Re:wrong wrong wrong about copyleft
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 2
It's even 'friendlier' than that, it's been interpreted to mean that you don't have to make a point of passing on the source code, that you only have to if you are asked by those that you provided binaries to, even if you were compensated for those binaries.
I looked up United States vs Causby. It seems to indicate that one has a reasonable right to the airspace above one's house, and that if the Government takes that airspace (in this case, low-flying aircraft less than 100' off the ground) that the property owner has the right to be reimbursed. Causby was owed money under the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment.
Since private parties cannot 'take' in that sense from someone without the government providing a medium through which to do it, that would mean that private parties would be trespassing rather than 'taking'. I would expect that if someone's drone was taken-down by the rightful owner or tenant of that property that it might be difficult for the drone owner to seek legal action.
I am not a lawyer, but it does not appear to support your assertion.
Well, the FCC yields the floor on radio towers to the FAA, and the FAA allows for radio towers in most places to be up to 200' tall without any major permitting hurdles.
I envision a rocket-powered net system like in Hatari!, but instead of capturing monkeys in a large tree it'd be used to occasionally clear the air of "debris" in one's property.
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anything actually communicate that slowly. My first modem was a 2400 baud, and there were still a few BBSes running at 1200 baud, but 110 and 300 were long gone by that point.
My 38400 serial terminal is capable of 115200, but because of Cisco's choice to use an RJ-45 jack and cheap cables for console connections I can't crank the speed up above 38400 without getting garbage. I've even gone so far as to run high quality serial cables until the last bit of flat-ribbon Cisco cable, but it doesn't help. The terminal is also about 20' from the switch, which isn't helping either.
We have phone systems and network switches that have serial, still configured for 9600-8-N-1. We have modems connected to the phone system devices that can be called via POTS line to do maintenance if all other methods fail, and since we have all of six people to take care of eighty sites we'd really rather not go for a drive if we can avoid it. I also happen to have a WYSE-52 on my desk that I have connected to a switch console port at 38400; If something breaks the workstation VLAN for whatever reason, I can still maintain the network through a different VLAN through this terminal.
I used to work at a place that handled paging (like, literal TNPP and TAP paging) and we had Digi serial multiplexers with 24 serial ports for connecting to 24 individual modems for paging, fax, and other low-speed services. There were lots of customers still using that technology too; we tried to migrate to Equinox and their digital modems (basically a T1 that emulated 24 modems) but they had trouble with extremely short-length low-baud connections causing lockups. It was literally better to have a huge room full of equipment because it wouldn't crash instead of a single rack full of PCI cards that would constantly have port errors.
The nature of who has been considered acceptable to kill or otherwise victimize in war has vacillated throughout human history. The concept that civilians and other non-combatants are supposed to be left alone when they aren't involved with military targets is a fairly new one, and at times the definition of winning the conflict was the complete annhilation of one's opponent to the last person so that they could never pose a threat again. Even in modern times it's still up for debate- is it acceptable to bomb a civilian population that surrounds and works for a factory that produced war materiel? Does it matter if they produce things as mundane as boots or uniform buttons or velcro, as opposed to producing rifles or tanks or APCs?
Japan had a lot of cottage-industry into WWII. A lot of war materiel was produced in homes or in neighborhoods. If the means of production for an enemy force is subject to attack (we sure felt it was, look at the efforts to conceal aircraft manufacturing facilities on the west coast!) then bombing neighborhoods that produce uniforms or canteens or the sticks to which grenades are attached is fair game.
Pretty much. If I go to the websites for Pizza Hut, or Dominos, or Papa Johns and order a pizza, I'm buying the end-product of a pizza. Honestly I do not care how the company internally handles my order, their service and product is in the food production and distribution market.
The only companies that are actual tech companies sell technology products or possibly technology consulting services to others. It doesn't matter if that technology company internally moves product or materials around on trucks or on ships or in planes to get physical stuff from one plant to another, or even to get products to their customers, they're not first and foremost a shipping company in those circumstances.
It's all about what the company provides to the customer. All of the rest is merely internal organizational structure and usually isn't any of the customer's concern so long as what the customer is paying for is provided.
m rooting for them for sure, but After learning the hard lessons, and the inevitable expenses to correct them, their costs will increase. dramatically.
I don't think that reuse rockets will be considered prime rockets. I expect they'll be used for lesser-importance launches if there's any real risk of a fault developing that couldn't be detected.
