There's a historical context to consider. The poster child for "States' Rights" is legalized discrimination against "blacks". I'm sure that's not what you're talking about here, but when you ship content across jurisdictions, you have to think about how it might be viewed by others:-).
Still don't think it's a good idea, at least not as long as we have the Commerce Clause, and liability-shielded corporations that have been granted the same rights as real live people. That tilts the playing field towards big money.
New Orleans (well, most of the Gulf Coast) is a special case -- except that this might motivate e-bikes, which as I recall was once being discussed here:-).
No e-assist, showers are really not optional there, at least in the summer. They are optional here (near Boston) for most of the year, but they are also available. I did commute by bike, a short distance, in Houston, one extremely hot summer. Leave early, come home late, minimum effort, steer for puddles of shade. And I've also spent years aiming for a job were being a snappy dresser was not the most important qualification. (And, to be blunt, where the rational analysis that says "50 miles of biking per week is the most time-effective way to get the exercise I need to stay healthy, plus a lot of other good things" is valued.)
As for "chicks"-and-or-coeds, I am nearly 50. And happily married. We're talking purely Walter Mitty territory here.
You really can carry plenty on a bicycle, depending on the bicycle. I got a cargo bike because I was tired of backpacks and panniers. 50lbs of stuff, I can still ride no-hands (summer tires, at least). 100lbs, I am still comfortable on the bike. 150+, I have to pay attention to the handling. 200 is the official limit, but people have carried more. I've hauled my wife a short distance, in the snow (storm), when it was easier than shoveling out the berm that had been plowed up behind the car. I've also arranged the bike so that I don't need to ride in fancy clothes, or even with pants clips -- nice saddle, chain case, when the weather's right I ride in work clothes, and I've even used a bike to get to a quite-fancy dinner in quite nice clothes.
If you ride a cargo bike, there's no problem with carrying your stuff. That's why I got one, because I couldn't stand riding with a backpack.
As for the exercise, for a given amount of time, you get more of it (though not as much variety) if you ride a bike, because time spent driving is not exercise. The shower time is invariant -- either you shower after you exercise at the gym, or you shower after you exercise on the bike. For variety, I shovel snow.
But prosecution, and proper sentencing, provides incentives for others to drive carefully, and removes the worst drivers from the road. The drivers that rear-ended you (if they hit you hard) at a stop light, should not ever me driving again. Ask yourself, how bad a driver do you need to be, to not see a stopped car at a red light in front of you, and hit it? I don't want people like that on the road, period, and a lifetime ban would do a lot to help.
damn yes. I built some chains following internet instructions, and on a clean road the vibration was simply unbelievable. I was afraid to close my mouth for fear of chipping a tooth.
I have a (long) bike, not an electric scooter, but it seems to cope fine with the family shopping trip, not always in good weather. What you need is a proper cargo bike.
Lookhere for examples.
And if you need to, say, haul 480 lbs (gross weight) up a 31% grade , there's a motor for that.
I'm a little tired of all the negativity. Get a good cargo bike, and ride, and you can do a load of stuff. So the answer is, yes, the electric scooter, or something very like it, is a big part of the answer to our transport problems, and as long as pedaling is still in the picture, it would do a heck of a lot for our health. Over half the commutes in the US are e-bikeable (by commute count, not mileage -- the median commute is 10-12 miles).
Similar situation, different results. The non-scenic ride to work has never taken more than an hour, usually 50-55 minutes (it's slower in the winter, what with the colder air, bulkier clothes, and snow tires). Ride home is a reliable 50 minutes or less, unless I stop to run errands. If I need to be there a hair faster, it is 45. (Work is uphill from home). If I am in a supreme hurry, I go over a 300 foot hill; that is the "short cut". I'm sure of these numbers; I measure, I notice the difference in rolling resistance between different sorts of tires.
I get flats once in a blue moon, but I always carry gear.
I got to work today, and changed in my office. It takes a few minutes. I've ridden in jeans, but today I felt like wearing tights.
And by-the-way -- I'm a few weeks away from 50, overweight, and a regular 2 commutes/week on my bike is keeping me off meds for middle-aged blood, and keeps my knees and back flexible. I was off the bike for two weeks at Christmas, and started to feel like crap. The bike is hardly a speedster -- it weighs I don't-know-how-much (it's a steel cargo bike), with fat tires, an internally geared hub, chain case, dynamo hub, fenders, steel flip stand, and a substantial tool kit.
