yes, vim can do multiple buffers. You might want to ":set hidden". That'll allow buffers to be hidden. You should also ":help buffers" for more info. I don't know what C-space does in emacs, so I couldn't tell you want the vim equivalent would be.
Let me guess: you're an emacs user, right? I'm not trying to start a flame war here (honest!) but you might want to try vim, or perhaps a vi-like binding for emacs (like viper mode). vi-style keybindings tend to be much easier on the fingers (especially the pinkies) than the standard emacs bindings.
Sure. My point was that itachi's response of "They did" to the AC's question "Why don't you [Apple] release an 'iMac-Lite' as a G3 cube for $500" was incorrect. Your post would actually have been a better response to the AC's question. They never released a $500 cube because they'd be selling machines below cost.
Yeah, I had both Meccano and Erector sets when I was a kid, and they were different, The screws were a different size in the two sets. The Erector also had axles that had a flat side, while the Meccano had cylindrical axels. The plastic Erector pieces (yes, some pieces are plastic) were also a much thicker plastic than the plastic Meccano pieces. Finally, the Erector motors had a hole where you'd insert an axel, while the Meccano motors had a short (3/4") piece of axle protruding from them.
The sets were somewhat compatible though, except for a couple of places where the axle type or screw type made a difference.
With carnivore, the government sees all traffic. They see crypto they can't break, they trace it with help from the ISP, they pay someone a not-so-friendly visit.
But encrypted data can be hidden in non-encrypted data, in ways that make it virtually impossible to detect, using steganography. So the criminals could send photos to eachother, or even have a web-cam feed with data steganographically encoded into the frames.
Take a look at OutGuess, for example. You might also find this article to be interesting, particularly the part with the photos of the Statue of Liberty.
It's strange that you think OAL is bad for music, but then turn around and say GPL is great for software. The exact same arguments you mention against OAL apply to GPL as well. I think you may be lacking some objectivity...
Consider what you said:
Lets say i write a song with some killer riffs but it's arranged poorly, downright ugly. Lets say someone comes around are rearranges the parts, who deserves the credit?
The software parallel:
Lets say i write a program with some great features but it's got a few bugs. Lets say someone comes around fixes the bugs, who deserves the credit?
OAL is probably suitable for some artists, just as GPL is suitable for some programmers. The thing to be worried about are the zealots who will demand that all music be OAL, just as there are already lots of GPL zealots. OAL and GPL both have significant problems for people who want to profit from their creations. That's why GPL's mostly used for things people work on in their spare time. The same will probably be true for OAL.
Entanglement is specifically disallowed by the rules:
8. Entanglement Devices - Any device specifically designed to entangle another BattleBot shall be forbidden. This includes, but is not limited to the following:
Forget the headphones! Bring in a big shelf stereo. Let everyone know ahead of time and explain that if they don't like what you're playing, they can ask you to play whatever they want...
And what if their answer is "nothing"?
In an office setting, headphones really make more sense. Everyone's got their own tastes, and many people don't want to be hearing music all day. Besides, one of the main uses of headphones+music is to block out the conversations of others around you. That doesn't work with speakers, because everyone around you'll just be yelling over the music.
You get better stereo separation with headphones anyway...
First, unless you accept the GPL, you have NO right under copyright law, except what is given to you by Fair Use Law.
In the hypothetical example, the company didn't copy, distribute or modify the GPLed library. Hence copyright does not apply.
Second, if you dynamically link to a library, you are creating a derived work.
I don't believe this to be the case in general, but especially not in the hypothetical example. Explain how a work could possibly be derived from something that was created later?
Let me repeat the hypothetical example, and spell it out a bit more clearly. Imagine the following events were to happen in the following chronological order:
a library libfoo is released under LGPL (or possibly even an X11 or BSD style license)
someone else develops a non-GPL program quux that dynamically links with libfoo
a GPLed libfoo that's binary compatible with the original libfoo is released
So the non-GPLed program quux was written before the GPLed libfoo, yet it is possible that a user might install the GPLed libfoo as well as (the non-GPLed) quux. In that situation, quux would dynamically link with the GPLed libfoo, but no reasonable person would claim that quux was derived from the GPLed version of libfoo.
Your statement would be like saying: Well, I confined the GPL'ed code to a seperate function in my program, so that the rest of my code doesn't have to be GPL'ed.
