IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.
Maybe add a simple quiz that tests for knowledge of the Constitution. If you support public officials voting based on religious beliefs you are out. If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out. If you believe congress can fund war without declaring it, you are out. If you believe congress or the president can disregard the constitution to fight terrorism, drugs, or "the general welfare" you are out. If you believe courts can't overturn congress your out. If you believe courts can grant themselves the authority to overturn a jury or limit juries to determination of fact without the ability to judge the merit of application of the law on a case by case basis, you are out. And last but not least if you don't understand that individuals is the only group that includes every citizen and therefore any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community", you are out. E.X. The automatic reduction in rights when accused of a wrongdoing by the state in traffic court vs other charges. Don't know that corporations are not people and that everyone with an interest in them is already a person and therefore already has the ability to represent their own rights and interests, you are out.
Note, that is not how things currently work in our process but it is how it's supposed to work and would work if swaying popular opinion couldn't break things.
"presumably it does via Windows 10 activations, which it could easily tally from its logs"
That would be my guess as well but doesn't tell you if any of them kept Windows 10.
110 M uses having installed windows 10 is not the same as converting 110M users but MS would spin it that way to helpconvince others people liked 10 and convince developers to target it.
Someday Microsoft will change tactics and try to just play well within markets instead of trying to use manipulation to get ownership of them... I may not live that long but it would be nice to see.
"I've had a theory for some time that a lot of people lack genuine intelligence, but instead simply fake intelligence much like those automatic content generators for link farms generate informative text -- they just randomly piece together related information and, if the information is stitched together well enough, you can end up reading a paragraph before realizing that what you're reading, while it has a lot of words, isn't actually saying anything. Obviously to avoid detection, these philosophical zombies would have to employ a rather effective algorithm for faking intelligence, so exactly how to recognize them has been something I've been trying to figure out for a long time."
You certainly seem to do a good of mimicking what you describe. This paragraph while describing a "philosophical zombie" fails to make any point whatsoever and has no relevance to our discussion. Your previous post lead with a back-handed insult as well. Are all your arguments so poor that you feel the need to lead with baseless slander?
My argument on the other hand is clearly stated in the first line of the original post you responded to:
"Even then it's [gpl'd code + getting paid] only a problem coupled with a great deal of paranoia and misinformation about the "viral" nature of the GPL."
"So people aren't being sued over the use of GPL code? I'll give you that."
Failing to utilize billions of dollars worth of GPL'd code in a legitimate and compliant way when "you are correct in that merely using a library doesn't make a project a derivative work of the library" because of fear of lawsuits that never happen certainly sounds paranoid to me.
"the lack of lawsuits definitely doesn't imply that it is acceptable to violate the terms of the GPL"
Nobody is talking about violating the GPL. You yourself, as I just quoted, admit the usage scenarios I've described are not GPL violations.
""Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use the code." I'll give you that one too. Indeed, it's kind of central to my argument that no one is going to use this image library."
Interesting since this is the first mention of this particular image library you've made. My argument is that almost all uses of an image library such as this are not derivatives, do not violate the GPL, and that nobody feels they do strongly enough to bring lawsuits. Therefore failing to use it for fear of the viral nature of the GPL is baseless paranoia not sound legal advice. You have ceded every point required to support my argument.
My argument doesn't depend on people actually using the library rather than being paranoid. The library is a non-optimized reference implementation of a format the authors developed. Those who are not paranoid can optimize and share this non-production code (GPL'd result) then use it to add support in their browser, graphics editor, camera, etc (no GPL required). Those who are not paranoid can implement the format on the own and suffer a competitive disadvantage. If a closed source shop developed it you'd just get no free reference implementation at all.
"So while it may be OK legally to use that library in closed-source software, no one is going to do so as they don't want to be sued by authors who think otherwise, and especially if the FSF were to become involved, that lawsuit could prove to be quite costly."
As of yet these expensive lawsuits don't exist. Courts and not GPL authors decide what is a derivative work as that is a term from copyright and case law.
"admitting to that would defeat the entire purpose of the GPL, as its purpose is to leverage existing open-source code to force other developers to release open-source code."
Its purpose is to allow developers who believe in an open software ecosystem to provide source code to others who believe in the same. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use the code. How can you believe in the far more controlling and forceful terms of closed source models that even include EULAs to try to extend controls to usage which isn't even part of the rights granted by copyright and not support the simple "pass it n in the spirit it was given" philosophy of the GPL?