I'm not sure about getting an e-bike; I might ride a hair more, but the added speed really would cut into the safety. By the way, in all these articles mentioning "risk" and "safety", they don't mention the big risk, which is diseases of the unfit (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mostly). Add that to the pool, and a car-never-biking is (so I read, source is Mayer Hillman) TEN TIMES as dangerous as the average bicycle.
Your statement is literally true, but the design of the truck contributed to the severity of the accident. One presumes that there are building sites in Europe, yet somehow they manage to use trucks there. Clearly, one should always be on the lookout for hazards, but that is no excuse for creating hazards willy-nilly without some blame to the hazard-creator.
It is standard advice to cyclists in the US to never, ever ride (or stop) to the right of a truck when the truck has the option of making a right turn, but that does not change the fact that the risk to the cyclists (or the pedestrian) could be reduced with a proven-practical change to the design of the truck.
There's (anecdotal) evidence that people will "not see" a six-foot person in an orange rabbit suit piloting a reflectorized pedicab and also not avoid it. Oddly enough, even though one might interpret "I didn't see her" as an admission of driving while blind, the only charge that stuck was hit-and-run.
(I have read elsewhere that the rabbit smelled alcohol on the driver's breath, but note that there was no charge of DUI, so legally, not intoxicated.)
This assumes we have no complaint with the design of the truck itself. Being overrun happens in cases where the squashed person is not at fault (and I note that the pedestrian in this accident was unable to present her side of the story; do we have an account from a disinterested party?)
I had heard that safety skirts were required in Europe to prevent exactly this accident, when I googled for "europe trucks safety skirts", I found this:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/aerodynamic-hea.html
and here:
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/mag/trucks_outside_frame_avoids/
Apparently, they can also add significant fuel savings.
As to whether this is reasonable, I note that unmarked, unbarricaded open manholes are considered an actionable problem in this country.
What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Other posters may have gotten this right, but it might make sense to review where things are, what the company wants, and what the author might want.
What we have is a BSD license. The company does not want to be "bound" by that license. How is a BSD license different from "here's the code, have fun"? It requires propagation of the BSD copyright. So that clause comes off.
Second, the company probably wants a certain guarantee that the guy selling them code, is really, truly the author of the code. That is implied by the copyright itself, but it is not implied enough for the companies I've worked for. You need to separately, redundantly, certify that "this is my code, really, I have the right to change its copyright/license and sell it to you". The BSD license alone does not do this.
Third, the author presumably chose BSD over MIT for a reason, and he may want to ensure that if the purchaser ever re-releases the code in open source form, that the license reverts to BSD, with him listed as one of the authors (perhaps now a co-author) with the limits that implies on further dual licensing. The company will not want to do this, and it will probably be a show-stopper, so ask for more money. Do not be an typical nerd and not bother asking for things that you know will not happen -- ask for them, and then trade them away for money.
The company might not want the author using their name in his own "marketing" materials; this is also not part of the BSD license, and probably your standard successful businessman would ding them for a few dollars for this, too. (Yes, I would get very annoyed at the negotiating tactics of the standard successful businessman, but you have already made it easy for them to use the code under your very reasonable terms, THEY are asking you for a favor, THEY should pay for every detail.)
And as other posters have pointed out, the author still owns his version of the code, and nothing here should constrain his use of it. That might need to be explicit. You should not need to give up anything to retain this right, you already made your code available, they are imposing on your time and patience, they should pay.
Dealing with alignment is not that much of an assembler issue, if you are using C. Address arithmetic gets the job done. If you even want your globals aligned (and not just heap-allocated stuff) you *might* need some ASM, but just for the declarations of stuff that would be "extern struct whatever stuff" in C (and in a pinch, you write a bit of C code to suck in the headers defining "stuff", figure out the sizes, and emit the appropriate declarations in asm).
Writing memmove/memcpy in assembler is a mixed bag. If you write it in C, you can preserve a some tiny fraction of your sanity dealing with all the different alignment combinations before you get to full-word loads and stores. HOWEVER, on the x86, all bets are off, the only way to tell for sure what is fastest, is to write it, and benchmark it.
is how everything is carefully run through the make-nice factory. The memory chip makers ucked fup. NIST ucked fup. Yet, NIST cannot say, "whoa, we blew it, we have to fix that standard immediately" (else it will be completely worthless). No, they're organizing a committee to appoint a task force to propose revisions to the standard, pending who-knows-what. And even the guys who got it right, try to make nice with a handy excuse for how this came about -- "difficult to administer with all those different passwords". You set two passwords for each device, duh, and let either access the bits. Vendors provide them with a customer-specified admin password, or vendor supplies a chip initialization utility where customer may bake in an admin password.
