Of course, if you bend all light around you, there's no light hitting your eyes. That's BTW also the main fault of the invisibility concept in movies and stories: The people get completely invisible, but they can still see just like normal. But to see like normal, the light has to be fist bent by your eye's lense, and then absorbed by your eye's retina. Which should make at least your eyes visible quite well. Of course that's no problem with magic (magic can override all laws of nature anyway), but it's clearly a problem if the invisibility shall be achieved by a physical effect.
The technical statement in the paragraph above is completely correct -- yoy cannot escape back out to future null infinity.
That's true - but you obviously didn't get my joke: That isn't at all dependent on what I do or don't believe. Hmmm... thinking about it, it could be dependent on it: If it indeed is possible to travel faster than light, believing it to be impossible might prevent me from finding out how to do it (after all, if I manage to get into a black hole, I probably have quite advanced technology at my hands, because as far as we know there are no black holes close to earth). So the fact that he mentioned a dependence on the believe that FTL travel is not possible could be interpreted as a hint that he actually considers FTL travel to be possible:-)
But yes, from a pure logical viewpoint his statement is true even if FTL travel is not possible: Since in that case escaping through the event horizon isn't possible at all, it certainly also isn't possible if you (rightly) believe that FTL travel is not possible.
Ah, and BTW, I don't believe FTL travel is possible. I just considered possible interpretations of the original statement.
The escape through the singularity was just an after-thought I added, and wasn't directly related to the first sentence (that's why there's a new paragraph starting). But note that the other end doesn't necessarily be another universe, but could in principle also be at another place in our universe, giving you the opportunity to get back outside the horizon (or you can just get back into our universe through one or more wormholes). Ok, the stability is a problem... but I'll just assume that a yet-unknown quantum gravity effect stabilizes the Einstein-Rosen bridge!;-)
BTW, the FTL part is one of the things the makers of Star Trek obviously didn't know about when making the episode where the Enterprise got into a black hole: I don't see a reason why they should not just have fired their warp drive to escape. That would also have prevented them from making more errors in that episode:-)
Well, the GPLv3 explicitly allows to have extra permissions (indeed, LGPL is now realized through this extra permission clause). So AFAIU you can license your code under GPLv3, but give explicit extra permissions to all those extra things allowed by the GPLv2 but not by default allowed by the GPLv3.
What I don't seem to be getting is how a software license can have any effect on a hardware distributor/vendor. If they want to lock their hardware onto a particular version of the Linux kernel, how does the GPL3 stop them?
Given that the Linux kernel will likely remain GPL2ed, nothing:-)
But otherwise, the hardware manufacturers will likely deliver their hardware with the software preinstalled. Thus they will distribute the software, and thus if that software is GPL3ed, they will be bound to that license by doing so.
If they chose not to distribute the software, but have the users install the software themselves, I think they wouldn't be bound by the GPL3 (i.e. they can sell hardware which runs only certain versions of GPL3ed software, but they cannot legally ship it with the software preinstalled). IANAL however, so my understanding of this may well be completely wrong.
What if they hire an independent developer to create some anti-freedom code and release it as GPL? Who's breaching the terms of the GPL if they choose to make their hardware run only that code?
Given that the copyright holder doesn't need a license to distribute his code, they wouldn't violate anything. However AFAIU everyone else would violate their copyright by redistributing that code (because the license doesn't permit redistribution of that sort of code). Thus effectively it would have the same effect as applying a restrictive proprietary license to that code, even though at the surface it would look as if the code were free. Of course, they would have to make sure that the anti-freedom code doesn't use any existing GPL3ed code they don't own the copyright to, because otherwise they would violate the copyright of the respective copyright owner.
Only now, in addition to providing support, they have to explain why they will not support a particular version of the code.
That one's easy: "You have modified the product. The support is only for an unmodified product." After all, if someone physically modified the product (e.g. do their own rewiring, maybe adding some extra component), then you wouldn't expect them to still give support for that modified product either.
IANAL, but I'd think if you program that routing equipment to cause an illegal download, then you are legally at fault for this download happening, even if you don't store it on your computer. Your argument is just the same as if you built a bomb with a trigger, put the trigger somewhere where someone else may non-knowingly trip on it, and then when that happened you claimed that you are not guilty for the explosion because it was not you who actually triggered the bomb.
In English: once you go into one, you can never get back out if you believe that nothing can travel faster than light.
Then if I should ever get into a black hole, I better give up the believe that nothing can travel faster than light, because that believe hinders me from escaping?:-)
BTW, if the black hole rotates, maybe I can escape through the singularity, although I may end up in another universe...
If MECOs exist, then there's something wrong with the theory which says that they cannot exist If black holes exist, then there's something wrong with the theory which says that they cannot exist. However, what if there's something wrong with the theory which says they cannot both exist?
Actually, I'm not even sure it's an assertion... where's the verb?
Well, there's no noun which cannot be verbed. Since there is only one word in that comment, it must be the verb, and since "god" is usually a noun, it's a verbed noun.
Now if I only knew what you actually do when you god...:-)
Hard drives are for wimps. Real men just memorize the data and reenter it when the computer needs it. And of course the only user interface a computer needs is a single button for input and a single LED for output.
9. Refusing the blue pill after attending an Outkast concert.
Well, they found a better solution against unlicensed copies in your brain. Just remove the brain by brain surgery. They already tested the method with their executives, and they found no negative side effects.
