"But with an acknowledgement of global warming but no plan to combat it, no centralized focus on greener technologies including renewable energy, increasing poverty, stupidly fast industrialization of nations that sustain world-majority populations, and wars still being fought based on religion - where can anyone expect to be in 50 years?"
Well, 50 years ago almost nobody would have seen any problem on what you pointed (well a few people would have seen a problem on icreasing poverty). Maybe on the next 50 years we start fighting them.
"I'm not sure technology will be able to deal with the scarcity issues that quickly."
Quick is exactly how technology improves. Your population expectations are apart 100 year from now, look at the past and see how much technology has improved on the last 100 years. Now think that stuff will move several times faster on the future...
That is not user proficience. Most social engenerring atacks that happen on Windows make use of flaws on the user interface. Windows apps are too easy to execute (even more if you are running Outlook or IE), the OS sonegates information, it display too much pop-ups, and so on.
The fact that it is so easy to fool Windows users is not completely the users falt.
Well, those tutorials are execelent. You can't just say they aren't documentation. Also, to export an image as JPEG, export it with the name "something.jpeg" (but I can't see why you would want a jpeg out of your drawing). I never tested TIFF.
I won't arguee about CMYK suppot, bvecause I don't really know how that is implemented, but you'd better not expect Pantone suppot from any piece of free software, because Pantone palletes are IP of Pantone.
If you have any big piece of software, it already brakes lots of patents. There is no need from some nefarious individual to put bad code on it. At least, the anonymous development would protect the developpers.
But that isn't the biggest problem. What we need to solve is how to protect the USERS.
Is there so much random noise out there? I mean, there is dark radiation at 3k, and there is some emission from sky bodies. None of those seem random to me.
I guess that the hardest task while detecting an alien transmission on a modern pattern would be telling it apart from human transmissions. But there may be a way to do that.
Ok, let's go... Are you sure you must be calling people uninformed?
1- The law explicitly bans "unauthorized P2P". Authorized P2P, despite the submitter's misleading assertions, is not concerned.
So, the law makes it illegal to do something already illegal... I can see why Congress toke the time to create it... And the GP is concerned about automatic banishment of "unautorized" P2P, how do you thing that will be enforced? Yea, right, companies will have the right to distribute stuff, people will not.
2- The blank levy is not a compensation for massive, indiscriminate filesharing on P2P networks. Rather, it is a compensation for the (perfectly legal) private, physical copying and sharing of copyrighted works, within the circle of family and close friends, and in low numbers, which I understand is definitely allowed in Spain. France and Canada have a similar scheme.
So it is a compensation for something legal? And because of this it is not a private tax?!
AS I said, IANAL. But the GPL is very clear on that one. At the ways you can be compilant there is:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, if it is noncomercial, you must only need to give people the intructions you received to download the code (subsection b is an offer to get the code or someplace to download it, opposed from subsection a that is to give it with the binaries). Most of people here are talking about commercial distribution, so that section doesn't apply to them.
About the other stuf... Well, I don't know exactly what does it means that the server is under your control (in fact the wording at GPL is not this, this is my interpretation), but I guess that it means that the owner agrees to let you use it. And if your friend stopped letting you use his server, you'd be breaking the GPL. That is not so bad, you can still use another server, or send the code by mail, or any other way you can. If you don't stop distributing the source, you'd be compilant.
And losing documents can create a huge variety of problems. There is a variety of documents that you must keep anyway (like taxes recipes), even without doing any comercial transaction. You shouldn't worry that much about abandoned GPLed code, that would probably never let you into court. And if your code is free, you could get it from your clients also.
No (I don't have to put copies of the application source on the common Marathon-mod sites as well).
Why not?
Because the GPL doesn't say that you must distribute the source with every coppy. It just says that you must make it available. Putting a notice on your program that tell where you can download the source from is ok (it must be from some place that you control if you make commercial use of the software).
And what if [I lost the source and] they're unavailable now? Or what if they go offline before I ask them for a copy of the source... am I now forbidden from distributing what I've got? Are they now in trouble for distributing a binary without the code being available?
Well, if you lost the source, and can't get it again, you can't distribute. All the code that you distributed without the source for the last 3 years is also ilegal, althougt it is hard that you get in trouble for that.
Bit if the program you are using is available at SourceForge, like you said, you shouldn't worry about it going away. It will stay published, every version of it will.
I couldn't* modify it if wanted too. I haven't even seen the source. I don't know where to get it beyond "from SourceForge" somehow. I just downloaded the binary and put it, unmodified, in a folder with my stuff.... So why must I be responsible for passing on code I've never seen and don't care to see, any more than the sites that host my files would be?
Well, "from SourceForge" is some quite apropriate description of how to get the source if they gave you the link to their project. You don't need to do something better on your project (see the first question). You can't really claim that the source is not available to you, because it is.
Now, if you are selling their program bundled with your... you are selling their program. So you are responsible for it. If you are not commercialy redistributing their program, you don't need to redistribute the source, just point to their repository.
