"s) supports Jingle, but uses IAX as the transport, so you won't be able to chat with most other people.
By the way, the base Jingle spec is XEP-0166, and was just recently advanced to "Draft" status.
In order to install the files onto a customer's machine, I have to copy the files onto their machine, and so yes, I am distributing it. If I install both Moodle, and Microsoft's plugin, then I am distributing them as a combined work.
If you want to assume that Microsoft won't sue you, then that's up to you. Companies usually do not have the luxury of saying "oh, let's just cross our fingers and hope they don't sue". Companies have to play it safe. Besides, it's not just Microsoft who can sue, but also any of the many copyright holders of Moodle, plus any of the authors of the additional plugins that I happen to also install on the customer's machine.
Thanks for the clarification, Martin. I'm glad to hear that they're working on resolving the issue. (Of course, if they're afraid of the patent clauses in GPLv3, then they could always just release their code under some other GPLv3-compatible license.)
Yes, well, the problem is that there are people who would want to distribute Moodle along with a set of plugins. Aside from the fact that this plugin can never, say, make it into any Linux distribution, there are many companies that do Moodle support, installation, etc. The licensing issue would make this a non-starter for them. So yes, it is an issue.
In fact, it would be stupid on their part to release source code to work with programs under incompatible license terms which would disallow anyone from legitimately being able to distribute it.
And yet, that's exactly what Microsoft did. Moodle is switching to GPLv3, and Microsoft's plugin is GPLv2 only.
Actually, the original software (Moodle) is moving to GPLv3, while Microsoft has released their plugin under GPLv2 only which makes it impossible for anyone to legally distribute Moodle with Microsoft's plugin. Not only that, but Moodle had previously be licensed under GPLv2 or later, so using a GPLv3 plugin was always fine. So it would have been better if Microsoft had used GPLv3 instead.
No, rev was in previous versions of HTML, but was apparently dropped in HTML 5, probably because people didn't understand the different between rev and rel.
rel="canonical" and rev="canonical" are different things
This is known as hashcash. One big reason that it doesn't work on the web is that, currently, users will be stuck with some slow JavaScript version of the algorithm, while a sufficiently determined spammer can use a fast C version, and end up with much less work required to post. So it's nearly impossible to set a cost that is cheap enough for valid visitors, that will be a sufficient deterrent against spammers.
Good point, but the other side to it is that if we go back to the idea that if you don't like it you can fix it. Whereas the coding can be a heavy time investment, hiring developers can be a heavy financial investment, perhaps costing even more than buying a proprietary program to do the same thing.
Agreed, as long as there is a proprietary program that does what you want it to (or close enough to what you want).;)
With the industry that I work in, the proprietary solution is very expensive, and the FOSS solution does 90% of what people want, and custom development is fairly easy.
Modifying OpenOffice.org or Cinelerra is probably a much harder task.
This assumes that you have to be the one who does the coding.
I work for a company that does custom development for a certain piece of FOSS. We get paid by people who can't do the modifications on their own, and we happen to be making good money doing it. With FOSS, you can contract out the work to anyone who has the time and ability to make the changes. With proprietary software, you need to hope that the company will listen to your requests.
Try them out. You'll see that they give different numbers. "int i = (int) x" converts x into an integer with approximately the same value. "int i = *(int*)&x" gives you an integer with the same binary representation as the float (and which will give different results depending on endianness and size of int).
Debian GNU/Linux != GNU/Linux. Debian has never claimed that "GNU/Linux" refered only to the Debian distribution. It is a generic name that any distribution could use if they wanted to.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a more relevant comic: http://xkcd.com/678/
Yes, but thene you would be assigning specific values of a, b, and c.
You can only say that "a^2+b^2=c^2" is a theorem if it holds for all a, b, and c. (e.g. "a^2-b^2 = (a+b)(a-b)" holds for all values of a and b). Otherwise, you need to define what a, b, and c you are talking about in order to have a complete theorem.
a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is not a Mathematical theorem. It is an equation whose validity depends on the specific values of a, b, and c.
The homepage does exist. It's just been moved. Add a ".html" to the link from the SourceForge page.