Of course, you could use pen and paper to just write down the lyrics of a song. Therefore it's about time that a fixed payment per pen and per sheet of paper is demanded, compensating for the possible loss of income due to writing lyrics down yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, if you bend all light around you, there's no light hitting your eyes. That's BTW also the main fault of the invisibility concept in movies and stories: The people get completely invisible, but they can still see just like normal. But to see like normal, the light has to be fist bent by your eye's lense, and then absorbed by your eye's retina. Which should make at least your eyes visible quite well. Of course that's no problem with magic (magic can override all laws of nature anyway), but it's clearly a problem if the invisibility shall be achieved by a physical effect.
And this experiment will be done with a ship in Philadelphia?
Also, ever looked at the maximum value of an IEEE single precision float? It's 3.40282347e+38.
You shouldn't put your kids in front of a Sony. Maybe they get installed the mental analog to a rootkit, and then they phone home to Sony ...
Seems Microsoft's speech recognicion is just right for you
Now that you say it
That's true - but you obviously didn't get my joke: That isn't at all dependent on what I do or don't believe.
Hmmm
But yes, from a pure logical viewpoint his statement is true even if FTL travel is not possible: Since in that case escaping through the event horizon isn't possible at all, it certainly also isn't possible if you (rightly) believe that FTL travel is not possible.
Ah, and BTW, I don't believe FTL travel is possible. I just considered possible interpretations of the original statement.
The escape through the singularity was just an after-thought I added, and wasn't directly related to the first sentence (that's why there's a new paragraph starting). But note that the other end doesn't necessarily be another universe, but could in principle also be at another place in our universe, giving you the opportunity to get back outside the horizon (or you can just get back into our universe through one or more wormholes). Ok, the stability is a problem
BTW, the FTL part is one of the things the makers of Star Trek obviously didn't know about when making the episode where the Enterprise got into a black hole: I don't see a reason why they should not just have fired their warp drive to escape. That would also have prevented them from making more errors in that episode
Not if Microsoft holds that patent. I'd hate having to pay them for not using their software!
Well, the GPLv3 explicitly allows to have extra permissions (indeed, LGPL is now realized through this extra permission clause). So AFAIU you can license your code under GPLv3, but give explicit extra permissions to all those extra things allowed by the GPLv2 but not by default allowed by the GPLv3.
Given that the Linux kernel will likely remain GPL2ed, nothing
But otherwise, the hardware manufacturers will likely deliver their hardware with the software preinstalled. Thus they will distribute the software, and thus if that software is GPL3ed, they will be bound to that license by doing so.
If they chose not to distribute the software, but have the users install the software themselves, I think they wouldn't be bound by the GPL3 (i.e. they can sell hardware which runs only certain versions of GPL3ed software, but they cannot legally ship it with the software preinstalled). IANAL however, so my understanding of this may well be completely wrong.
Given that the copyright holder doesn't need a license to distribute his code, they wouldn't violate anything. However AFAIU everyone else would violate their copyright by redistributing that code (because the license doesn't permit redistribution of that sort of code). Thus effectively it would have the same effect as applying a restrictive proprietary license to that code, even though at the surface it would look as if the code were free.
Of course, they would have to make sure that the anti-freedom code doesn't use any existing GPL3ed code they don't own the copyright to, because otherwise they would violate the copyright of the respective copyright owner.
That one's easy: "You have modified the product. The support is only for an unmodified product."
After all, if someone physically modified the product (e.g. do their own rewiring, maybe adding some extra component), then you wouldn't expect them to still give support for that modified product either.
IANAL, but I'd think if you program that routing equipment to cause an illegal download, then you are legally at fault for this download happening, even if you don't store it on your computer. Your argument is just the same as if you built a bomb with a trigger, put the trigger somewhere where someone else may non-knowingly trip on it, and then when that happened you claimed that you are not guilty for the explosion because it was not you who actually triggered the bomb.
Then if I should ever get into a black hole, I better give up the believe that nothing can travel faster than light, because that believe hinders me from escaping?
BTW, if the black hole rotates, maybe I can escape through the singularity, although I may end up in another universe
If MECOs exist, then there's something wrong with the theory which says that they cannot exist
If black holes exist, then there's something wrong with the theory which says that they cannot exist.
However, what if there's something wrong with the theory which says they cannot both exist?
Well, there's no noun which cannot be verbed. Since there is only one word in that comment, it must be the verb, and since "god" is usually a noun, it's a verbed noun.
Now if I only knew what you actually do when you god
And tomorrow we will get an Ask Slashdot: "Yesterday was sysadmin day. What appreciation did you sysadmins receive?" :-)
Of course this means you can do away with the computer completely, because you can emulate it in your brain anyway.
Of course. After all, it's vitally important that users don't run any untrusted anti-malware program which might detect your trusted root kit! :-)
With the proper software, a mouse enables you to use the command line with one-handed typing!
I guess they are satisfied with having 90% of the market :-)
Hard drives are for wimps. Real men just memorize the data and reenter it when the computer needs it. And of course the only user interface a computer needs is a single button for input and a single LED for output.
But the hand position for this mouse more closely resembles the masturbation hand position than the position of your hands with normal mice!
Well, they found a better solution against unlicensed copies in your brain. Just remove the brain by brain surgery.
They already tested the method with their executives, and they found no negative side effects.
Of course, you could use pen and paper to just write down the lyrics of a song. Therefore it's about time that a fixed payment per pen and per sheet of paper is demanded, compensating for the possible loss of income due to writing lyrics down yourself.