OK, let's break it down. Broadcom already has a fully-functional driver for their chipset.
The people who did the Linux driver reverse engineered that in order to figure out how to use the chipset. The Linux people then wrote a driver.
There are some areas where they (the Linux driver writers) think that their code is more clever than the Broadcom code.
They (the Linux driver writers) think Broadcom would want to replace the working code it already has, and that its programmers are familiar with, and that (from a user point of view) does everything the Linux code does.
Yes, i'm sure we all understand this part of your argument.
But then:
That seems unlikely to me. Replacing working code with outside code, which probably won't fit into your existing code without extensive reworking, for the sole benefit of making your code more elegant, is simply not something companies are interested in doing.
Ok, well I can only repeat was others have said earlier in this thread: open source code is often high quality code, and closed source is often crap (this is NOT rule, but i've certainly seen some sorry excuses for drivers, haven't we all. Besides, you yourself echo the thought that the Linux code is cleverer). It is (maybe not likely but certainly...) possible that Broadcom would consider using parts of the open source code. It is NOT true that'll take extensive reworking and i'm positive Broadcom as a company is not interested in elegant code, however, it is obvious they are interested in lower development efforts.
And, last but not least, understand that Linux developers do take the GPL license very seriously, even if others don't. You are not one of those others, are you? So, i'm sure you'll understand what i'm trying to explain here. Michael Bueschs' GPL code was used in OpenBSD code under a completely different and much more liberal license, that code ended up in a CVS, which is the same as distributing the code.
And so, because Broadcom has the reason (completely free quality code), the means (the, for Michael Buesch, too liberal BSD license) and because there is is no reason what-so-ever to think companies won't use OpenBSD code i'd say Micheal has reason to complain. And why you are denying that there's an opportunity for Broadcom to use the code is beyond me.
You first say that there's reason, according to what you've read, to think that Broadcom wants to use the code.
Than you simply deny that same fact, on the basis that a rewrite is extensive work (do you know what a rewrite is? well, it's often faster and easier than a write). And finally you call the GPLd driver Broadcom's own code.
"Which reminds me, has anyone yet created the photoanalysis device that Dekkard uses in Bladerunner?"
Well, it is just the movie of the story, and Philip K. Dick really wasn't interested in technology. But, to me that machine was some holographic device. I distinctly remember Dekkard doing more than just zoom-in, so you need probably more that just a 2D image.
"digitize someone's entire personality and knowledge in less than a year"
Oh, good catch! Of course both F* articles don't even contain the words "personality" or "entire" or anything close to that, but I'd mod you up if could (this is Roland of course).
'I remember being taught in highschool that "we are overdue for another ice age'
Yes, since then the scientific ideas on these topics have changed (why do people think that's strange?). However, there is still a LOT of uncertainty on how ice ages happen.
"we started learning about holes in the ozone layer, and my first thought was "wait, if this stops the next ice age, isn't it a good thing?"
The holes in the ozone layer have nothing to do with the climate, and everything with CFK's and harmful ultraviolet light. Ask Australians, they'll know.
"When a single volcanic eruption has the potential to put out more CO2 than all human production over the last decade, I think it's fair to say that we're a pretty insignificant factor."
Let's turn this argument around (for fun and education). Did you know that big volcanos (as in, happens every couple of years) can produce the same amount for carbondioxide as all human production over the last decade? You don't have to strain to realize this doesn't help the global warming problem at all!
Keep in mind that these volcano's have been partaking in the earth CO2 cycle for as long as humans remember, and really are an integral part of it. CO2 is absorbed by the ocean (at a certain rate), volcanos and animals contribute to it (at certain rates), and now also humans contribute heavily to it. Of course, this isn't to say that one really big volcano cannot ruin the earth climate for a couple of years to come.
But, think of this: if one reasonably big volcano can dominate earth climate for years (as we have seen a couple of times now), why then is it so strange that humans contribute to the effects of the CO2 when the human production is slowly getting comparable with what volcanos can do. And we do it every day, every year, and it is increasing fast.