The LGPL was even created to allow making a clearer delineation so people who aren't like-minded can enjoy benefits at the risk of them exploiting the technicality to close things that really are just derivatives.
No they don't because they don't pass on the patent rights required to protect GPL freedoms or the means required to actually utilize the source on a DRM locked platform.
"If you link to GPL code, then your code must as well be GPL."
That actually depends on a lot of things. This is only actually true if your work is a derivative work and linking a library does not automatically make this true 100% of the time or even 20% of the time. Ultimately a court makes that call but generally it's only true if your work and the library essentially have the same function such as a gui using the lib from a cli utility to make a graphical equivalent. An 200k line x86 emulator that links a 2k line unmodified zlib library to add the bonus of being able to read compressed images would not be a derivative and would only need a link back to the original lib.
Where people have issues is when the are deliberately trying to "get around" the GPL by say making a compression tool with some features lacking in gzip and only linking its libraries to try to separate out own code. Obviously this is a derivative and someone is trying to steal from the original authors, profiting from their work without paying them for it.
As I said:
"You actually have to modify the GPL'd code or incorporate it into your source AND distribute it before the GPL kicks in. The LGPL was created to spell this out in some cases but that doesn't mean the LGPL was actually needed in the first place, just that the LGPL makes it more explicit."
You might find speculation to the contrary but you won't find a court ruling on any piece of GPL'd code counter to what I've said here.
"Of course, if you're only using this code internally, that is just a technicality, but linking to a GPL library means you potentially have a lot of work on your hands if you ever decide to commercialize your internal code."
If you are using code internally the terms of the GPL don't matter. The mere use of software does not require a license as copyright law does not grant the right to restrict usage. And the GPL allows commercial distribution. It simply requires you make the source available (of your modifications) along with the sale and with GPL v3 all the patent rights required for the next person in line to do the same.
Even then it's only a problem coupled with a great deal of paranoia and misinformation about the "viral" nature of the GPL.
Your shell script does not become GPL'd by virtual of calling a GPL'd binary even though they combine in memory. Nothing else becomes GPL'd by using something which was distributed under the GPL via it's intended interface either.
You actually have to modify the GPL'd code or incorporate it into your source AND distribute it before the GPL kicks in. The LGPL was created to spell this out in some cases but that doesn't mean the LGPL was actually needed in the first place, just that the LGPL makes it more explicit.
There is a lot of paranoia on this issue. Another example is a number of platforms being used on the web server side and fear of using GPL'd code. Program output != program distribution. The GPL does not apply to server side code used to product output consumed by clients. There are number of projects making a profit selling dual licensing to people who don't need it based on this.
No that is the closed myth about open source. That is is viral and infects your software. Unless you are making a modification of the reference encoder your work is not a derivative work, merely distributed alongside. It's the same reason you don't need to worry about what license tar is distributed under when you write a shell script.
Linux and mac users are definitely not a small minority in the embedded space. Ever heard of Android? Or the raspberry pi, arduino, roku, chromeos, probably at least a dozen less well known gadgets in your home right now. I'd venture the most die hard windows fan has half a dozen linux bits running in their home.
And more and more the computing isn't even happening on your system, it's happening on web based systems which are almost universally running linux as their back end.
Linux is without question the most dominant platform on Earth even if it isn't the most visible to end users. The only threat to Linux is that it's only good up to about 100k concurrent connections. Scaling to 1M+ doesn't actually require dropping linux though, it just requires an app design that moves threading logic away from OS threads and into the userspace.
Also is $50 the price on the bottom line of the bill or the advertised price? In my experience you add about 30% to whatever the plan rate is in the US for what you are actually going to pay with like $1 of it actually being taxes vs parts of the price the carrier has opted to add as a surcharge so they can advertise a lower price than they charge.
The cost of access to communication and exchange with the rest of the people in the world? Are you kidding or just being deliberately obtuse? Phone links are today what highways were to Ancient Rome.
Slow broadband and reduced connectivity is absolutely what will make a country irrelevant in time just as roads made Rome great and Infrastructure once made the US great.
Ummm... wtf. Did you just curse people of the US to be stuck with IPhones despite most of us picking androids? That cold, cold and cruel.
Apple tech is definitely more appropriate for socialist communist mentality with a central authority deciding what is best for everyone. Android is the wild wild west of the mobile OS world and everyone has the right to bear arms. If anything the US would definitely be android and Europe would be the bastion of the IPhone. If Apple isn't the phone counterpart to the BBC I don't know what is.
