It depends what your goals are as well. In academic releases, I see two main drivers of the choice:
1. BSD/MIT-style if your #1 goal is to get your code used as widely as possible. Maybe you have a strong personal belief that some method should be widely adopted; maybe you hope to benefit from the publicity of saying "as seen in Excel 2015!" about one of your methods; maybe you just consider it not worth putting any restrictions on; or various other reasons. Lots of examples of these.
2. GPL-style if you don't want Excel or Matlab to be able to incorporate your code without negotiating a separate license. This is often chosen when the goal is to do a split commercial/open-source release, with the hopes that Microsoft et al will pay for commercial licenses, while free-software projects are allowed to use the code freely. This is sometimes promoted as an alternative to another license commonly used in academia for that purpose, "free for non-commercial use" (and variants like "free for research/educational use"), which is not a free-software license. An example is the Stanford Parser and related NLP tools.
3. LGPL-style if you have a large enough piece of software to constitute a nontrivial library, and are okay with it being incorporated into major commercial software without a separately negotiated license, but are worried about proprietary extensions not being shared back with the original project. An example is the Waffles machine-learning library.
If you drag from the.dmg volumes that OSX apps are typically distributed in to the dock, though, the dock icon will point to the app inside of the.dmg, and the link will stop working if you ever unmount the volume.
Otoh, many Mac apps are distributed as disk images, where you simply drag them from the image to your drive, and that's it.
Yeah, but the typical place you want to drag them to, at least to take advantage of the normal OSX UI, is the/Applications folder, which isn't writable by non-admin users by default.
Are we reading the same Slashdot? People around here love rich technologists whenever they do anything that the Slashdot crowd considers good/interesting/cool. Kim Dotcom is hardly the only rich person to get plaudits; people can't fall over themselves fast enough with praise whenever John Carmack is mentioned, and Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX) has a large fanbase as well.
It definitely makes it an easy decision for anyone not already in contact with organized crime, anyway. If you don't already know who to talk to, the odds that you can find someone to pay you money substantially topping $20-60k for an exploit without it being a cop or a fraudster are pretty low. You might find some random local spammer to pay you a few $k, but the people who would pay you $100k+ for an exploit aren't just hanging around everywhere.
The U.S. inflation rate is about 2%, so it makes a fairly small difference either way. Corrected for inflation, we're talking about a cut from $17.78 billion rather than $17.75 billion to $17.7 billion.
That might be the case if we're talking about Norway, but the U.S. safety net system is a pretty shitty hammock. Someone living on welfare is doing well if they can scrape together enough to: 1) live; and 2) maintain things like "a working automobile", which in most of the U.S. is a prerequisite to ever finding a job.
The downside is that Newt would also spend trillions on war. In the actual event, the space-travel funding would probably be cut to pay for invading Iran or something.
NASA's budget was left close to intact, at $17.7 billion, down from about $17.75 billion this year. The main change wasn't overall funding for NASA, but reallocating where the money is spent within NASA.
What kind of computer system were they using in 1991? By 1991 it wasn't very common anymore for users of email, Usenet, or FidoNet to do everything in all caps.
They are indeed extremely lame-looking patents, even by the usual standards of patent lameness. Several of them are an attempt to patent early-20th-century button/knob technology, and several others are an attempt to patent standard 1930s-50s control theory. Oh, except with the phrase "used in a thermostat" or "in an HVAC system" added, which makes it totally novel.
One of the patents is for this earthshattering invention: a system that can change from an initial temperature to a second temperature, while indicating on a display an ETA for reaching the target temperature.
Another one is for this: a display with a circular housing over it, where rotating the housing, by means of a potentiometer to which it is attached, changes an HVAC system parameter.
And yet another one is this: a display that asks a user questions in natural language, displays a menu of possible responses (such as "yes" and "no") among which the user may select, and then adjusts an HVAC system's configuration as a result of the user's response.
That's not the distinguishing feature; companies that provide for-pay internet services, unlike the phone company, can snoop on and resell your data as well, because the various telecommunication laws that prevent AT&T from doing so don't apply to online services. There's no real distinction between free and for-pay online services in terms of what the law allows them to do with your data.
I do think it's a widespread ethical view that these utility-like services shouldn't use the information for their own gain. In the phone era, that was formalized with fairly detailed rules; AT&T couldn't just randomly listen in on your phone calls and use it to sell advertising profiles to mail-order catalogues. In the internet era technology is moving faster than people/law can keep up with.
Oddly enough, he's less famous for some things about politics he did actually say, which are widely used, but less widely remembered as originating with Bismarck:
"Politics is not an exact science."
"Politics is the art of the possible."
He's also the source of the prediction: "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans."
There was another minor opportunity to stem the tide with some federalist arguments about medical marijuana: people growing their own marijuana, legal under state law, noncommercially, for private use on the premises, argued that this could not possibly be "interstate commerce", but Antonin Scalia of all people wrote an opinion arguing that it was. So you can add "the drug war" as the 3rd wave of things...