As a side note, of course we humans have hardly seen what volcanos can REALLY DO. And volcanos don't just produce CO2 but also a lot of ashes (blocks sun) and SO2 (ozone dissolving(?) and other problems), so don't just pull volcanos out of your hat when talking about global warming, unless you know a bit more.
Very simple, the police have no authority whatsoever to secretely spy on lawful political activity. That means, unless they have some indication of unlawful activity on the part of the individual or organization they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. Do you get it now?
(of course, i do realize it is very easy for the police to pull some kind of fantasy suspicion out of their collective ass and take it from there)
So my issue here with you is this. You don't seem to like activists who plan to rally against the Republican Party. So logically, you think all kind of police activity against these people is fine. And you probably don't think of yourself as someone who's against democracy. So, you simply proclaim these people to be criminals. Well, that is not impressive, at all. So, how about some argumentation, next time?
"You took twice as long as I did to make the statement that you were just repeating".
What has the speed of posting to do with anything? Is a faster post a better one?
"AS to the AC, IT wasn't you was it?"
No, it wasn't, is there any reason to think so? But anyways, so i went back to the AC and what does he say? Pretty funny: "let those who are opposed to free speech drown in their own paranoia". And what do you do? You think i am a secret anonymous poster!
"Breaking laws and property damage is in no way free speech. I don't see how you can think it is."
Well, very few think so, and i don't think i've read anybody saying stuff like that today, also the AC doesn't say that. You must have a point coming along.
"Should someone who doesn't like what your saying be able to deface your car in the name of free speech?"
Ah, we're slowly getting somewhere:-) Ok, first off all: were you saying anything? Because I got the impression it were the activists who had something to say (that is: stating opinions or raising objections or proposing ideas, not defacing cars).
"Do what you want. But tell it like it is, Those that oppose criminal and illegal activity are not opposing free speech."
Really, you are going very fast here, so lets parse that: "Do what you want." No, let's NOT do what we want.
"But tell it like it is, Those that oppose criminal and illegal activity are not opposing free speech.",
And finally, here's the meat of your argument:
Opposing criminal activity doesn't equal opposing free speech because criminal activity is in no way free speech!
Well, i can only bow to the inescapable logic of your argumentation.
Don't be fooled by Microsoft. Ever. Microsoft allready has all the marketing material, press releases, and spokesdrones ready and primed for this move. Now it is going to sound/look/feel that Microsoft has really given in and has serious plans to start behaving from now on. Does anyone here really believe that? No, i don't think so. But we can expect a media push to pressure the EU to back off now we finally have some good results in this protocol war. But this new stance is just Microsofts next line of defence and I would really suggest having a look at those licenses.
I'll explain the difference: in the Linksys case the company didn't supply source code but did use Open Source software, and the GPL clearly states you have to do this.
Result: Linksys folded and opened its code (this is 2003, mind you) and nowadays we have http://www.openwrt.org/ and http://www.dd-wrt.com/. And I'm sure Linksys doesn't mind all the interest in its products.
In the case of the BSA, they bribe disgruntled ex-workers to rat of their ex-bosses. When they knock on your door they're accompanied by a police officer (at least here) and you're told to leave alone every computer in the office until they've run (yes, run) their little tools.
So, I think I do like the EFF better.
Correct:
Setting up network interfaces:
lo
lo IP address: 127.0.0.1/8
eth0 device: nVidia Corporation CK8S Ethernet Controller (rev a2)
eth0 configuration: eth-id-00:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
eth0 (DHCP) . . . . . no IP address yet... backgrounding. ...snip...
Failed services in runlevel 5: network
I turned on my firewall later than my desktop. But when i logged in my network was running. And this has been working like this for... i honestly don't remember.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, i'm sure we all understand this part of your argument.
But then:
Ok, well I can only repeat was others have said earlier in this thread: open source code is often high quality code, and closed source is often crap (this is NOT rule, but i've certainly seen some sorry excuses for drivers, haven't we all. Besides, you yourself echo the thought that the Linux code is cleverer). It is (maybe not likely but certainly...) possible that Broadcom would consider using parts of the open source code. It is NOT true that'll take extensive reworking and i'm positive Broadcom as a company is not interested in elegant code, however, it is obvious they are interested in lower development efforts.
