I use #wikipedia on Freenode almost every day. Posting logs from that channel to the internet is strictly prohibited
Why? It's clearly not trust-building about the project (which is, after all, supposed to be an open project). I mean I can understand that a channel for private conversation shouldn't be archived. But a channel for an open project IMHO ought not to have such restrictions.
>However I'd strongly question your assertion that zero-g can be adequately simulated on earth.
'Zero-gee': no, never. 'Free-fall': yes, quite well. The sentence before the one you quoted reads: "So how do you propose to simulate, say, just one hour of continuous zero gravity?"
Witness: http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/msad/dtf/tube.htm (cool image: http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/msad/dtf/images/stand1.gif) "For an evacuated Tube, minimal free-fall times of 4.6 seconds produce a quiescent, micro-gravity environment."
But if you have built up trust that way, I'm sure simply releasing an "improved version" would also get you installed on a lot of machines, even though the md5sums differ (indeed, it would be very suspicious if the md5sum of the improved version still is the same as of the original one).
Zero gravity can be simulated on earth, fairly well.
So how do you propose to simulate, say, just one hour of continuous zero gravity?
Frankly, I don't know how useful or useless material science in zero-g is. However I'd strongly question your assertion that zero-g can be adequately simulated on earth.
For two reasons: one: to label it to "other" designers as/my/ work, and two: as a puzzle, an easteregg, to see if those little humans would be able to figure it out.
Of course both reasons don't apply in this case: Since according to Christian believe there is only one god, the other designers who might either claim ownership on his stuff, or be puzzled by it, simply don't exist. Of course he could have left it in there for the humans to prove his existance. But then, why would he do so in such a convoluted way, which is inaccessible to humans before they can analyze genes, and even afterwards is inaccessible to most humans (all those not doing genetics)? After all, if he wanted to set us an obvious sign of his existence, he would have had many more obvious possibilities (for example large structures on the moon which couldn't be explained by natural phenomena).
A much better place to look would IMHO be the genetics of two similar, but according to evolution independently developed features in different species. If they developed independently, then there shouldn't be more similarity in their genetic codes than necessary to explain the similarity of the feature. OTOH, if they were designed, then this should show up in striking similarities in the code which can't be explained by the similarity of the features, because they were designed by the same designer.
Well, I think missing a chromosome is unhealthy because you're missing the genes on that chromosome. But if two chromosomes merged into one, those genes are not missing. It's more like if you decide to put the content of two separate partitions onto a single one.
"Well I was trying to make analogies." Is a statement. As such, it's logically either true or false. Your intent of course was to claim that it's true. That's how natural language works: By making statements, you actually claim them to be true. So if someone using pseudo-C "No license == normal copyright rules apply", he also claims that this is true. Which makes sense, since it's indeed a boolean expression, i.e. something which can be true or false.
The closest in C is indeed the assert statement: You assert that what you write is true. So basically if you wanted to write your post in pseudo-C, it would look like this:
assert(Well I was trying to make analogies); assert(Point is, the statement "No license == normal copyright rules apply" evaluates to true or false, and neither "true" nor "false" was the meaning intended.);
Hopefully overzealous mods won't mod me down as Offtopic (to boost their self-esteem? I don't know) but...
No license == normal copyright rules apply I don't get why everyone here on Slashdot uses the double equal signs in cases like this. From C syntax. Or from C++, C#, Clean, D, Java, Haskell, MAXScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Tcl, and probably a bunch of other languages.
Doesn't that make your sentence a question? No. It makes it a boolean expression. Or an integer expression, if you are using C.
if(No license == normal copyright rules apply) {
what goes here? } There's no if. The implied statement is
assert(No license == normal copyright rules apply);
Now this means what I think you want to mean:
No license = normal copyright rules apply; No. That would be an assignment, i.e. an attempt to change "No license".
First of all, what's most important in an algorithm, and most code that is looked online up is not an algorithm but particular obscure library calls that can't possibly be copyrighted.