Wikipedia Skin Effect is your friend. That's for AC currents, you'll have something slightly more complex going on with radio waves, but it gives you the general idea. Go read it, it is cooler than I knew (did not know how terrible an AC conductor iron wire really was). Interestingly, this suggests that we should weave a little (magnetic) iron into our tinfoil hats.
I suppose I should go read all the various FAs -- "equivalent" can mean many things. You could adjust for weight, or for watts/cc, or for metabolism, or for skull radius.
I must admit, I am intrigued, if this effect is real, that would be both funny, cool, and useful. Would you get your best dose by sticking the antenna up your nose, or in your ears?
I think I disagree mildly. The outside of the potato attenuates the radiation; and it is not as strong (or as hot) in the middle as it is on the surface. I have certainly had the experience of microwaved potatoes (especially larger ones) being cooked on the outside layers, but not the center. So, mouse-head small, human-head big, you're going to get some attenuation of the signal.
As far as the Faraday cage experiment goes, (a) I'll bet you have not actually tried this, and (b) the cell phone can work with the signal that gets in through a small crack between cage and head. I know about (b) because I've played tinfoil-RFID-shield games (using my phone and prox sensor for work as proxies for an RFID tag) and if the bag is open much, the phone gets a signal. (By-the-way, one of those aluminized Fritos bags work great, if you fold the end over a couple of times and clip it shut).
Yes, but. Cellphone radiation (.85-1.9Ghz) does not penetrate that far into your body, just as microwave radiation (2.45Ghz) does not penetrate that far into a potato.
Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads, therefore they are getting a much larger dose to their brain, for a given external exposure.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a historical context to consider. The poster child for "States' Rights" is legalized discrimination against "blacks". I'm sure that's not what you're talking about here, but when you ship content across jurisdictions, you have to think about how it might be viewed by others :-).
Still don't think it's a good idea, at least not as long as we have the Commerce Clause, and liability-shielded corporations that have been granted the same rights as real live people. That tilts the playing field towards big money.
I think this is a bad idea, because it counts "states" and not people. We already have enough non-democracy built into our system, we don't need more.
New Orleans (well, most of the Gulf Coast) is a special case -- except that this might motivate e-bikes, which as I recall was once being discussed here :-).
No e-assist, showers are really not optional there, at least in the summer. They are optional here (near Boston) for most of the year, but they are also available. I did commute by bike, a short distance, in Houston, one extremely hot summer. Leave early, come home late, minimum effort, steer for puddles of shade. And I've also spent years aiming for a job were being a snappy dresser was not the most important qualification. (And, to be blunt, where the rational analysis that says "50 miles of biking per week is the most time-effective way to get the exercise I need to stay healthy, plus a lot of other good things" is valued.)
As for "chicks"-and-or-coeds, I am nearly 50. And happily married. We're talking purely Walter Mitty territory here.
You really can carry plenty on a bicycle, depending on the bicycle. I got a cargo bike because I was tired of backpacks and panniers. 50lbs of stuff, I can still ride no-hands (summer tires, at least). 100lbs, I am still comfortable on the bike. 150+, I have to pay attention to the handling. 200 is the official limit, but people have carried more. I've hauled my wife a short distance, in the snow (storm), when it was easier than shoveling out the berm that had been plowed up behind the car. I've also arranged the bike so that I don't need to ride in fancy clothes, or even with pants clips -- nice saddle, chain case, when the weather's right I ride in work clothes, and I've even used a bike to get to a quite-fancy dinner in quite nice clothes.
If you ride a cargo bike, there's no problem with carrying your stuff. That's why I got one, because I couldn't stand riding with a backpack.
As for the exercise, for a given amount of time, you get more of it (though not as much variety) if you ride a bike, because time spent driving is not exercise. The shower time is invariant -- either you shower after you exercise at the gym, or you shower after you exercise on the bike. For variety, I shovel snow.
But prosecution, and proper sentencing, provides incentives for others to drive carefully, and removes the worst drivers from the road. The drivers that rear-ended you (if they hit you hard) at a stop light, should not ever me driving again. Ask yourself, how bad a driver do you need to be, to not see a stopped car at a red light in front of you, and hit it? I don't want people like that on the road, period, and a lifetime ban would do a lot to help.
damn yes. I built some chains following internet instructions, and on a clean road the vibration was simply unbelievable. I was afraid to close my mouth for fear of chipping a tooth.