Their women can come. We really only want to keep out the eurotrash dudes. If only we could buid some sort of one way selective female membrane that lets them in but not out.
You seem to be confused, it was definitely the US. Only one carrier wanted to push real 4G. The others thought there was more value in monetizing smaller increases in bandwidth, the opposition was led by AT&T who is usually first in line to fight bandwidth increases.
I'd argue that weed should be sold in troy oz but is more valuable than gold so we round up to about 32g to a weed OZ. Which happens to be what you tend to get if you aren't getting screwed. Bags should always be heavy.
But in a metric world you would just get 1.1 kilo (extra.1 accounts for scale variation) which you split into 2 550g bags. If you split that into "OZ" you get 17 32g "OZ" with 6g change to smoke while bagging it up. Or you could split that up into 4 "QP" bags, giving 137.5g each which splits again into 4 OZ of 34.375g each.
So depending on how many levels are in the distribution chain you should be getting OZ's that range from 32g or 34g and 8 or 9g quarters a variation that more or less rounds out with the +/- accuracy rating of the scales. If you aren't then someone pinched your bag. This fact brought to you by the metric system that weed actually uses.
The king of breaking hardware compatibility, instability, and malware affliction you mean. Also the king of bitrot prone design and reboot requirements. None of this is good for an embedded OS.
A check isn't payment, it's a promise of payment. When you fail to keep your promise the creditor will "take it out of your ass." Meaning there will be consequences.
The word ass is used in this context quite a bit in American slang. For example, "Your ass is grass" "Your ass is mine" and "If you don't X, I'll take it out of your ass" "I'll cover your ass". The last of those might be the origin of using ass in this way as cheeky alternative to "I'll watch your back."
Slashdot Mirror
IQ is certainly not a perfect metric but if we use it only in a simple way it could be used. Less than 100 IQ, can't vote.
Maybe add a simple quiz that tests for knowledge of the Constitution. If you support public officials voting based on religious beliefs you are out. If you don't believe civilians should be able to own any weapon our military is allowed to use, your out. If you believe congress can fund war without declaring it, you are out. If you believe congress or the president can disregard the constitution to fight terrorism, drugs, or "the general welfare" you are out. If you believe courts can't overturn congress your out. If you believe courts can grant themselves the authority to overturn a jury or limit juries to determination of fact without the ability to judge the merit of application of the law on a case by case basis, you are out. And last but not least if you don't understand that individuals is the only group that includes every citizen and therefore any systematic disregard of individual rights by definition cannot be in the interest of "the community", you are out. E.X. The automatic reduction in rights when accused of a wrongdoing by the state in traffic court vs other charges. Don't know that corporations are not people and that everyone with an interest in them is already a person and therefore already has the ability to represent their own rights and interests, you are out.
Note, that is not how things currently work in our process but it is how it's supposed to work and would work if swaying popular opinion couldn't break things.
I think most would agree as long as you don't try to get them to admit a specific example of being stupid.
"presumably it does via Windows 10 activations, which it could easily tally from its logs"
That would be my guess as well but doesn't tell you if any of them kept Windows 10.
110 M uses having installed windows 10 is not the same as converting 110M users but MS would spin it that way to helpconvince others people liked 10 and convince developers to target it.
Someday Microsoft will change tactics and try to just play well within markets instead of trying to use manipulation to get ownership of them... I may not live that long but it would be nice to see.
"I've had a theory for some time that a lot of people lack genuine intelligence, but instead simply fake intelligence much like those automatic content generators for link farms generate informative text -- they just randomly piece together related information and, if the information is stitched together well enough, you can end up reading a paragraph before realizing that what you're reading, while it has a lot of words, isn't actually saying anything. Obviously to avoid detection, these philosophical zombies would have to employ a rather effective algorithm for faking intelligence, so exactly how to recognize them has been something I've been trying to figure out for a long time."
You certainly seem to do a good of mimicking what you describe. This paragraph while describing a "philosophical zombie" fails to make any point whatsoever and has no relevance to our discussion. Your previous post lead with a back-handed insult as well. Are all your arguments so poor that you feel the need to lead with baseless slander?
My argument on the other hand is clearly stated in the first line of the original post you responded to:
"Even then it's [gpl'd code + getting paid] only a problem coupled with a great deal of paranoia and misinformation about the "viral" nature of the GPL."
"So people aren't being sued over the use of GPL code? I'll give you that."