Some models do have some kind of nuclear-reactor thing going on at the very center, but it's indeed not right to present it as some kind of fact, when it's greatly disputed what might be there (and our evidence is very circumstantial). As far as I can trace it, the proposal for a "nuclear georeactor" in a sub-core of the inner core is due to J.M. Herndon, who proposed it in 1996, and has since developed the idea in various other papers. I don't think it's anywhere near consensus, though.
I'd say it's closer to 1880s-1890s American "company towns", like mining encampments where the mining company owned all the housing and the local store. I agree it's not good, but there are not-good historical parallels that don't require hyperbole.
In many cases the alternative is worse than that, thanks to corrupt local governments: lots of farmers are being displaced without the compensation they're supposed to get (in favor of well-connected developers) and essentially end up penniless refugees in the city, where they don't have a lot of choice but to take the first job that comes along.
Apple also has an image/style and a customer demographic that cares about that image. Lots of PC manufacturers have an image vaguely like Wal-Mart: boring, boxy, of mediocre quality. Those kinds of companies are much less hurt by allegations like this than Apple, because it's already widely suspected that they're selling what amounts to a rebadged whitebox product that emerged from some Chinese factory in some complex, undisclosed manner. Apple, meanwhile, is supposed to be premium and hip!
Sort of how Starbucks has felt a lot more pressured over fair-trade type stuff than, say, McDonalds has, even though McDonalds sells about as much coffee.
Leaving aside probable bad judgment on the security team's part in not informing management, doesn't a company like Verisign have standardized/mandatory issue tracking policies in place so it wouldn't even be a question of judgment on a team's part to inform management? Management should have a system in place to make sure they know what's going on security-wise in a business whose entire selling point is security.
Yeah, there's been dozens of people who've noticed that the university lecture is a really poor way of conveying information, which maybe suited a bunch of philosophy students gathering to hear Hegel hold forth at length, but not much else. But, nobody has come up with a way of doing it better that fits existing economic/institutional constraints. More interactive classes require higher teacher:student ratios and better teachers (uni professors' incentives don't favor good teaching, since they're judged approximately 5-15% on teaching, 85-95% on research), and are more difficult to plan. I still think Seymour Papert was at least partly on the right track.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends what your goals are as well. In academic releases, I see two main drivers of the choice:
1. BSD/MIT-style if your #1 goal is to get your code used as widely as possible. Maybe you have a strong personal belief that some method should be widely adopted; maybe you hope to benefit from the publicity of saying "as seen in Excel 2015!" about one of your methods; maybe you just consider it not worth putting any restrictions on; or various other reasons. Lots of examples of these.
2. GPL-style if you don't want Excel or Matlab to be able to incorporate your code without negotiating a separate license. This is often chosen when the goal is to do a split commercial/open-source release, with the hopes that Microsoft et al will pay for commercial licenses, while free-software projects are allowed to use the code freely. This is sometimes promoted as an alternative to another license commonly used in academia for that purpose, "free for non-commercial use" (and variants like "free for research/educational use"), which is not a free-software license. An example is the Stanford Parser and related NLP tools.
3. LGPL-style if you have a large enough piece of software to constitute a nontrivial library, and are okay with it being incorporated into major commercial software without a separately negotiated license, but are worried about proprietary extensions not being shared back with the original project. An example is the Waffles machine-learning library.
If you drag from the .dmg volumes that OSX apps are typically distributed in to the dock, though, the dock icon will point to the app inside of the .dmg, and the link will stop working if you ever unmount the volume.
Yeah, but the typical place you want to drag them to, at least to take advantage of the normal OSX UI, is the /Applications folder, which isn't writable by non-admin users by default.
Are we reading the same Slashdot? People around here love rich technologists whenever they do anything that the Slashdot crowd considers good/interesting/cool. Kim Dotcom is hardly the only rich person to get plaudits; people can't fall over themselves fast enough with praise whenever John Carmack is mentioned, and Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX) has a large fanbase as well.
It definitely makes it an easy decision for anyone not already in contact with organized crime, anyway. If you don't already know who to talk to, the odds that you can find someone to pay you money substantially topping $20-60k for an exploit without it being a cop or a fraudster are pretty low. You might find some random local spammer to pay you a few $k, but the people who would pay you $100k+ for an exploit aren't just hanging around everywhere.
Oops, I shifted some decimals, so it's actually slightly more significant, though still small: $18.1 to 17.7 billion inflation-adjusted.
The U.S. inflation rate is about 2%, so it makes a fairly small difference either way. Corrected for inflation, we're talking about a cut from $17.78 billion rather than $17.75 billion to $17.7 billion.
That might be the case if we're talking about Norway, but the U.S. safety net system is a pretty shitty hammock. Someone living on welfare is doing well if they can scrape together enough to: 1) live; and 2) maintain things like "a working automobile", which in most of the U.S. is a prerequisite to ever finding a job.