I have a (long) bike, not an electric scooter, but it seems to cope fine with the family shopping trip, not always in good weather. What you need is a proper cargo bike. Look here for examples.
For example, heading home after work and a stop by the grocery store a couple of years ago.
Studded tires are useful on ice.
You can tow your kid's bike home in a snow storm..
You can haul a shrubbery to a neighbor's house (it was really heavy, the bike was probably 15 degrees off vertical the whole way).
And if you need to, say, haul 480 lbs (gross weight) up a 31% grade , there's a motor for that.
I'm a little tired of all the negativity. Get a good cargo bike, and ride, and you can do a load of stuff. So the answer is, yes, the electric scooter, or something very like it, is a big part of the answer to our transport problems, and as long as pedaling is still in the picture, it would do a heck of a lot for our health. Over half the commutes in the US are e-bikeable (by commute count, not mileage -- the median commute is 10-12 miles).
Similar situation, different results. The non-scenic ride to work has never taken more than an hour, usually 50-55 minutes (it's slower in the winter, what with the colder air, bulkier clothes, and snow tires). Ride home is a reliable 50 minutes or less, unless I stop to run errands. If I need to be there a hair faster, it is 45. (Work is uphill from home). If I am in a supreme hurry, I go over a 300 foot hill; that is the "short cut". I'm sure of these numbers; I measure, I notice the difference in rolling resistance between different sorts of tires.
I get flats once in a blue moon, but I always carry gear.
I got to work today, and changed in my office. It takes a few minutes. I've ridden in jeans, but today I felt like wearing tights.
And by-the-way -- I'm a few weeks away from 50, overweight, and a regular 2 commutes/week on my bike is keeping me off meds for middle-aged blood, and keeps my knees and back flexible. I was off the bike for two weeks at Christmas, and started to feel like crap. The bike is hardly a speedster -- it weighs I don't-know-how-much (it's a steel cargo bike), with fat tires, an internally geared hub, chain case, dynamo hub, fenders, steel flip stand, and a substantial tool kit.
I'm not sure about getting an e-bike; I might ride a hair more, but the added speed really would cut into the safety. By the way, in all these articles mentioning "risk" and "safety", they don't mention the big risk, which is diseases of the unfit (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, mostly). Add that to the pool, and a car-never-biking is (so I read, source is Mayer Hillman) TEN TIMES as dangerous as the average bicycle.
I've seen knitting (riding a bike past cars going slow in a traffic jam).
Your statement is literally true, but the design of the truck contributed to the severity of the accident. One presumes that there are building sites in Europe, yet somehow they manage to use trucks there. Clearly, one should always be on the lookout for hazards, but that is no excuse for creating hazards willy-nilly without some blame to the hazard-creator.
It is standard advice to cyclists in the US to never, ever ride (or stop) to the right of a truck when the truck has the option of making a right turn, but that does not change the fact that the risk to the cyclists (or the pedestrian) could be reduced with a proven-practical change to the design of the truck.
There's (anecdotal) evidence that people will "not see" a six-foot person in an orange rabbit suit piloting a reflectorized pedicab and also not avoid it. Oddly enough, even though one might interpret "I didn't see her" as an admission of driving while blind, the only charge that stuck was hit-and-run.
(I have read elsewhere that the rabbit smelled alcohol on the driver's breath, but note that there was no charge of DUI, so legally, not intoxicated.)
Didn't see the bear, did you? :-)
This assumes we have no complaint with the design of the truck itself. Being overrun happens in cases where the squashed person is not at fault (and I note that the pedestrian in this accident was unable to present her side of the story; do we have an account from a disinterested party?) I had heard that safety skirts were required in Europe to prevent exactly this accident, when I googled for "europe trucks safety skirts", I found this:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/aerodynamic-hea.html
and here:
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/mag/trucks_outside_frame_avoids/
Apparently, they can also add significant fuel savings.
As to whether this is reasonable, I note that unmarked, unbarricaded open manholes are considered an actionable problem in this country.
What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Other posters may have gotten this right, but it might make sense to review where things are, what the company wants, and what the author might want.
What we have is a BSD license. The company does not want to be "bound" by that license. How is a BSD license different from "here's the code, have fun"? It requires propagation of the BSD copyright. So that clause comes off.
Second, the company probably wants a certain guarantee that the guy selling them code, is really, truly the author of the code. That is implied by the copyright itself, but it is not implied enough for the companies I've worked for. You need to separately, redundantly, certify that "this is my code, really, I have the right to change its copyright/license and sell it to you". The BSD license alone does not do this.