And, last but not least, understand that Linux developers do take the GPL license very seriously, even if others don't. You are not one of those others, are you? So, i'm sure you'll understand what i'm trying to explain here. Michael Bueschs' GPL code was used in OpenBSD code under a completely different and much more liberal license, that code ended up in a CVS, which is the same as distributing the code.
And so, because Broadcom has the reason (completely free quality code), the means (the, for Michael Buesch, too liberal BSD license) and because there is is no reason what-so-ever to think companies won't use OpenBSD code i'd say Micheal has reason to complain. And why you are denying that there's an opportunity for Broadcom to use the code is beyond me.
Now what kind of logic is that?
You first say that there's reason, according to what you've read, to think that Broadcom wants to use the code.
Than you simply deny that same fact, on the basis that a rewrite is extensive work (do you know what a rewrite is? well, it's often faster and easier than a write). And finally you call the GPLd driver Broadcom's own code.
Incredible amount of trolling AC's trying to have to last word, in this thread.
"Which reminds me, has anyone yet created the photoanalysis device that Dekkard uses in Bladerunner?"
Well, it is just the movie of the story, and Philip K. Dick really wasn't interested in technology. But, to me that machine was some holographic device. I distinctly remember Dekkard doing more than just zoom-in, so you need probably more that just a 2D image.
"digitize someone's entire personality and knowledge in less than a year"
Oh, good catch! Of course both F* articles don't even contain the words "personality" or "entire" or anything close to that, but I'd mod you up if could (this is Roland of course).
Isn't that what every AC dreams of, being accused of actually being someone? Just leave it, you're barking up an empty tree.
Sorry. I'd say: yes, as long as the branches can have offspring (isn't it rather obvious?).
I think there are. But why strain to get your analogy working?
'I remember being taught in highschool that "we are overdue for another ice age'
Yes, since then the scientific ideas on these topics have changed (why do people think that's strange?). However, there is still a LOT of uncertainty on how ice ages happen.
"we started learning about holes in the ozone layer, and my first thought was "wait, if this stops the next ice age, isn't it a good thing?"
The holes in the ozone layer have nothing to do with the climate, and everything with CFK's and harmful ultraviolet light. Ask Australians, they'll know.
"When a single volcanic eruption has the potential to put out more CO2 than all human production over the last decade, I think it's fair to say that we're a pretty insignificant factor."
Let's turn this argument around (for fun and education). Did you know that big volcanos (as in, happens every couple of years) can produce the same amount for carbondioxide as all human production over the last decade? You don't have to strain to realize this doesn't help the global warming problem at all!
Keep in mind that these volcano's have been partaking in the earth CO2 cycle for as long as humans remember, and really are an integral part of it. CO2 is absorbed by the ocean (at a certain rate), volcanos and animals contribute to it (at certain rates), and now also humans contribute heavily to it. Of course, this isn't to say that one really big volcano cannot ruin the earth climate for a couple of years to come.
But, think of this: if one reasonably big volcano can dominate earth climate for years (as we have seen a couple of times now), why then is it so strange that humans contribute to the effects of the CO2 when the human production is slowly getting comparable with what volcanos can do. And we do it every day, every year, and it is increasing fast.
As a side note, of course we humans have hardly seen what volcanos can REALLY DO. And volcanos don't just produce CO2 but also a lot of ashes (blocks sun) and SO2 (ozone dissolving(?) and other problems), so don't just pull volcanos out of your hat when talking about global warming, unless you know a bit more.
Oh man. You never read TFA.
Someone please tell me were the issue is?
Very simple, the police have no authority whatsoever to secretely spy on lawful political activity. That means, unless they have some indication of unlawful activity on the part of the individual or organization they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. Do you get it now?