No, that's completely different. In that situation you'd have to copy the GPLed code in order to distribute your program. You're not allowed to do that unless you accept the GPL. The same goes for static linking. My point is that one only needs to accept the GPL if one is going to copy some or all of the GPLed code. Hence code that dynamically links with GPLed code does not itself need to be GPLed. The same goes for RPC calls to GPLed servers, calls to system() on a GPLed command line tools, etc.
you might consider reading about copyright, and engaging your brain before opening your mouth (or typing =-).
Ah yes, you can't face the truth, so you stoop to personal attacks. Perhaps you are the one who should try openeing your mind. And I'd be very interested if you can show me where in copyright law it states that dynamically linking constitutes a violation of copyright.
Simply put, the company isn't meeting it's obligations if it doesn't make it's best effort to prevent this sort of thing. They accepted those obligations when they assumed ownership (not copyright) of their copy of the library's code.
The company in the hypothetical story didn't copy the GPLed library, so how are they bound by copyright? Answer: they aren't. Yet RMS claims that any non GPLed code that dynamically links with GPLed code is a violation of the GPL. How can one violate a license they never accepted?
Perhaps you should read the GPL again. In section 5 it says: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works." The hypothetical company did not accept the license, so they're not allowed to "modify or distribute the Program [the library, in this case] or its derivative works". Well, they didn't modify or distribute the GPLed library, and their program isn't a derived work, since it was written before the GPLed version of the library existed.
I really don't understand why you're picking on the GPL with this scenario. I expect that LGPL'd libraries infrequently switch to GPL.
RMS has been pushing for LGPL libraries to be converted to GPL ever since he renamed LGPL the "lesser" GPL. People also occasionally convert things from BSD/X11 style licenses into GPL licenses as well. Expecting users of LGPL, BSD and X11 dynamic libraries to somehow prevent people from dropping in a binary compatible GPL library, which may not even exist at the time the software is written, is ridiculous.
Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with the GPL itself, except I believe the claim that non-GPLed software cannot dynamically link with GPLed code is completely bogus. If RMS and his flunkies will finally admit that the GPL cannot infect software that merely dynamically links, then I'll agree that it truly is less restrictive than copyright.
Incidently, I use the term "infect" because the GPL is commonly referred to as a "viral" licence because the GPL, like a virus, "infects" things. It wasn't intended to be derogatory, merely descriptive.
But the company hasn't really done anything wrong, have they? They never had to agree to the GPL, because they aren't distributing any GPLed code.
What if someone makes a library that's indistinguishable from libreadline, and distributes it with LGPL, BSD, or some other similar license. Then suppose someone distributes a closed source program that uses this libreadline clone. All legal right? But what if someone goes and installs GNU libreadline on a system that's got this closed-source program?
The fact is, RMS's belief that GPL can infect even software that only dynamically links is ridiculous, especially if one believes his claims that GPL isn't any more restrictive than plain old copyright.
You think forcing China to build lots of nukes in order to slow down their economy is a good thing? Exactly what kind of crack did you say you were on?
If you are a US citizen or green card holder, you have to pay US income taxes even if you live and work in another country.
Actually, if you're a holder of a US "green card", and you're living and working in another country, you're supposed to return your greencard. Yes, that's right: "permanent resident" status only lasts as long as you really are a resident of the US. If you leave the US to live elsewhere, you're supposed to give it up. INS officials routinely confiscate the greencards of non-US residents who try to return to the US.
Oh, and the US has tax treaties with a few other countries. These treaties can affect your income tax. For example, I believe a US citizen living in Canada only has to pay Canadian income tax, not US income tax (of course, Canadian income tax is actually somewhat higher than US income tax).
The only situation in which I'd accept nuclear power would be that the waste would be shot out of earth (or 100% recycled) and the plants could be guaranteed 100% safe.
Nothing is 100% safe. Heck, there's a very small chance that all of the air molecules in the room you're in now might suddenly decide to move to the far corner, suffocating you.
When you buy a computer from Dell or Gateway, do you consider it a donation because you could have built it yourself for $1000 cheaper?
I would if "building it myself" just meant I had to type "./configure && make all"
But back to the point: people don't pay GNU for any form of convenience. If they wanted convenience, they wouldn't be using a VAX. The only people who pay GNU are people who want to donate to the FSF.
Slashdot Mirror
automatically does what?