On this scale there's so much back-and-forth and so many quality engineers, supplier quality engineers, DCMA inspectors, QC technicians, and the like that I would be surprised if a design misinterpretation slipped through.
That still gives them a much smaller area to examine though, and many fewer parts to potentially destructively test. It also might allow for some manufacturing to continue if they've got large assemblies independent of the predicted failure point that they can work on, so the company doesn't have to lay-off its manufacturing staff while identifying the fault.
You realize that your car has at least one knock sensor on the engine, right? After market retail for an OEM replacement is usually around $100. It is able to handle the noise off of the alternator and all of the rest of the electrical and electronics plus all of the fluids, rotational mass, bearings, and anything else that is expected to make noise, can understand the difference between a combustion premature detonation and a rock bouncing off of the oil pan plus any other of a multitude of impacts noises, and probably costs the automaker just a few dollars to manufacture.
After reflecting on it I'm not exactly surprised. Their later independent confirmation of a not-yet-flown part's failure through destructive test helps reinforce the likelihood of this. I'm glad they found something, it would be nice if we had competitive space launches to make the costs come down.
The position of the manual transmission shifter wasn't always where it is now. It used to be up on the column where it was close to the steering wheel. It moved in a sideways H pattern similar to what it does on the floor, but at a right-angle to the driver.
I find floor shifters to often be worse than column shifters, but the mechanisms to actuate a floor shifter are simpler so companies were able to market it as being more hip, and the public bought on.
I remember when they transitioned to the center button. I don't think it was an American requirement, but when one attempts to sell the same car in all markets one attempts to accommodate all requirements wherever possible, so it became a defacto standard that everyone else eventually followed.
Most of the columns that you describe were made by GM's Delco group, and were sold to Ford, Chrysler, and AMC in addition to use by GM. For a time GM made almost everyone's columns. It can be handy when repairing them, as the turn signal cam and other parts fit all applications.
As for the mad fucks that keep inventing new icons. I wish horrible things happen to them. Its bad enough having to learn about Icons when I learned to read perfectly well over 60 years ago. Why do they not keep the ones they have invented? Are they smoking something I should know about?
I assume that you mean whole-new icons for an existing function rather than a stylistic bent on an existing, well-known icon design. The problem is that they're increasingly hiring visual artists, rather than UI engineers, because they think something avant-garde will help sell more product.
What I really hate is "Ribbon" used by many Microsoft Office products. I learned on Office 4.3. Just about every version of Office until the introduction of "Ribbon" had a similar interface, and that interface had three redundant components, quick-use icons on toolbars, drop-down menus, and keyboard combinations. Ribbon threw a lot of that in the trash and I'd rather use Libreoffice or Openoffice now.
Into the late eighties some vehicles with older-type Delco steering columns still had it on the underside of the column. The way it worked was you pulled the knob out, then turned on the left turn signal (if I'm remembering right) and that bypassed the ignition cut-out on the turn signals and blinked all four corners.
It was ridiculous and could definitely not be activated in an emergency without taking the time to think about the procedure.
Had the reverse once... A friend and I took his hatchback to LA on a LONG day trip to buy something on craigslist, and as I pulled into the rest-stop near 29 Palms I completely forgot that it was a manual. Slowed up to the stop sign, the engine chugged and died. He burst out laughing. It was kind of funny.
Compare the controls in a 2010 Chrysler 300 with a 2013 Chrysler 300. Both are on the LX chassis and share most components, but steering wheels, dash assembly, and controls are not the same between the two cars, and that's two cars on the same chassis. Compare to the other cars like the Sebring/200 and the newer 200, or the Town and Country as it has evolved through recent years, or go into the Dodges and look at the differences between the Caliber, Dart, Avenger, Charger, Ram, and Grand Caravan and you'll see massive differences in controls even within a given model year.
I drive a car with the automatic transmission gear selector on the column. I have inadvertently turned on the windshield wipers a couple of times in the pickup with a floor-stick because the wiper controls on the truck are where the gearshift is on the car.
We travel a lot and rent a lot of cars. It can range from being mildly annoying to almost hazardous, getting to know the controls for a new vehicle, especially when other things like the seat and mirror positioning will also have to be set.
True, the pedals and steering wheel haven't moved, and the actual turn signal stalk's basic signal-left and signal-right functions are unchanged, but as I said, the gearshift selector and everything else is up for grabs.