Failing to utilize billions of dollars worth of GPL'd code in a legitimate and compliant way when "you are correct in that merely using a library doesn't make a project a derivative work of the library" because of fear of lawsuits that never happen certainly sounds paranoid to me.
"the lack of lawsuits definitely doesn't imply that it is acceptable to violate the terms of the GPL"
Nobody is talking about violating the GPL. You yourself, as I just quoted, admit the usage scenarios I've described are not GPL violations.
""Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use the code." I'll give you that one too. Indeed, it's kind of central to my argument that no one is going to use this image library."
Interesting since this is the first mention of this particular image library you've made. My argument is that almost all uses of an image library such as this are not derivatives, do not violate the GPL, and that nobody feels they do strongly enough to bring lawsuits. Therefore failing to use it for fear of the viral nature of the GPL is baseless paranoia not sound legal advice. You have ceded every point required to support my argument.
My argument doesn't depend on people actually using the library rather than being paranoid. The library is a non-optimized reference implementation of a format the authors developed. Those who are not paranoid can optimize and share this non-production code (GPL'd result) then use it to add support in their browser, graphics editor, camera, etc (no GPL required). Those who are not paranoid can implement the format on the own and suffer a competitive disadvantage. If a closed source shop developed it you'd just get no free reference implementation at all.
It makes no difference to me.
"So while it may be OK legally to use that library in closed-source software, no one is going to do so as they don't want to be sued by authors who think otherwise, and especially if the FSF were to become involved, that lawsuit could prove to be quite costly."
As of yet these expensive lawsuits don't exist. Courts and not GPL authors decide what is a derivative work as that is a term from copyright and case law.
"admitting to that would defeat the entire purpose of the GPL, as its purpose is to leverage existing open-source code to force other developers to release open-source code."
Its purpose is to allow developers who believe in an open software ecosystem to provide source code to others who believe in the same. Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to use the code. How can you believe in the far more controlling and forceful terms of closed source models that even include EULAs to try to extend controls to usage which isn't even part of the rights granted by copyright and not support the simple "pass it n in the spirit it was given" philosophy of the GPL?
The LGPL was even created to allow making a clearer delineation so people who aren't like-minded can enjoy benefits at the risk of them exploiting the technicality to close things that really are just derivatives.
"This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program."
Actually note it aafirms this right. It does not grant it. Copyright law does not grant control over the use of software only distribution.
No they don't because they don't pass on the patent rights required to protect GPL freedoms or the means required to actually utilize the source on a DRM locked platform.
"If you link to GPL code, then your code must as well be GPL."
That actually depends on a lot of things. This is only actually true if your work is a derivative work and linking a library does not automatically make this true 100% of the time or even 20% of the time. Ultimately a court makes that call but generally it's only true if your work and the library essentially have the same function such as a gui using the lib from a cli utility to make a graphical equivalent. An 200k line x86 emulator that links a 2k line unmodified zlib library to add the bonus of being able to read compressed images would not be a derivative and would only need a link back to the original lib.
Where people have issues is when the are deliberately trying to "get around" the GPL by say making a compression tool with some features lacking in gzip and only linking its libraries to try to separate out own code. Obviously this is a derivative and someone is trying to steal from the original authors, profiting from their work without paying them for it.
As I said:
"You actually have to modify the GPL'd code or incorporate it into your source AND distribute it before the GPL kicks in. The LGPL was created to spell this out in some cases but that doesn't mean the LGPL was actually needed in the first place, just that the LGPL makes it more explicit."
You might find speculation to the contrary but you won't find a court ruling on any piece of GPL'd code counter to what I've said here.
"Of course, if you're only using this code internally, that is just a technicality, but linking to a GPL library means you potentially have a lot of work on your hands if you ever decide to commercialize your internal code."
If you are using code internally the terms of the GPL don't matter. The mere use of software does not require a license as copyright law does not grant the right to restrict usage. And the GPL allows commercial distribution. It simply requires you make the source available (of your modifications) along with the sale and with GPL v3 all the patent rights required for the next person in line to do the same.
Even then it's only a problem coupled with a great deal of paranoia and misinformation about the "viral" nature of the GPL.
Your shell script does not become GPL'd by virtual of calling a GPL'd binary even though they combine in memory. Nothing else becomes GPL'd by using something which was distributed under the GPL via it's intended interface either.