Third, the author presumably chose BSD over MIT for a reason, and he may want to ensure that if the purchaser ever re-releases the code in open source form, that the license reverts to BSD, with him listed as one of the authors (perhaps now a co-author) with the limits that implies on further dual licensing. The company will not want to do this, and it will probably be a show-stopper, so ask for more money. Do not be an typical nerd and not bother asking for things that you know will not happen -- ask for them, and then trade them away for money.
The company might not want the author using their name in his own "marketing" materials; this is also not part of the BSD license, and probably your standard successful businessman would ding them for a few dollars for this, too. (Yes, I would get very annoyed at the negotiating tactics of the standard successful businessman, but you have already made it easy for them to use the code under your very reasonable terms, THEY are asking you for a favor, THEY should pay for every detail.)
And as other posters have pointed out, the author still owns his version of the code, and nothing here should constrain his use of it. That might need to be explicit. You should not need to give up anything to retain this right, you already made your code available, they are imposing on your time and patience, they should pay.
Not very large, but it did make an enormous kaboom, and rendered the locker in which it detonated somewhat egg-shaped.
And no, it was not me.
Dealing with alignment is not that much of an assembler issue, if you are using C. Address arithmetic gets the job done. If you even want your globals aligned (and not just heap-allocated stuff) you *might* need some ASM, but just for the declarations of stuff that would be "extern struct whatever stuff" in C (and in a pinch, you write a bit of C code to suck in the headers defining "stuff", figure out the sizes, and emit the appropriate declarations in asm).
Writing memmove/memcpy in assembler is a mixed bag. If you write it in C, you can preserve a some tiny fraction of your sanity dealing with all the different alignment combinations before you get to full-word loads and stores. HOWEVER, on the x86, all bets are off, the only way to tell for sure what is fastest, is to write it, and benchmark it.
It will be totally retro, like bell-bottoms, hip-huggers, wide ties, and beehive hair-dos.
My kids could read this. I have to at least make an effort, ok?
Besides, what does it bother you that I made the effort? It was my effort, and you clearly figured out what I meant.
is how everything is carefully run through the make-nice factory. The memory chip makers ucked fup. NIST ucked fup. Yet, NIST cannot say, "whoa, we blew it, we have to fix that standard immediately" (else it will be completely worthless). No, they're organizing a committee to appoint a task force to propose revisions to the standard, pending who-knows-what. And even the guys who got it right, try to make nice with a handy excuse for how this came about -- "difficult to administer with all those different passwords". You set two passwords for each device, duh, and let either access the bits. Vendors provide them with a customer-specified admin password, or vendor supplies a chip initialization utility where customer may bake in an admin password.
Wikipedia Skin Effect is your friend. That's for AC currents, you'll have something slightly more complex going on with radio waves, but it gives you the general idea. Go read it, it is cooler than I knew (did not know how terrible an AC conductor iron wire really was). Interestingly, this suggests that we should weave a little (magnetic) iron into our tinfoil hats.
I suppose I should go read all the various FAs -- "equivalent" can mean many things. You could adjust for weight, or for watts/cc, or for metabolism, or for skull radius.
I must admit, I am intrigued, if this effect is real, that would be both funny, cool, and useful. Would you get your best dose by sticking the antenna up your nose, or in your ears?
I think I disagree mildly. The outside of the potato attenuates the radiation; and it is not as strong (or as hot) in the middle as it is on the surface. I have certainly had the experience of microwaved potatoes (especially larger ones) being cooked on the outside layers, but not the center. So, mouse-head small, human-head big, you're going to get some attenuation of the signal.
As far as the Faraday cage experiment goes, (a) I'll bet you have not actually tried this, and (b) the cell phone can work with the signal that gets in through a small crack between cage and head. I know about (b) because I've played tinfoil-RFID-shield games (using my phone and prox sensor for work as proxies for an RFID tag) and if the bag is open much, the phone gets a signal. (By-the-way, one of those aluminized Fritos bags work great, if you fold the end over a couple of times and clip it shut).
If you can remember how to use it.
I'm thinking, cell phones good, Tesla coils better?
Yes, but. Cellphone radiation (.85-1.9Ghz) does not penetrate that far into your body, just as microwave radiation (2.45Ghz) does not penetrate that far into a potato.
Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads, therefore they are getting a much larger dose to their brain, for a given external exposure.