Change for its own sake is no benefit though. Marketing has made me skeptical of claims of change-for-the-better as sales and marketing are there to drive revenue, not to benefit the customer. As far as personal computer interfaces go, the last time I saw a change that really was for the better was the release of Windows 98 and its revision of the Windows 95 UI, and even then there were some downsides along with the improvements.
I want facts and figures to back up change. Show me that the new car is truly better than the old one, especially when I factor purchase cost and operational life into account. Show me that the new computer system will actually make things easier or faster or better, as opposed to the existing system with most of the operational kinks worked out, and that I won't double the amount of time I commit to the system because it's not really ready for prime time.
Automotive control interfaces change all of the time.
Into about 1980 all American cars and trucks had, for many years, placed the headlights control on the dash at the left. Wiper blade control was usually on the lower left side of the dash near the knee bolster. They placed the turn signal on the left side of the column, placed the gearshift on the right side of the column, and placed the brights control on the floor, operated by the left foot. The radio was generally low on the right side. If a fancy car had an interior dome light with dimming capability it was usually placed on the left with the headlight control, and if there was cruise control, the function was integrated with the turn signal indicator stalk, with a slider on the side for set/coast and a button on the tip for on/off.
In the late seventies and eighties they started playing with multifunction stalks and all bets were off. Some cars integrated nearly every function into the stalk, and if the car had a floor shifter instead of a column shifter sometimes a second multifunction stalk was added to the right side. Floor controls were mostly eliminated and most low, hard to reach controls were relocated to stalks. Tilting telescoping steering columns added a third stalk on the lower-left of the column. When Mercedes Benz took over Chrysler they attempted to add a fourth stalk to the column, low on the right, for the cruise control. Steering wheels got controls on the front, then on the back. At one point early on there was a "rim blow" steering wheel where squeezing the wheel would activate the horn.
My point is that automotive controls are very much NOT standard. Even basic functions like gear selection could be pushbutton, could be a column stalk, could be a dash stalk, could be a floor stick, could be a dash-mounted knob, could be a center-console knob, and there are probably more variations yet. Drivers have to get used to each and every configuration.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even 'friendlier' than that, it's been interpreted to mean that you don't have to make a point of passing on the source code, that you only have to if you are asked by those that you provided binaries to, even if you were compensated for those binaries.
I looked up United States vs Causby. It seems to indicate that one has a reasonable right to the airspace above one's house, and that if the Government takes that airspace (in this case, low-flying aircraft less than 100' off the ground) that the property owner has the right to be reimbursed. Causby was owed money under the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment.
Since private parties cannot 'take' in that sense from someone without the government providing a medium through which to do it, that would mean that private parties would be trespassing rather than 'taking'. I would expect that if someone's drone was taken-down by the rightful owner or tenant of that property that it might be difficult for the drone owner to seek legal action.
I am not a lawyer, but it does not appear to support your assertion.
Well, the FCC yields the floor on radio towers to the FAA, and the FAA allows for radio towers in most places to be up to 200' tall without any major permitting hurdles.
I envision a rocket-powered net system like in Hatari!, but instead of capturing monkeys in a large tree it'd be used to occasionally clear the air of "debris" in one's property.
Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anything actually communicate that slowly. My first modem was a 2400 baud, and there were still a few BBSes running at 1200 baud, but 110 and 300 were long gone by that point.
My 38400 serial terminal is capable of 115200, but because of Cisco's choice to use an RJ-45 jack and cheap cables for console connections I can't crank the speed up above 38400 without getting garbage. I've even gone so far as to run high quality serial cables until the last bit of flat-ribbon Cisco cable, but it doesn't help. The terminal is also about 20' from the switch, which isn't helping either.
We have phone systems and network switches that have serial, still configured for 9600-8-N-1. We have modems connected to the phone system devices that can be called via POTS line to do maintenance if all other methods fail, and since we have all of six people to take care of eighty sites we'd really rather not go for a drive if we can avoid it. I also happen to have a WYSE-52 on my desk that I have connected to a switch console port at 38400; If something breaks the workstation VLAN for whatever reason, I can still maintain the network through a different VLAN through this terminal.
I used to work at a place that handled paging (like, literal TNPP and TAP paging) and we had Digi serial multiplexers with 24 serial ports for connecting to 24 individual modems for paging, fax, and other low-speed services. There were lots of customers still using that technology too; we tried to migrate to Equinox and their digital modems (basically a T1 that emulated 24 modems) but they had trouble with extremely short-length low-baud connections causing lockups. It was literally better to have a huge room full of equipment because it wouldn't crash instead of a single rack full of PCI cards that would constantly have port errors.