The algorithm cannot be copyrighted (it may be patented, though). It's the expression of the algorithm which is copyrighted. So if you take some code, understand the algorithm, and then implement the algorithm with your own code, it's not copyright violation. But if you take the code and copy/paste it into yours, it may be copyright violation.
// While it is highly unlikely that such a code snippet would cause problems down the road, it is not impossible that it could. Well it could be a lot more likely now, if the original author reads \. I don't think reading \. will have any impact on any problems the code snippet may or may not cause:-)
If someone else independently working on the same problem does:;(x+y)*z (defun f1 (x y z) (* (+ x y) z))
Would that constitute a copyright violation of the above formula? They do precisely the same thing using exactly the same algorithm, but look very different. Is the second in violation of copyright of the first?
No. Copyright violation always includes the act of copying. If you somehow managed to write a Harry Potter book exactly like Rowling wrote it without ever being exposed to the original Harry Potter, it would not be copyright violation (however you would have a very hard time convincing the judge:-)).
That's the difference between copyright and patents. With copyrights, only copying is illegal, independently coming up with the same isn't. Of course, if what you wrote is strikingly similar (or even identical) to some other code, that's evidence that you copied it (because it would be unlikely that you'd come up with the exactly same code independently). OTOH, evidence that you never have seen the other code is evidence against you copying it (that's why it's so important that people doing a clean-room reimplementation are never exposed to the original code). OTOH, with patents, it doesn't matter if you copied it or re-invented it yourself. It only matters if it dos something described by the patent.
IANAL, but I think that posting code without explicit license on the forum, unless the rules of the forum explicitly say otherwise, only gives you a permission to read the code (e.g. to learn from it, or to allow you to help him with the code, f.ex. by pointing out errors). Of course the context in which the code was given may imply a more permissive license (e.g. I guess if it was an answer to a question like "does anyone have some code I could use", posting the code in the answer probably implies a license to use it).
I'm a lawyer. Please contact me about suing some people for lots of money. Well, I for one would prefer if my lawyer is no coward, especially not an anonymous ones.
Indeed, if you print 100 lines on a page, you'll fill a 100 page book with that code. I cannot imagine any jurisdiction with copyright where a whole book full of code couldn't be copyrighted.
I would teleport myself a million times. Then me and my clones would take over heaven! Well, if that's your plan, you'll probably take over hell instead.
You know, Jesus copied bread and fish for over 5,000 people and didn't give a shit about bakeries' and fishermens' lost profits or copyrights. What do you think was the real reason why he was crucified?
Slashdot Mirror
You should have posted your solution back then, so you would have found it in 2002.
Why? It's clearly not trust-building about the project (which is, after all, supposed to be an open project).
I mean I can understand that a channel for private conversation shouldn't be archived. But a channel for an open project IMHO ought not to have such restrictions.
Probably not. I strongly doubt they would put the logs on the web.
What about those I don't know?
'Zero-gee': no, never. 'Free-fall': yes, quite well. The sentence before the one you quoted reads:
"So how do you propose to simulate, say, just one hour of continuous zero gravity?" Witness:
http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/msad/dtf/tube.htm
(cool image: http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/msad/dtf/images/stand1.gif) "For an evacuated Tube, minimal free-fall times of 4.6 seconds produce a quiescent, micro-gravity environment."
<sarcasm> OK, 4.6 seconds is very close to an hour </sarcasm> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallturm_Bremen
(additional: http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/index.cfm?act=default.page&level=11&page=fac-dt) "in which for 4.74 seconds (with release of the drop capsule), or for over 9 seconds (with the use of a catapult, installed in 2004) weightlessness can be produced."
Yes, that's much closer to an hour
Indeed, I'm surprised that you didn't come up with parabolic flights, which can give you up to about 25 seconds of continuous weightlessness.
OK, so where's that one-hour continuous weightlessness down here on earth?
But if you have built up trust that way, I'm sure simply releasing an "improved version" would also get you installed on a lot of machines, even though the md5sums differ (indeed, it would be very suspicious if the md5sum of the improved version still is the same as of the original one).