Their having a shrinking income, increasing expenses with courts and probably bribery and some serious competiton now. Also, their stock options aren't as good as they used to be... Now they will probably have to pay real money to the employees.
And Microsft have a hell of an obscure accounting. I don't trust their results that much.
If you can call that a so-so performance... I've called it a disaster several times:)
But, anyway, this post it to say that Brazil was using computers to input strategies and position better the players at 2002 (not exctly the same way). I don't know if they still do that, sice it is another coach, but it is not that new.
"Oh, and trash the UML! Simultaneously with writing terrible software, everyone was on some sort of UML pilgramage to Software Engineer Paradise somewhere. Barf!"
Please, if you want to trash something, trash the conventional software engeneering. UML is just a language (a graphical one), and a very useful and powerful language. You can trash the metodologies, but UML has nothing to do with them.
It is an answer, and the right one. Dalai Lama's one is also an answer (WTF is "response"? I really thought it meant "answer".), but an uninformed one.
The only reasonable annswer to a question like "what would you do if 1 + 1 turned into 3?" is "Duh!".
YOU (the US, I guess you are american) emmit 1/3 of all the carbon the humanity puts at the atmosfere. Alone.
Why do you say that it would be better to lower the emission of the third world? You get to the point of saying that it would be more effective!!!!
And what is that low emission thechnology that you say the first world have? Last time I saw, most of it was done on a few countries, lots of them of the third world... The US (biggest representative) can't even stop driving SUVs.
I completely agree: We shouldn't act until we know better what is happening with the weather...
Now, if you people stopped acting on the direction of completely change Earth's atmosphere, It would surely be saffer... Or you definition of "acting" is "changing nothing"?
"You want respect (and that's what this is all about, right?), you need to:
1. Give it.
2. Earn it."
Bullshit! Those people that don't "respect" him are stealing his (and our) money, his (and our) freedom, and maybe even his (and our) future. There is no way he will gain "respect" acting by the rules and convince them to give away all those benefits. The only way to get "respect" is to take it by force (not exactly physical force).
That said, how RMS is dressed makes really no difference on the context.
So you miss some wealth that didn't exist. That is a flaw of you accounting of wealth (a well known and belived to be unavoidable flaw, but still a flaw), not a problem of reducing the price of the products.
What is this "self awareness" stuff you keep talking about? The parent is clearly talking about the utility function, I guess "self awareness"isn't that. The GP didn't care to define it better...
Really, if we don't define what "self awareness" is, we'll be lost arguing about useless stuff, like if it is usefull, and if it does exist. And won't come to any conclusion.
Will the need of building stuf go away? If so, you lose jobs, if not, you don't (hint, with free software, it doesn't go away).
And people overate a lot the external trade. It is not that benefical to the economy (being out of balance is bad, but improving external at the expense of internal trade is worse).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, 50 years ago almost nobody would have seen any problem on what you pointed (well a few people would have seen a problem on icreasing poverty). Maybe on the next 50 years we start fighting them.
Quick is exactly how technology improves. Your population expectations are apart 100 year from now, look at the past and see how much technology has improved on the last 100 years. Now think that stuff will move several times faster on the future...
That is not user proficience. Most social engenerring atacks that happen on Windows make use of flaws on the user interface. Windows apps are too easy to execute (even more if you are running Outlook or IE), the OS sonegates information, it display too much pop-ups, and so on.
The fact that it is so easy to fool Windows users is not completely the users falt.
Well, those tutorials are execelent. You can't just say they aren't documentation. Also, to export an image as JPEG, export it with the name "something.jpeg" (but I can't see why you would want a jpeg out of your drawing). I never tested TIFF.
I won't arguee about CMYK suppot, bvecause I don't really know how that is implemented, but you'd better not expect Pantone suppot from any piece of free software, because Pantone palletes are IP of Pantone.
If you have any big piece of software, it already brakes lots of patents. There is no need from some nefarious individual to put bad code on it. At least, the anonymous development would protect the developpers.
But that isn't the biggest problem. What we need to solve is how to protect the USERS.
People will find a hack to Windows. Almost nobody will go with the other options.
But they will never trust MS again (yes, lots do trust now). That make it much easier to switch.
Is there so much random noise out there? I mean, there is dark radiation at 3k, and there is some emission from sky bodies. None of those seem random to me.
I guess that the hardest task while detecting an alien transmission on a modern pattern would be telling it apart from human transmissions. But there may be a way to do that.
Ok, let's go... Are you sure you must be calling people uninformed?
So, the law makes it illegal to do something already illegal... I can see why Congress toke the time to create it... And the GP is concerned about automatic banishment of "unautorized" P2P, how do you thing that will be enforced? Yea, right, companies will have the right to distribute stuff, people will not.
So it is a compensation for something legal? And because of this it is not a private tax?!