So then I guess it should be called "GNU/Linux/Xfree86/KDE/Qt"? Or perhaps just "Linux" for short...
The low end cube was $1500 -- significantly more than $500, and certainly not "dirt cheap" for a 450MHz machine with no monitor.
yes, vim can do multiple buffers. You might want to ":set hidden". That'll allow buffers to be hidden. You should also ":help buffers" for more info. I don't know what C-space does in emacs, so I couldn't tell you want the vim equivalent would be.
Let me guess: you're an emacs user, right? I'm not trying to start a flame war here (honest!) but you might want to try vim, or perhaps a vi-like binding for emacs (like viper mode). vi-style keybindings tend to be much easier on the fingers (especially the pinkies) than the standard emacs bindings.
Sure. My point was that itachi's response of "They did" to the AC's question "Why don't you [Apple] release an 'iMac-Lite' as a G3 cube for $500" was incorrect. Your post would actually have been a better response to the AC's question. They never released a $500 cube because they'd be selling machines below cost.
The cube was a heck of a lot more than $500.
Yeah, I had both Meccano and Erector sets when I was a kid, and they were different, The screws were a different size in the two sets. The Erector also had axles that had a flat side, while the Meccano had cylindrical axels. The plastic Erector pieces (yes, some pieces are plastic) were also a much thicker plastic than the plastic Meccano pieces. Finally, the Erector motors had a hole where you'd insert an axel, while the Meccano motors had a short (3/4") piece of axle protruding from them.
The sets were somewhat compatible though, except for a couple of places where the axle type or screw type made a difference.
The ^O command?
My Tivo told me about this this morning...
With carnivore, the government sees all traffic. They see crypto they can't break, they trace it with help from the ISP, they pay someone a not-so-friendly visit.
But encrypted data can be hidden in non-encrypted data, in ways that make it virtually impossible to detect, using steganography. So the criminals could send photos to eachother, or even have a web-cam feed with data steganographically encoded into the frames.
Take a look at OutGuess, for example. You might also find this article to be interesting, particularly the part with the photos of the Statue of Liberty.
Consider what you said:The software parallel:OAL is probably suitable for some artists, just as GPL is suitable for some programmers. The thing to be worried about are the zealots who will demand that all music be OAL, just as there are already lots of GPL zealots. OAL and GPL both have significant problems for people who want to profit from their creations. That's why GPL's mostly used for things people work on in their spare time. The same will probably be true for OAL.
T-shirt sales can't pay developer's salaries?!?
</sarcasm>
Forget the headphones! Bring in a big shelf stereo. Let everyone know ahead of time and explain that if they don't like what you're playing, they can ask you to play whatever they want...
And what if their answer is "nothing"?
In an office setting, headphones really make more sense. Everyone's got their own tastes, and many people don't want to be hearing music all day. Besides, one of the main uses of headphones+music is to block out the conversations of others around you. That doesn't work with speakers, because everyone around you'll just be yelling over the music.
You get better stereo separation with headphones anyway...
I think sourceforge is uglier. The "brushed metal" look is pretty tacky.
First, unless you accept the GPL, you have NO right under copyright law, except what is given to you by Fair Use Law.
In the hypothetical example, the company didn't copy, distribute or modify the GPLed library. Hence copyright does not apply.
Second, if you dynamically link to a library, you are creating a derived work.
I don't believe this to be the case in general, but especially not in the hypothetical example. Explain how a work could possibly be derived from something that was created later?
Let me repeat the hypothetical example, and spell it out a bit more clearly. Imagine the following events were to happen in the following chronological order:
- a library libfoo is released under LGPL (or possibly even an X11 or BSD style license)
- someone else develops a non-GPL program quux that dynamically links with libfoo
- a GPLed libfoo that's binary compatible with the original libfoo is released
So the non-GPLed program quux was written before the GPLed libfoo, yet it is possible that a user might install the GPLed libfoo as well as (the non-GPLed) quux. In that situation, quux would dynamically link with the GPLed libfoo, but no reasonable person would claim that quux was derived from the GPLed version of libfoo.Your statement would be like saying: Well, I confined the GPL'ed code to a seperate function in my program, so that the rest of my code doesn't have to be GPL'ed.