So how do you propose to simulate, say, just one hour of continuous zero gravity?
Frankly, I don't know how useful or useless material science in zero-g is. However I'd strongly question your assertion that zero-g can be adequately simulated on earth.
Of course both reasons don't apply in this case: Since according to Christian believe there is only one god, the other designers who might either claim ownership on his stuff, or be puzzled by it, simply don't exist. Of course he could have left it in there for the humans to prove his existance. But then, why would he do so in such a convoluted way, which is inaccessible to humans before they can analyze genes, and even afterwards is inaccessible to most humans (all those not doing genetics)? After all, if he wanted to set us an obvious sign of his existence, he would have had many more obvious possibilities (for example large structures on the moon which couldn't be explained by natural phenomena).
A much better place to look would IMHO be the genetics of two similar, but according to evolution independently developed features in different species. If they developed independently, then there shouldn't be more similarity in their genetic codes than necessary to explain the similarity of the feature. OTOH, if they were designed, then this should show up in striking similarities in the code which can't be explained by the similarity of the features, because they were designed by the same designer.
Well, I think missing a chromosome is unhealthy because you're missing the genes on that chromosome. But if two chromosomes merged into one, those genes are not missing. It's more like if you decide to put the content of two separate partitions onto a single one.
IANAB(iologist), however.
The closest in C is indeed the assert statement: You assert that what you write is true. So basically if you wanted to write your post in pseudo-C, it would look like this:
About your sig:
"To be or not to be, that is the answer. What is the square root of 4b^2?: that is the question."
Only if you use ones complement.
{
what goes here?
} There's no if. The implied statement is Now this means what I think you want to mean: No license = normal copyright rules apply; No. That would be an assignment, i.e. an attempt to change "No license".
But the code are the instructions, in a format the compiler can "understand".
IJWTMTTSOOATIT (I Just Want To Mention That The Sum Of One And Two Is Three)
The algorithm cannot be copyrighted (it may be patented, though). It's the expression of the algorithm which is copyrighted. So if you take some code, understand the algorithm, and then implement the algorithm with your own code, it's not copyright violation. But if you take the code and copy/paste it into yours, it may be copyright violation.
// While it is highly unlikely that such a code snippet would cause problems down the road, it is not impossible that it could.Well it could be a lot more likely now, if the original author reads \. I don't think reading \. will have any impact on any problems the code snippet may or may not cause
No. Copyright violation always includes the act of copying. If you somehow managed to write a Harry Potter book exactly like Rowling wrote it without ever being exposed to the original Harry Potter, it would not be copyright violation (however you would have a very hard time convincing the judge
That's the difference between copyright and patents. With copyrights, only copying is illegal, independently coming up with the same isn't. Of course, if what you wrote is strikingly similar (or even identical) to some other code, that's evidence that you copied it (because it would be unlikely that you'd come up with the exactly same code independently). OTOH, evidence that you never have seen the other code is evidence against you copying it (that's why it's so important that people doing a clean-room reimplementation are never exposed to the original code). OTOH, with patents, it doesn't matter if you copied it or re-invented it yourself. It only matters if it dos something described by the patent.
IANAL, however.
IANAL, but I think that posting code without explicit license on the forum, unless the rules of the forum explicitly say otherwise, only gives you a permission to read the code (e.g. to learn from it, or to allow you to help him with the code, f.ex. by pointing out errors). Of course the context in which the code was given may imply a more permissive license (e.g. I guess if it was an answer to a question like "does anyone have some code I could use", posting the code in the answer probably implies a license to use it).
Lead: How does the code work?
Developer: Very well.
SCNR
Indeed, if you print 100 lines on a page, you'll fill a 100 page book with that code. I cannot imagine any jurisdiction with copyright where a whole book full of code couldn't be copyrighted.
I would teleport myself a million times. Then me and my clones would take over heaven! Well, if that's your plan, you'll probably take over hell instead.