The downside is that Newt would also spend trillions on war. In the actual event, the space-travel funding would probably be cut to pay for invading Iran or something.
NASA's budget was left close to intact, at $17.7 billion, down from about $17.75 billion this year. The main change wasn't overall funding for NASA, but reallocating where the money is spent within NASA.
What kind of computer system were they using in 1991? By 1991 it wasn't very common anymore for users of email, Usenet, or FidoNet to do everything in all caps.
Newest Generation of Consumer Electronics Item Uses More Energy Than Previous Generation Did
They are indeed extremely lame-looking patents, even by the usual standards of patent lameness. Several of them are an attempt to patent early-20th-century button/knob technology, and several others are an attempt to patent standard 1930s-50s control theory. Oh, except with the phrase "used in a thermostat" or "in an HVAC system" added, which makes it totally novel.
One of the patents is for this earthshattering invention: a system that can change from an initial temperature to a second temperature, while indicating on a display an ETA for reaching the target temperature.
Another one is for this: a display with a circular housing over it, where rotating the housing, by means of a potentiometer to which it is attached, changes an HVAC system parameter.
And yet another one is this: a display that asks a user questions in natural language, displays a menu of possible responses (such as "yes" and "no") among which the user may select, and then adjusts an HVAC system's configuration as a result of the user's response.
If your leg runs Kubuntu, you might have other problems.
That's not the distinguishing feature; companies that provide for-pay internet services, unlike the phone company, can snoop on and resell your data as well, because the various telecommunication laws that prevent AT&T from doing so don't apply to online services. There's no real distinction between free and for-pay online services in terms of what the law allows them to do with your data.
I do think it's a widespread ethical view that these utility-like services shouldn't use the information for their own gain. In the phone era, that was formalized with fairly detailed rules; AT&T couldn't just randomly listen in on your phone calls and use it to sell advertising profiles to mail-order catalogues. In the internet era technology is moving faster than people/law can keep up with.
Oddly enough, he's less famous for some things about politics he did actually say, which are widely used, but less widely remembered as originating with Bismarck:
"Politics is not an exact science."
"Politics is the art of the possible."
He's also the source of the prediction: "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans."
There was another minor opportunity to stem the tide with some federalist arguments about medical marijuana: people growing their own marijuana, legal under state law, noncommercially, for private use on the premises, argued that this could not possibly be "interstate commerce", but Antonin Scalia of all people wrote an opinion arguing that it was. So you can add "the drug war" as the 3rd wave of things...
Some models do have some kind of nuclear-reactor thing going on at the very center, but it's indeed not right to present it as some kind of fact, when it's greatly disputed what might be there (and our evidence is very circumstantial). As far as I can trace it, the proposal for a "nuclear georeactor" in a sub-core of the inner core is due to J.M. Herndon, who proposed it in 1996, and has since developed the idea in various other papers. I don't think it's anywhere near consensus, though.
I'd say it's closer to 1880s-1890s American "company towns", like mining encampments where the mining company owned all the housing and the local store. I agree it's not good, but there are not-good historical parallels that don't require hyperbole.
In many cases the alternative is worse than that, thanks to corrupt local governments: lots of farmers are being displaced without the compensation they're supposed to get (in favor of well-connected developers) and essentially end up penniless refugees in the city, where they don't have a lot of choice but to take the first job that comes along.
Apple also has an image/style and a customer demographic that cares about that image. Lots of PC manufacturers have an image vaguely like Wal-Mart: boring, boxy, of mediocre quality. Those kinds of companies are much less hurt by allegations like this than Apple, because it's already widely suspected that they're selling what amounts to a rebadged whitebox product that emerged from some Chinese factory in some complex, undisclosed manner. Apple, meanwhile, is supposed to be premium and hip!
Sort of how Starbucks has felt a lot more pressured over fair-trade type stuff than, say, McDonalds has, even though McDonalds sells about as much coffee.
From 2007 on YouTube, here is a video. Low-res, admittedly.
Leaving aside probable bad judgment on the security team's part in not informing management, doesn't a company like Verisign have standardized/mandatory issue tracking policies in place so it wouldn't even be a question of judgment on a team's part to inform management? Management should have a system in place to make sure they know what's going on security-wise in a business whose entire selling point is security.
Yeah, there's been dozens of people who've noticed that the university lecture is a really poor way of conveying information, which maybe suited a bunch of philosophy students gathering to hear Hegel hold forth at length, but not much else. But, nobody has come up with a way of doing it better that fits existing economic/institutional constraints. More interactive classes require higher teacher:student ratios and better teachers (uni professors' incentives don't favor good teaching, since they're judged approximately 5-15% on teaching, 85-95% on research), and are more difficult to plan. I still think Seymour Papert was at least partly on the right track.