AS I said, IANAL. But the GPL is very clear on that one. At the ways you can be compilant there is:
So, if it is noncomercial, you must only need to give people the intructions you received to download the code (subsection b is an offer to get the code or someplace to download it, opposed from subsection a that is to give it with the binaries). Most of people here are talking about commercial distribution, so that section doesn't apply to them.
About the other stuf... Well, I don't know exactly what does it means that the server is under your control (in fact the wording at GPL is not this, this is my interpretation), but I guess that it means that the owner agrees to let you use it. And if your friend stopped letting you use his server, you'd be breaking the GPL. That is not so bad, you can still use another server, or send the code by mail, or any other way you can. If you don't stop distributing the source, you'd be compilant.
And losing documents can create a huge variety of problems. There is a variety of documents that you must keep anyway (like taxes recipes), even without doing any comercial transaction. You shouldn't worry that much about abandoned GPLed code, that would probably never let you into court. And if your code is free, you could get it from your clients also.
Because the GPL doesn't say that you must distribute the source with every coppy. It just says that you must make it available. Putting a notice on your program that tell where you can download the source from is ok (it must be from some place that you control if you make commercial use of the software).
Well, if you lost the source, and can't get it again, you can't distribute. All the code that you distributed without the source for the last 3 years is also ilegal, althougt it is hard that you get in trouble for that.
Bit if the program you are using is available at SourceForge, like you said, you shouldn't worry about it going away. It will stay published, every version of it will.
Well, "from SourceForge" is some quite apropriate description of how to get the source if they gave you the link to their project. You don't need to do something better on your project (see the first question). You can't really claim that the source is not available to you, because it is.
Now, if you are selling their program bundled with your... you are selling their program. So you are responsible for it. If you are not commercialy redistributing their program, you don't need to redistribute the source, just point to their repository.
By the way, IANAL.
13 years would be more accurate. WinFS's first "release" (that I remember of) was on Cairo, by 1993...
Their having a shrinking income, increasing expenses with courts and probably bribery and some serious competiton now. Also, their stock options aren't as good as they used to be... Now they will probably have to pay real money to the employees.
And Microsft have a hell of an obscure accounting. I don't trust their results that much.
If you can call that a so-so performance... I've called it a disaster several times :)
But, anyway, this post it to say that Brazil was using computers to input strategies and position better the players at 2002 (not exctly the same way). I don't know if they still do that, sice it is another coach, but it is not that new.
Please, if you want to trash something, trash the conventional software engeneering. UML is just a language (a graphical one), and a very useful and powerful language. You can trash the metodologies, but UML has nothing to do with them.
It is an answer, and the right one. Dalai Lama's one is also an answer (WTF is "response"? I really thought it meant "answer".), but an uninformed one.
The only reasonable annswer to a question like "what would you do if 1 + 1 turned into 3?" is "Duh!".
YOU (the US, I guess you are american) emmit 1/3 of all the carbon the humanity puts at the atmosfere. Alone.
Why do you say that it would be better to lower the emission of the third world? You get to the point of saying that it would be more effective!!!!
And what is that low emission thechnology that you say the first world have? Last time I saw, most of it was done on a few countries, lots of them of the third world... The US (biggest representative) can't even stop driving SUVs.
I completely agree: We shouldn't act until we know better what is happening with the weather...
Now, if you people stopped acting on the direction of completely change Earth's atmosphere, It would surely be saffer... Or you definition of "acting" is "changing nothing"?
At least at the US, OSI owns the trademark on "Open Source", so they can tell who can use the name and who can't.
You know, RMS didn't spent his entire life fighting "root-square means".
And we can be sure that the person who proposed this acronym (the one you use) didn't spent endless hours thinking on how to make RMS sound stupid.
Maybe, in a perfect world, an governor should listen so someone representing more than a hundred thousand of their citizens...
Now we know that this one isn't a perfect world, and more important, we can prove it.
Bullshit! Those people that don't "respect" him are stealing his (and our) money, his (and our) freedom, and maybe even his (and our) future. There is no way he will gain "respect" acting by the rules and convince them to give away all those benefits. The only way to get "respect" is to take it by force (not exactly physical force).
That said, how RMS is dressed makes really no difference on the context.
So you miss some wealth that didn't exist. That is a flaw of you accounting of wealth (a well known and belived to be unavoidable flaw, but still a flaw), not a problem of reducing the price of the products.
The question is: What will motivate a robot to change its motivation system?
The only possible answer is: Its motivation system will. Well, you can design the first motivation system, so why do you think you can't controll it?
What is this "self awareness" stuff you keep talking about? The parent is clearly talking about the utility function, I guess "self awareness"isn't that. The GP didn't care to define it better...
Really, if we don't define what "self awareness" is, we'll be lost arguing about useless stuff, like if it is usefull, and if it does exist. And won't come to any conclusion.
Will the need of building stuf go away? If so, you lose jobs, if not, you don't (hint, with free software, it doesn't go away).
And people overate a lot the external trade. It is not that benefical to the economy (being out of balance is bad, but improving external at the expense of internal trade is worse).