The nature of who has been considered acceptable to kill or otherwise victimize in war has vacillated throughout human history. The concept that civilians and other non-combatants are supposed to be left alone when they aren't involved with military targets is a fairly new one, and at times the definition of winning the conflict was the complete annhilation of one's opponent to the last person so that they could never pose a threat again. Even in modern times it's still up for debate- is it acceptable to bomb a civilian population that surrounds and works for a factory that produced war materiel? Does it matter if they produce things as mundane as boots or uniform buttons or velcro, as opposed to producing rifles or tanks or APCs?
Japan had a lot of cottage-industry into WWII. A lot of war materiel was produced in homes or in neighborhoods. If the means of production for an enemy force is subject to attack (we sure felt it was, look at the efforts to conceal aircraft manufacturing facilities on the west coast!) then bombing neighborhoods that produce uniforms or canteens or the sticks to which grenades are attached is fair game.
I think he saw Rising Sun too many times...
Yeah, I forgot that Toshiba made products too. I guess after the last Satellite laptop I had blocked the memory...
Pretty much. If I go to the websites for Pizza Hut, or Dominos, or Papa Johns and order a pizza, I'm buying the end-product of a pizza. Honestly I do not care how the company internally handles my order, their service and product is in the food production and distribution market.
The only companies that are actual tech companies sell technology products or possibly technology consulting services to others. It doesn't matter if that technology company internally moves product or materials around on trucks or on ships or in planes to get physical stuff from one plant to another, or even to get products to their customers, they're not first and foremost a shipping company in those circumstances.
It's all about what the company provides to the customer. All of the rest is merely internal organizational structure and usually isn't any of the customer's concern so long as what the customer is paying for is provided.
m rooting for them for sure, but After learning the hard lessons, and the inevitable expenses to correct them, their costs will increase. dramatically.
I don't think that reuse rockets will be considered prime rockets. I expect they'll be used for lesser-importance launches if there's any real risk of a fault developing that couldn't be detected.
On this scale there's so much back-and-forth and so many quality engineers, supplier quality engineers, DCMA inspectors, QC technicians, and the like that I would be surprised if a design misinterpretation slipped through.
That still gives them a much smaller area to examine though, and many fewer parts to potentially destructively test. It also might allow for some manufacturing to continue if they've got large assemblies independent of the predicted failure point that they can work on, so the company doesn't have to lay-off its manufacturing staff while identifying the fault.
You realize that your car has at least one knock sensor on the engine, right? After market retail for an OEM replacement is usually around $100. It is able to handle the noise off of the alternator and all of the rest of the electrical and electronics plus all of the fluids, rotational mass, bearings, and anything else that is expected to make noise, can understand the difference between a combustion premature detonation and a rock bouncing off of the oil pan plus any other of a multitude of impacts noises, and probably costs the automaker just a few dollars to manufacture.
After reflecting on it I'm not exactly surprised. Their later independent confirmation of a not-yet-flown part's failure through destructive test helps reinforce the likelihood of this. I'm glad they found something, it would be nice if we had competitive space launches to make the costs come down.
The position of the manual transmission shifter wasn't always where it is now. It used to be up on the column where it was close to the steering wheel. It moved in a sideways H pattern similar to what it does on the floor, but at a right-angle to the driver.
I find floor shifters to often be worse than column shifters, but the mechanisms to actuate a floor shifter are simpler so companies were able to market it as being more hip, and the public bought on.
I remember when they transitioned to the center button. I don't think it was an American requirement, but when one attempts to sell the same car in all markets one attempts to accommodate all requirements wherever possible, so it became a defacto standard that everyone else eventually followed.
Most of the columns that you describe were made by GM's Delco group, and were sold to Ford, Chrysler, and AMC in addition to use by GM. For a time GM made almost everyone's columns. It can be handy when repairing them, as the turn signal cam and other parts fit all applications.
As for the mad fucks that keep inventing new icons. I wish horrible things happen to them. Its bad enough having to learn about Icons when I learned to read perfectly well over 60 years ago. Why do they not keep the ones they have invented? Are they smoking something I should know about?