The "uselessly slow" commentary is straight from the blog of the guy who did it. http://www.tuug.fi/~toni/serendipity/index.php?/archives/13-Mac-OS-X-10.3-running-on-the-N900!.html
K-Meleon actually predates Firefox.
Telepathy/Empathy also supports Jingle. Coccinella (two "c"s) supports Jingle, but uses IAX as the transport, so you won't be able to chat with most other people.
By the way, the base Jingle spec is XEP-0166, and was just recently advanced to "Draft" status.
In order to install the files onto a customer's machine, I have to copy the files onto their machine, and so yes, I am distributing it. If I install both Moodle, and Microsoft's plugin, then I am distributing them as a combined work.
If you want to assume that Microsoft won't sue you, then that's up to you. Companies usually do not have the luxury of saying "oh, let's just cross our fingers and hope they don't sue". Companies have to play it safe. Besides, it's not just Microsoft who can sue, but also any of the many copyright holders of Moodle, plus any of the authors of the additional plugins that I happen to also install on the customer's machine.
Thanks for the clarification, Martin. I'm glad to hear that they're working on resolving the issue. (Of course, if they're afraid of the patent clauses in GPLv3, then they could always just release their code under some other GPLv3-compatible license.)
No, because if you are installing on a customer's computer, you are distributing, and so you would be breaking the license.
Yes, well, the problem is that there are people who would want to distribute Moodle along with a set of plugins. Aside from the fact that this plugin can never, say, make it into any Linux distribution, there are many companies that do Moodle support, installation, etc. The licensing issue would make this a non-starter for them. So yes, it is an issue.
No, they didn't, which causes a problem since Moodle is being relicensed to GPLv3.
And yet, that's exactly what Microsoft did. Moodle is switching to GPLv3, and Microsoft's plugin is GPLv2 only.
Actually, the original software (Moodle) is moving to GPLv3, while Microsoft has released their plugin under GPLv2 only which makes it impossible for anyone to legally distribute Moodle with Microsoft's plugin. Not only that, but Moodle had previously be licensed under GPLv2 or later, so using a GPLv3 plugin was always fine. So it would have been better if Microsoft had used GPLv3 instead.
No, it's linear complexity.
No, rev was in previous versions of HTML, but was apparently dropped in HTML 5, probably because people didn't understand the different between rev and rel.
rel="canonical" and rev="canonical" are different things
This is known as hashcash. One big reason that it doesn't work on the web is that, currently, users will be stuck with some slow JavaScript version of the algorithm, while a sufficiently determined spammer can use a fast C version, and end up with much less work required to post. So it's nearly impossible to set a cost that is cheap enough for valid visitors, that will be a sufficient deterrent against spammers.
SILC, however, fails the "log everything" requirement, by design.
Agreed, as long as there is a proprietary program that does what you want it to (or close enough to what you want). ;)
With the industry that I work in, the proprietary solution is very expensive, and the FOSS solution does 90% of what people want, and custom development is fairly easy.
Modifying OpenOffice.org or Cinelerra is probably a much harder task.
This assumes that you have to be the one who does the coding.
I work for a company that does custom development for a certain piece of FOSS. We get paid by people who can't do the modifications on their own, and we happen to be making good money doing it. With FOSS, you can contract out the work to anyone who has the time and ability to make the changes. With proprietary software, you need to hope that the company will listen to your requests.
IIRC, Apple Mail (or maybe its predecessor) used to do text/enriched. And I'm sure that someone made emacs send text/enriched too.
correction: endianness may not have an effect on the result (unless it's some very odd processor that has different endianness for floats and ints).
Try them out. You'll see that they give different numbers. "int i = (int) x" converts x into an integer with approximately the same value. "int i = *(int*)&x" gives you an integer with the same binary representation as the float (and which will give different results depending on endianness and size of int).
Debian GNU/Linux != GNU/Linux. Debian has never claimed that "GNU/Linux" refered only to the Debian distribution. It is a generic name that any distribution could use if they wanted to.
No, the article is incorrect, because it leaves out the "Debian" from the name, and just says "GNU/Linux 4.0" instead of "Debian GNU/Linux 4.0".