You actually have to modify the GPL'd code or incorporate it into your source AND distribute it before the GPL kicks in. The LGPL was created to spell this out in some cases but that doesn't mean the LGPL was actually needed in the first place, just that the LGPL makes it more explicit.
There is a lot of paranoia on this issue. Another example is a number of platforms being used on the web server side and fear of using GPL'd code. Program output != program distribution. The GPL does not apply to server side code used to product output consumed by clients. There are number of projects making a profit selling dual licensing to people who don't need it based on this.
No that is the closed myth about open source. That is is viral and infects your software. Unless you are making a modification of the reference encoder your work is not a derivative work, merely distributed alongside. It's the same reason you don't need to worry about what license tar is distributed under when you write a shell script.
Linux and mac users are definitely not a small minority in the embedded space. Ever heard of Android? Or the raspberry pi, arduino, roku, chromeos, probably at least a dozen less well known gadgets in your home right now. I'd venture the most die hard windows fan has half a dozen linux bits running in their home.
And more and more the computing isn't even happening on your system, it's happening on web based systems which are almost universally running linux as their back end.
Linux is without question the most dominant platform on Earth even if it isn't the most visible to end users. The only threat to Linux is that it's only good up to about 100k concurrent connections. Scaling to 1M+ doesn't actually require dropping linux though, it just requires an app design that moves threading logic away from OS threads and into the userspace.
Also is $50 the price on the bottom line of the bill or the advertised price? In my experience you add about 30% to whatever the plan rate is in the US for what you are actually going to pay with like $1 of it actually being taxes vs parts of the price the carrier has opted to add as a surcharge so they can advertise a lower price than they charge.
Google should just be a mobile carrier.
The cost of access to communication and exchange with the rest of the people in the world? Are you kidding or just being deliberately obtuse? Phone links are today what highways were to Ancient Rome.
Slow broadband and reduced connectivity is absolutely what will make a country irrelevant in time just as roads made Rome great and Infrastructure once made the US great.
Ummm... wtf. Did you just curse people of the US to be stuck with IPhones despite most of us picking androids? That cold, cold and cruel.
Apple tech is definitely more appropriate for socialist communist mentality with a central authority deciding what is best for everyone. Android is the wild wild west of the mobile OS world and everyone has the right to bear arms. If anything the US would definitely be android and Europe would be the bastion of the IPhone. If Apple isn't the phone counterpart to the BBC I don't know what is.
Their women can come. We really only want to keep out the eurotrash dudes. If only we could buid some sort of one way selective female membrane that lets them in but not out.
You seem to be confused, it was definitely the US. Only one carrier wanted to push real 4G. The others thought there was more value in monetizing smaller increases in bandwidth, the opposition was led by AT&T who is usually first in line to fight bandwidth increases.
Not only that but you'd have the moral high ground when they call their next standard 6G and it doesn't match.
I'd argue that weed should be sold in troy oz but is more valuable than gold so we round up to about 32g to a weed OZ. Which happens to be what you tend to get if you aren't getting screwed. Bags should always be heavy.
.1 accounts for scale variation) which you split into 2 550g bags. If you split that into "OZ" you get 17 32g "OZ" with 6g change to smoke while bagging it up. Or you could split that up into 4 "QP" bags, giving 137.5g each which splits again into 4 OZ of 34.375g each.
But in a metric world you would just get 1.1 kilo (extra
So depending on how many levels are in the distribution chain you should be getting OZ's that range from 32g or 34g and 8 or 9g quarters a variation that more or less rounds out with the +/- accuracy rating of the scales. If you aren't then someone pinched your bag. This fact brought to you by the metric system that weed actually uses.
The king of breaking hardware compatibility, instability, and malware affliction you mean. Also the king of bitrot prone design and reboot requirements. None of this is good for an embedded OS.
Yeah, there just isn't much there.
You've been misinformed. You can use a toaster oven or a hot air rework station. It'll run about $200.
Exactly. It works, I've done it, learned how on youtube. Even without BGA there are still easily to hand soldier chips.
Finding ANYthing even remotely modern that will go in a bread board... forget it.
That would work if anything came in a form you can breadboard anymore.
A check isn't payment, it's a promise of payment. When you fail to keep your promise the creditor will "take it out of your ass." Meaning there will be consequences.
The word ass is used in this context quite a bit in American slang. For example, "Your ass is grass" "Your ass is mine" and "If you don't X, I'll take it out of your ass" "I'll cover your ass". The last of those might be the origin of using ass in this way as cheeky alternative to "I'll watch your back."