(of course, i do realize it is very easy for the police to pull some kind of fantasy suspicion out of their collective ass and take it from there)
So my issue here with you is this. You don't seem to like activists who plan to rally against the Republican Party. So logically, you think all kind of police activity against these people is fine. And you probably don't think of yourself as someone who's against democracy. So, you simply proclaim these people to be criminals. Well, that is not impressive, at all. So, how about some argumentation, next time?
"You took twice as long as I did to make the statement that you were just repeating".
What has the speed of posting to do with anything? Is a faster post a better one?
"AS to the AC, IT wasn't you was it?"
No, it wasn't, is there any reason to think so? But anyways, so i went back to the AC and what does he say? Pretty funny: "let those who are opposed to free speech drown in their own paranoia". And what do you do? You think i am a secret anonymous poster!
"Breaking laws and property damage is in no way free speech. I don't see how you can think it is."
:-) Ok, first off all: were you saying anything? Because I got the impression it were the activists who had something to say (that is: stating opinions or raising objections or proposing ideas, not defacing cars).
Well, very few think so, and i don't think i've read anybody saying stuff like that today, also the AC doesn't say that. You must have a point coming along.
"Should someone who doesn't like what your saying be able to deface your car in the name of free speech?"
Ah, we're slowly getting somewhere
"Do what you want. But tell it like it is, Those that oppose criminal and illegal activity are not opposing free speech."
Really, you are going very fast here, so lets parse that: "Do what you want." No, let's NOT do what we want.
"But tell it like it is, Those that oppose criminal and illegal activity are not opposing free speech.",
And finally, here's the meat of your argument:
Opposing criminal activity doesn't equal opposing free speech because criminal activity is in no way free speech!
Well, i can only bow to the inescapable logic of your argumentation.
Really? I _would_ stop at the Republican Party in this particular case. But then again, I read TFA, and it's difficult to be "insightful" after that.
"that feeling, twitter, is called cognitive dissonance"
No, Joe, it is disdain.
"I'm really not entirely sure why..."
Me neither, because you didn't tell me.
Don't be fooled by Microsoft. Ever. Microsoft allready has all the marketing material, press releases, and spokesdrones ready and primed for this move. Now it is going to sound/look/feel that Microsoft has really given in and has serious plans to start behaving from now on. Does anyone here really believe that? No, i don't think so. But we can expect a media push to pressure the EU to back off now we finally have some good results in this protocol war. But this new stance is just Microsofts next line of defence and I would really suggest having a look at those licenses.
Maybe, but I've got the feeling you could say something pretty witty.
I'll explain the difference: in the Linksys case the company didn't supply source code but did use Open Source software, and the GPL clearly states you have to do this.
Result: Linksys folded and opened its code (this is 2003, mind you) and nowadays we have http://www.openwrt.org/ and http://www.dd-wrt.com/. And I'm sure Linksys doesn't mind all the interest in its products.
In the case of the BSA, they bribe disgruntled ex-workers to rat of their ex-bosses. When they knock on your door they're accompanied by a police officer (at least here) and you're told to leave alone every computer in the office until they've run (yes, run) their little tools.
So, I think I do like the EFF better.
Interesting choice of words. Let me correct that for you.
It is or:
You know what will get me to buy into the Kyoto Pact? or You know what will get me to believe in the global warming hype?
In Maryland?? Oh, than global warming can't be true.
Ah-hah, so it is sort off a battle between evil scientists scheming for grant money and big oil and stuff. Hell, you make sense to me!
Hmmm, scrap that. Your powermanagement is probably userspace.
If you've got powermanagement running, check your processor speeds with cpufreq-info.
Correct:
...snip...
Setting up network interfaces:
lo
lo IP address: 127.0.0.1/8
eth0 device: nVidia Corporation CK8S Ethernet Controller (rev a2)
eth0 configuration: eth-id-00:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
eth0 (DHCP) . . . . . no IP address yet... backgrounding.
Failed services in runlevel 5: network
I turned on my firewall later than my desktop. But when i logged in my network was running. And this has been working like this for... i honestly don't remember.