I assume that you mean whole-new icons for an existing function rather than a stylistic bent on an existing, well-known icon design. The problem is that they're increasingly hiring visual artists, rather than UI engineers, because they think something avant-garde will help sell more product.
What I really hate is "Ribbon" used by many Microsoft Office products. I learned on Office 4.3. Just about every version of Office until the introduction of "Ribbon" had a similar interface, and that interface had three redundant components, quick-use icons on toolbars, drop-down menus, and keyboard combinations. Ribbon threw a lot of that in the trash and I'd rather use Libreoffice or Openoffice now.
Into the late eighties some vehicles with older-type Delco steering columns still had it on the underside of the column. The way it worked was you pulled the knob out, then turned on the left turn signal (if I'm remembering right) and that bypassed the ignition cut-out on the turn signals and blinked all four corners.
It was ridiculous and could definitely not be activated in an emergency without taking the time to think about the procedure.
Had the reverse once... A friend and I took his hatchback to LA on a LONG day trip to buy something on craigslist, and as I pulled into the rest-stop near 29 Palms I completely forgot that it was a manual. Slowed up to the stop sign, the engine chugged and died. He burst out laughing. It was kind of funny.
Compare the controls in a 2010 Chrysler 300 with a 2013 Chrysler 300. Both are on the LX chassis and share most components, but steering wheels, dash assembly, and controls are not the same between the two cars, and that's two cars on the same chassis. Compare to the other cars like the Sebring/200 and the newer 200, or the Town and Country as it has evolved through recent years, or go into the Dodges and look at the differences between the Caliber, Dart, Avenger, Charger, Ram, and Grand Caravan and you'll see massive differences in controls even within a given model year.
I drive a car with the automatic transmission gear selector on the column. I have inadvertently turned on the windshield wipers a couple of times in the pickup with a floor-stick because the wiper controls on the truck are where the gearshift is on the car.
And the UI of my XP-based media center box is still the same as it was when it was installed. What's your point?
We travel a lot and rent a lot of cars. It can range from being mildly annoying to almost hazardous, getting to know the controls for a new vehicle, especially when other things like the seat and mirror positioning will also have to be set.
True, the pedals and steering wheel haven't moved, and the actual turn signal stalk's basic signal-left and signal-right functions are unchanged, but as I said, the gearshift selector and everything else is up for grabs.
Change for its own sake is no benefit though. Marketing has made me skeptical of claims of change-for-the-better as sales and marketing are there to drive revenue, not to benefit the customer. As far as personal computer interfaces go, the last time I saw a change that really was for the better was the release of Windows 98 and its revision of the Windows 95 UI, and even then there were some downsides along with the improvements.
I want facts and figures to back up change. Show me that the new car is truly better than the old one, especially when I factor purchase cost and operational life into account. Show me that the new computer system will actually make things easier or faster or better, as opposed to the existing system with most of the operational kinks worked out, and that I won't double the amount of time I commit to the system because it's not really ready for prime time.
Justify the change.
Automotive control interfaces change all of the time.
Into about 1980 all American cars and trucks had, for many years, placed the headlights control on the dash at the left. Wiper blade control was usually on the lower left side of the dash near the knee bolster. They placed the turn signal on the left side of the column, placed the gearshift on the right side of the column, and placed the brights control on the floor, operated by the left foot. The radio was generally low on the right side. If a fancy car had an interior dome light with dimming capability it was usually placed on the left with the headlight control, and if there was cruise control, the function was integrated with the turn signal indicator stalk, with a slider on the side for set/coast and a button on the tip for on/off.
In the late seventies and eighties they started playing with multifunction stalks and all bets were off. Some cars integrated nearly every function into the stalk, and if the car had a floor shifter instead of a column shifter sometimes a second multifunction stalk was added to the right side. Floor controls were mostly eliminated and most low, hard to reach controls were relocated to stalks. Tilting telescoping steering columns added a third stalk on the lower-left of the column. When Mercedes Benz took over Chrysler they attempted to add a fourth stalk to the column, low on the right, for the cruise control. Steering wheels got controls on the front, then on the back. At one point early on there was a "rim blow" steering wheel where squeezing the wheel would activate the horn.
My point is that automotive controls are very much NOT standard. Even basic functions like gear selection could be pushbutton, could be a column stalk, could be a dash stalk, could be a floor stick, could be a dash-mounted knob, could be a center-console knob, and there are probably more variations yet. Drivers have to get used to each and every configuration.