First off, he's not a random nobody. You're most likely to have heard of him in "Dijkstra's Algorithm" for finding the shortest path between two points, though the invention of semaphores and other important constructs for parallel programming are what he is really known for.
Second, his comment was made about the really old varieties of BASIC which were toy languages and required line numbers and everything. I remember reading somewhere that Professor Dijkstra retracted that comment with respect to more modern BASIC languages.
Having read whitepapers from both Google and MS, I can tell you that at least from what I read, the MS ones are of much lower quality. Many of MS's "innovations" were simple hacks described with pages and pages of fancy wording.
Not that I have any desire to defend the religious argument, but another interpretation of those stats is that modern weapons are better at injuring a large number of people without necessarily killing them.
Given that the OP didn't write "doumo" in the first place, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was using a romanization with the vowel elogations dropped, and I followed suit.
I'm very anxious to see how Mozilla does in Japan. I was working at a software company there for a while, and we made some stuff that would work fine in netscape and opera, but glitched in IE, and my coworker basically told me that MS dominated 99% of the market in Japan, and there there basically were no competitors either in the OS or the Web market.
Many companies have policies fobiding their employees from commenting on public discussion boards about their company or products. It would not surprise me if Google had this.
If no one has gotten a copy of it yet, then they can re-license the code however they want and no one would be the wiser.
This is actually an unfortunate misconception about the GPL. By releasing code under the GPL, you are by no means giving up your ownership over the copyright under that code. As the owner of the copyright, you're welcome to do anything you want with it, including licensing it under any other license you see fit, and MySQL does just this. They offer MySQL under two separate licenses, one GPL, one not, and you can pick which one you want to use.
Once they've released code under the GPL, it is always under the GPL. But, because they are the original copyright holders, they may also release it under any other licenses as they see fit (and in this case, MySQL does just that). They could also make a newer version using the old code and not release it under the GPL, since again, they are they copyright holder.
Where this gets dicey, though, is if MySQL contains any code which is owned by someone else. For example, if I make an improvement to MySQL, and they incorporate it into a newer version, they could not release it under any license other than the GPL without my approval, unless they were to remove my code. Strange quirks like this are one of the reasons why the FSF asks people to give the copyright of code over to them rather than to have all of the individual programmers retain copyright.
Aside from that being a little unenforcable, it seems to be of somewhat questionable legality. The reason the GPL is rock-solid as a license is that it only kicks in if you try to redistribute. Under normal copyright doctrine, once you own the thing, you can do whatever you want with it, so long as you don't redistribute it. You only need the license to redistribute or make derivative works. The GPL does not remove any rights you would not normally have.
What you talk about sounds like it removes rights that I would normally have as a consumer. If I purchase a book, I can write in the margins without any reprecussions. The RPL sounds like it's on as questionable footing as EULAs.
Then again, I've never looked at the RPL closely, so I could be way off base.
Re:If it's been so "overcautious"...
on
Spectrum as Property
·
· Score: 4, Informative
then why do I hear two different radio stations on the same frequency so often?
Because current transmitters and radios are using the spectrum inefficiently. With smarter transmitters and smarter receivers we could much more effectively filter out different signals and use much less of the spectrum per broadcast. Or so the article argues.
Re:A must read for everyone interested in spectrum
on
Spectrum as Property
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I belive the point the grandparent is trying to make is that it would be a much better system if we build more intelligence into the endpoints of the system (better transmitters, receivers), since in this case we obviously can't change the medium.
When the tech market first started tanking, we saw a 33% decline in enrollment in CS classes here at Stanford, if I remember my numbers correctly. What this tells me is that at least 1 in 3 people were taking CS just for the money. I've gotta say, if you like CS, it can be a really fun thing to do, but if you don't like it, I'd imagine it would be some of the worst drudgery. And frankly, people who don't like CS don't do very well in it anyway. While numbers of CS majors may go down, I believe this causes quality of code and quality of life to go up.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, this is not true. MS is very careful to add a clause to their contrac stipulating that is to be enforced by the courts in WA.
Second, his comment was made about the really old varieties of BASIC which were toy languages and required line numbers and everything. I remember reading somewhere that Professor Dijkstra retracted that comment with respect to more modern BASIC languages.
Wow, your name is no lie, you certaintly are a "Feces Flinging Rhesus".
Having read whitepapers from both Google and MS, I can tell you that at least from what I read, the MS ones are of much lower quality. Many of MS's "innovations" were simple hacks described with pages and pages of fancy wording.
Just make sure you send them with enough telephone sanitizers!
We here at Zzz's Casino guarantee no interuption to our service due to DDoS attacks.
Not that I have any desire to defend the religious argument, but another interpretation of those stats is that modern weapons are better at injuring a large number of people without necessarily killing them.
I think the full quote is "Math is hard. Let's go shopping!"
Software which you *already* own through your purchase *before* clicking the EULA.
I literally laugh at Lucas and his employees and it has nothing to do with pirating!
Given that the OP didn't write "doumo" in the first place, I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was using a romanization with the vowel elogations dropped, and I followed suit.
Not to be picky, but it's arigato, and it's one word.
I'm very anxious to see how Mozilla does in Japan. I was working at a software company there for a while, and we made some stuff that would work fine in netscape and opera, but glitched in IE, and my coworker basically told me that MS dominated 99% of the market in Japan, and there there basically were no competitors either in the OS or the Web market.
Many companies have policies fobiding their employees from commenting on public discussion boards about their company or products. It would not surprise me if Google had this.
Sorry, I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I believe we are in agreement, then. =)
This is actually an unfortunate misconception about the GPL. By releasing code under the GPL, you are by no means giving up your ownership over the copyright under that code. As the owner of the copyright, you're welcome to do anything you want with it, including licensing it under any other license you see fit, and MySQL does just this. They offer MySQL under two separate licenses, one GPL, one not, and you can pick which one you want to use.
Where this gets dicey, though, is if MySQL contains any code which is owned by someone else. For example, if I make an improvement to MySQL, and they incorporate it into a newer version, they could not release it under any license other than the GPL without my approval, unless they were to remove my code. Strange quirks like this are one of the reasons why the FSF asks people to give the copyright of code over to them rather than to have all of the individual programmers retain copyright.
What you talk about sounds like it removes rights that I would normally have as a consumer. If I purchase a book, I can write in the margins without any reprecussions. The RPL sounds like it's on as questionable footing as EULAs.
Then again, I've never looked at the RPL closely, so I could be way off base.
Because current transmitters and radios are using the spectrum inefficiently. With smarter transmitters and smarter receivers we could much more effectively filter out different signals and use much less of the spectrum per broadcast. Or so the article argues.
I belive the point the grandparent is trying to make is that it would be a much better system if we build more intelligence into the endpoints of the system (better transmitters, receivers), since in this case we obviously can't change the medium.
Oh, I had completely forgotten about that. Boy, I hope the current copyright "curriculum" for students is that lame!
You know it's only a small step from writing a network stack to putting bombs on busses!
For a second, when I read the title, I thought it meant the BSA was asking children to rat on their friends... Glad to hear it's just brainwashing!
When the tech market first started tanking, we saw a 33% decline in enrollment in CS classes here at Stanford, if I remember my numbers correctly. What this tells me is that at least 1 in 3 people were taking CS just for the money. I've gotta say, if you like CS, it can be a really fun thing to do, but if you don't like it, I'd imagine it would be some of the worst drudgery. And frankly, people who don't like CS don't do very well in it anyway. While numbers of CS majors may go down, I believe this causes quality of code and quality of life to go up.
http://www.realultimatepower.net/