Now that it has been determined that "fags" have you beat in every walk of life, don't you think this is the time for you to stop using that derogatory term? Perhaps he's a nondeterministic fag?
Your recent posting to the Slashdot website, dated Monday October 29, @05:45PM details a business method that is patented by the RIAA. This represents a violation of our intellectual property rights, and is prosecutable under the full terms of the DMCA. We suggest that you immediately remove this post and refrain from discussing our business practices in public places, as we are prepared to prosecute in the jurisdiction of our choosing. Furthermore, this cease and decist notice is copyrighted, and may not be posted publicly.
Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary. This statement is true, but completely irrelevant. No, actually, that statement is false (though it isn't as irrelevant as the following argument). On a small, scale a record is a bunch of atoms -- discrete particles. At this scale, the needle of the player experiences a series of discrete impulses. With an electron microscope, we could scan a record and construct a digital signal that would be more accurate than that obtained by playing the record. There are no analog recordings.
That's better than the "String Theory for Dummies" entry. It seems to be claiming that string theory is fact. It is important to distinguish theory from fact -- failure to do so makes science seem very hokey.
Truer words haven't been spoken (nor written) about the internet. After all, the company you trust today may wind up in the hands of Google tomorrow...
What are the editors thinking? How is this "very high tech"? It's a frikkin' elevator. OMG, you can put a car in it? Stop the presses! Somebody came up with a new way to get money out of rich people who like throwing money away! And it uses pulleys!
LOL. So really, when the dust all settles, the open source movement is a fricking fraud, just a substitution of one kind of proprietary economy for another.
You seem to want complete control over what people can do with your code. I thought this was about freedom?
But isn't that, in the case of open software, if you believe in it, that the community at large would benefit from both a modified version of Linux, and your own original content?
In a word, no. Absolutely not. In the case of my fictional scheduler, let's say that it only works well if it can solve TSP quickly. The community at large does NOT benefit from such garbage, as looking at it is a waste of time.
In the case of my original content, you and RMS can keep your grubby, communist meathooks off of it. I was talking about fliers for a concert -- but let's change the story -- let's say I'm an accountant, working for a large corporation. I use OpenOffice on Linux to balance their books. Are you going to tell me that RMS now owns their financial info? Bullshit. If that's the case, we've lost the support of each and every corporate contributor, and that spells the absolute and final end to the GPL.
After all, you are -distributing- that product within an organization.
OK. Read the fucking GPL, dude. Perhaps the most important part of any legal document are the definitions:
To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. We've been using the term "distribute" where the GPLv3 uses two terms, "propagate" and "convey". A "party" is defined to be a legal entity involved in an agreement. In the case of Google, the legal entity is the corporation. Thus, internal "distribution" does not count as propagation since the party in question, Google, maintains exclusive posession of their derived work. By using their website, you are interacting through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy. So they are not conveying their derived work, either.
This isn't a matter of "the letter of the GPL" vs. "the spririt of the GPL". This "issue" is handled in section 0 of the GPL in clear and plain language. Whatever personal rantings of RMS's that you've read do not apply here. That simple.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. The parent to my original post was claiming that Google was violating the GPL by using their own modified version of linux to run their web services. I contrast this to creating original content of my own, while running my own internally-distributed version of linux.
You can argue the letter of the GPL as much as you want, but, that leaves me, asking, if it is ok for you to have a closed system in your world of a proprietary web service based company, or a system closed because it enables a proprietary business practice, then why is it so wrong for me to have a closed system as someone who provides software for distribution?
This isn't a matter of "the letter" vs. "the spirit" of the GPL. What is the difference, whether Google uses a vanilla copy of Linux, or a modified version? At every company I've ever administered a server for, I've made changes to the configuration files, and typically modified all sorts of scripts. Those configuration files and scripts were shipped under the GPL! Does the fact that the company I was working for didn't redistribute my changes put them in violation of the GPL? Hell no. Now. If that same company started shipping my modified installation as a new distribution, they'd surely have to redistribute.
It pays to know: In the American legal system, a corporation is largely equivalent to a person. Let's say I'm promoting a concert my brother is putting on. So, I pop open Inkscape, and make him some fliers, and he gives me $50 for my time. Whoops! Last week, I wrote my own scheduler, because I don't think the standard one is really all that fair; and then I copied it from my desktop to my laptop. I don't plan to redistribute my kernel, since I don't want the evil evil Linus Torvalds to berate me for my insolence. Is this a violation of the GPL? From your account of Google's "violation", it would appear that it is. But you're just wrong.
No it's not. The spec is for the power supply. If you plug in two USB devices which draw 5W, the power supply will give all it can, and probably push up to 10W before it lets out the magic blue smoke, or blows a fuse, depending on the intelligence of the designers.
I've always had better eyes than just about anybody I've met -- I can generally read street signs at probably 150% the distance at which other non-glasses-wearing friends of mine can. When I was camera shopping, I bought the Kodak Z712 'cause it was the only camera in the store that could take pictures at better resolution than my naked eye. Went online, picked it up for $218. Frikkin' AWESOME.
I have prior art for this. I call it, the pencil and eraser. Oh wait. That prior art isn't mine. This is a technology at least a hundred years old. You want to select a bunch of boxen at once? You just drag the pencil accross all of them. You want to deselect? Turn the pencil over and repeat the motion! w0w!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm shocked. I mean, who'd think that people who computer games use the internet?
Mr. / Ms. Anonymous Coward,
Your recent posting to the Slashdot website, dated Monday October 29, @05:45PM details a business method that is patented by the RIAA. This represents a violation of our intellectual property rights, and is prosecutable under the full terms of the DMCA. We suggest that you immediately remove this post and refrain from discussing our business practices in public places, as we are prepared to prosecute in the jurisdiction of our choosing. Furthermore, this cease and decist notice is copyrighted, and may not be posted publicly.