No, that's completely different. In that situation you'd have to copy the GPLed code in order to distribute your program. You're not allowed to do that unless you accept the GPL. The same goes for static linking. My point is that one only needs to accept the GPL if one is going to copy some or all of the GPLed code. Hence code that dynamically links with GPLed code does not itself need to be GPLed. The same goes for RPC calls to GPLed servers, calls to system() on a GPLed command line tools, etc.
UTC == Universal Coordinated Time. The letters are scrambled to appease the French. (just like ISO == International Organization for Standardization)
you might consider reading about copyright, and engaging your brain before opening your mouth (or typing =-).
Ah yes, you can't face the truth, so you stoop to personal attacks. Perhaps you are the one who should try openeing your mind. And I'd be very interested if you can show me where in copyright law it states that dynamically linking constitutes a violation of copyright.
Simply put, the company isn't meeting it's obligations if it doesn't make it's best effort to prevent this sort of thing. They accepted those obligations when they assumed ownership (not copyright) of their copy of the library's code.
The company in the hypothetical story didn't copy the GPLed library, so how are they bound by copyright? Answer: they aren't. Yet RMS claims that any non GPLed code that dynamically links with GPLed code is a violation of the GPL. How can one violate a license they never accepted?
Perhaps you should read the GPL again. In section 5 it says: "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works." The hypothetical company did not accept the license, so they're not allowed to "modify or distribute the Program [the library, in this case] or its derivative works". Well, they didn't modify or distribute the GPLed library, and their program isn't a derived work, since it was written before the GPLed version of the library existed.
I really don't understand why you're picking on the GPL with this scenario. I expect that LGPL'd libraries infrequently switch to GPL.
RMS has been pushing for LGPL libraries to be converted to GPL ever since he renamed LGPL the "lesser" GPL. People also occasionally convert things from BSD/X11 style licenses into GPL licenses as well. Expecting users of LGPL, BSD and X11 dynamic libraries to somehow prevent people from dropping in a binary compatible GPL library, which may not even exist at the time the software is written, is ridiculous.
Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with the GPL itself, except I believe the claim that non-GPLed software cannot dynamically link with GPLed code is completely bogus. If RMS and his flunkies will finally admit that the GPL cannot infect software that merely dynamically links, then I'll agree that it truly is less restrictive than copyright.
Incidently, I use the term "infect" because the GPL is commonly referred to as a "viral" licence because the GPL, like a virus, "infects" things. It wasn't intended to be derogatory, merely descriptive.
But the company hasn't really done anything wrong, have they? They never had to agree to the GPL, because they aren't distributing any GPLed code.
What if someone makes a library that's indistinguishable from libreadline, and distributes it with LGPL, BSD, or some other similar license. Then suppose someone distributes a closed source program that uses this libreadline clone. All legal right? But what if someone goes and installs GNU libreadline on a system that's got this closed-source program?
The fact is, RMS's belief that GPL can infect even software that only dynamically links is ridiculous, especially if one believes his claims that GPL isn't any more restrictive than plain old copyright.
Making a non digital copy of a tape and sharing it with a friend is not illegal.
Yes it is. At least, in most places that have copyright laws it is.
You think forcing China to build lots of nukes in order to slow down their economy is a good thing? Exactly what kind of crack did you say you were on?
If you are a US citizen or green card holder, you have to pay US income taxes even if you live and work in another country.
Actually, if you're a holder of a US "green card", and you're living and working in another country, you're supposed to return your greencard. Yes, that's right: "permanent resident" status only lasts as long as you really are a resident of the US. If you leave the US to live elsewhere, you're supposed to give it up. INS officials routinely confiscate the greencards of non-US residents who try to return to the US.
Oh, and the US has tax treaties with a few other countries. These treaties can affect your income tax. For example, I believe a US citizen living in Canada only has to pay Canadian income tax, not US income tax (of course, Canadian income tax is actually somewhat higher than US income tax).
The only situation in which I'd accept nuclear power would be that the waste would be shot out of earth (or 100% recycled) and the plants could be guaranteed 100% safe.
Nothing is 100% safe. Heck, there's a very small chance that all of the air molecules in the room you're in now might suddenly decide to move to the far corner, suffocating you.
When you buy a computer from Dell or Gateway, do you consider it a donation because you could have built it yourself for $1000 cheaper?
I would if "building it myself" just meant I had to type "./configure && make all"
But back to the point: people don't pay GNU for any form of convenience. If they wanted convenience, they wouldn't be using a VAX. The only people who pay GNU are people who want to donate to the FSF.