Spoken like a true technohippie. I hate you people. ;)
KNOW-IT-ALL PEDANTRY ALERT!!!!!! Before it leaves your hand, it can accelerate at rates much greater than 9.8m/s^2. That was gp's point.
That's better than the "String Theory for Dummies" entry. It seems to be claiming that string theory is fact. It is important to distinguish theory from fact -- failure to do so makes science seem very hokey.
There's a relevant article in this month's Notices:
http://www.ams.org/notices/200710/tx071001279p.pdf
Specifically, the quote from the horse's mouth:
http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/WhyYouDoNotUsuallyNeedToKnowAboutInternals.html
which contradicts the principles of mathematics, and of scientific method. I can answer *any* question you ask!
Truer words haven't been spoken (nor written) about the internet. After all, the company you trust today may wind up in the hands of Google tomorrow...
No, see. A space elevator is very high tech. This thing only gets a few storeys off the ground. I can jump that. Who gives a shit?
What are the editors thinking? How is this "very high tech"? It's a frikkin' elevator. OMG, you can put a car in it? Stop the presses! Somebody came up with a new way to get money out of rich people who like throwing money away! And it uses pulleys!
LOL. So really, when the dust all settles, the open source movement is a fricking fraud, just a substitution of one kind of proprietary economy for another.
You seem to want complete control over what people can do with your code. I thought this was about freedom?
In a word, no. Absolutely not. In the case of my fictional scheduler, let's say that it only works well if it can solve TSP quickly. The community at large does NOT benefit from such garbage, as looking at it is a waste of time.
In the case of my original content, you and RMS can keep your grubby, communist meathooks off of it. I was talking about fliers for a concert -- but let's change the story -- let's say I'm an accountant, working for a large corporation. I use OpenOffice on Linux to balance their books. Are you going to tell me that RMS now owns their financial info? Bullshit. If that's the case, we've lost the support of each and every corporate contributor, and that spells the absolute and final end to the GPL.
After all, you are -distributing- that product within an organization.
OK. Read the fucking GPL, dude. Perhaps the most important part of any legal document are the definitions: To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying. We've been using the term "distribute" where the GPLv3 uses two terms, "propagate" and "convey". A "party" is defined to be a legal entity involved in an agreement. In the case of Google, the legal entity is the corporation. Thus, internal "distribution" does not count as propagation since the party in question, Google, maintains exclusive posession of their derived work. By using their website, you are interacting through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy. So they are not conveying their derived work, either.
This isn't a matter of "the letter of the GPL" vs. "the spririt of the GPL". This "issue" is handled in section 0 of the GPL in clear and plain language. Whatever personal rantings of RMS's that you've read do not apply here. That simple.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. The parent to my original post was claiming that Google was violating the GPL by using their own modified version of linux to run their web services. I contrast this to creating original content of my own, while running my own internally-distributed version of linux.
You can argue the letter of the GPL as much as you want, but, that leaves me, asking, if it is ok for you to have a closed system in your world of a proprietary web service based company, or a system closed because it enables a proprietary business practice, then why is it so wrong for me to have a closed system as someone who provides software for distribution?
This isn't a matter of "the letter" vs. "the spirit" of the GPL. What is the difference, whether Google uses a vanilla copy of Linux, or a modified version? At every company I've ever administered a server for, I've made changes to the configuration files, and typically modified all sorts of scripts. Those configuration files and scripts were shipped under the GPL! Does the fact that the company I was working for didn't redistribute my changes put them in violation of the GPL? Hell no. Now. If that same company started shipping my modified installation as a new distribution, they'd surely have to redistribute.
It pays to know: In the American legal system, a corporation is largely equivalent to a person. Let's say I'm promoting a concert my brother is putting on. So, I pop open Inkscape, and make him some fliers, and he gives me $50 for my time. Whoops! Last week, I wrote my own scheduler, because I don't think the standard one is really all that fair; and then I copied it from my desktop to my laptop. I don't plan to redistribute my kernel, since I don't want the evil evil Linus Torvalds to berate me for my insolence. Is this a violation of the GPL? From your account of Google's "violation", it would appear that it is. But you're just wrong.
No it's not. The spec is for the power supply. If you plug in two USB devices which draw 5W, the power supply will give all it can, and probably push up to 10W before it lets out the magic blue smoke, or blows a fuse, depending on the intelligence of the designers.
Prepositions are totally fine to end sentences with.
That's what they want you to think!
I've always had better eyes than just about anybody I've met -- I can generally read street signs at probably 150% the distance at which other non-glasses-wearing friends of mine can. When I was camera shopping, I bought the Kodak Z712 'cause it was the only camera in the store that could take pictures at better resolution than my naked eye. Went online, picked it up for $218. Frikkin' AWESOME.
Who cares? I think this clearly calls for the pouring of hot grits.
This entire body of ridiculous nonsense seems to hinge on assumption that there will be no computers in space. What the hell is wrong with you people?
Meh. One man's security is another man's insecurity.
Or is it all just a ruse, to lull you into a false sense of security?
Damn! I just finished preparing my patent for "Usage of Computer as Human Waste Receptical", and you're telling me that there's prior art?
I have prior art for this. I call it, the pencil and eraser. Oh wait. That prior art isn't mine. This is a technology at least a hundred years old. You want to select a bunch of boxen at once? You just drag the pencil accross all of them. You want to deselect? Turn the pencil over and repeat the motion! w0w!!!