if a 'server' that is entirely GPL'd with source code available communicates with a closed-source 'client' over a Unix pipe or similar, then the entirety of the code which defines the communication protocol is available to someone wishing to make GPL'd modifications, including to make a new, free 'client'. as your apache example illustrates, the restrictions you suggest would essentially stop GPL'd software from interacting at all with software under an incompatible license. so eg you wouldn't be able to pipe the output of grep to awk, if one came with your nonfree OS, and the other was a GNU utility.
this is either a very good troll or a complete idiot.
The list is of 'Universal Records' artists, that is only one label among the many many that are part of Vivendi Universal Group, the biggest record company in the world.
This list gives only some of the labels which make up Universal, I believe only the American part.
Mercury, Polydor, A&M, Def Jam, Interscope... Many of the biggest artists in the world are included.
This troll has launched a lengthy and utterly pointless debate about the worth of the Universal Records artists.. Please mod down.
This is a big deal. It's a massive, massive victory for those fighting the current distribution model.
it would be good if someone could come up with a system of government whereby, if a majority of the people think a law is unjust, they can have that law changed to better reflect what they feel is acceptable behaviour, regardless of the wishes of an elite. this of course without being sued, without civil disobedience, without suffering imprisonment or state violence. some people think that it could never work though.
it's not about being compensated, it's about playing the blame game.
"oh noes! mission-critical microsoft software fucked up!" "if microsoft messed up then it must have been unavoidable. this is internet stuff is harder than it seems, hey? also, all our competitors were probably hit too. not to worry."
"oh noes! mission-critical red hat/suse/big name distro software fucked up!" "i can understand why you thought this linux stuff would be ok, what with all the big companies supporting it. you did your best trying to save money for the company, but it didn't work out. we'll go back to microsoft, but no hard feelings."
"oh noes! mission-critical obscure/community supported distro software fucked up!" "this is all your fault for thinking you could use crazy untested hippy software in an enterprise environment. clear your desk."
"It's fairly trivial to show that this is NP hard"
this is utter crap. you know little to nothing about what you're talking about.
the troll, and i agree it is a troll, asks for a compressed form of a given large natural language text. nothing is said about compressing or analysing for compression any given input. this is not NP-hard, and indeed has nothing to do with NP. there is no input, no input size and no reference at all made to computation cost.
any CS student with some programming knowledge and a textbook on compression could compress a wikipedia snapshot by ~50%. winzip probably achieves ~75%. the 'proposed competition' merely offers a reward for a best-yet compression ratio. this needn't require any technical leaps, just slightly better (more tailormade for the job?) compression algos.
the completely different problem you describe in your reply is a certainly difficult problem, but i would like to see your 'trivial' proof that it is NP-hard. it's probably more accurate to say that it is unsolvable, since perfect compression can never be attained.
there is no difference between n(n-1)/2 and n^2 you fool. the only difference is a constant since n(n-1) ~ n^2. since metcalfe didn't include a constant of proportionality in his theory this makes no difference, the point is about asymptotics.
there is a difference in your numerical example only because it is misconceived.
right. if anyone speculating about this had bothered to RTFA, this is a 'true story' given as an example, w/o any real details whatsoever, as part of an 'article' on why you should be careful what you post about yourself online.
IOW, the whole thing is about as 'true' as the true stories they told you at school about the kids who put fireworks in their pocket / took acid and thought they could fly, depending on what level of education you were at.
>to actually find the edges of an image and determine what colors are in there is a trivial process bullshit.
>Then, you perform some sort of edge detection. that simple, eh?
>it's not something there's much demand for crap.
anyone who disagrees with this is welcome to perform the task without manual adjustments on one nontrivial, standard digital photograph and post the results and their method as a reply.
It's actually, both mathematically and computationally, a very difficult problem. Image Segmentation I'm sure if you know how to do it, and write a nice paper, those folks will be very interested though..
A tip: most things that are obvious problems that 'no one has done' are actually quite difficult if you think about them for more then 10 seconds.
people are always going on about this and it sounds like a great idea in theory, but you would need an effective mechanism to prevent bait-and-switch trolls.
slashdot css changes broke the 'i' tag for reasons of their own. they wanted to do something retarded with 'blockquote' i believe.
i stands for italic and should be implemented as italic. if you don;t have italic you can implement it as nothing. yes you are entitled to change the 'em' it means emphasis and is implementation dependent ie it's up to the browser and/or the css how emphasis is shown. but i should not have been changed.
the parent poster was quite justified in getting it wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
if a 'server' that is entirely GPL'd with source code available communicates with a closed-source 'client' over a Unix pipe or similar, then the entirety of the code which defines the communication protocol is available to someone wishing to make GPL'd modifications, including to make a new, free 'client'. as your apache example illustrates, the restrictions you suggest would essentially stop GPL'd software from interacting at all with software under an incompatible license. so eg you wouldn't be able to pipe the output of grep to awk, if one came with your nonfree OS, and the other was a GNU utility.
you are deluded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Universal_Mu sic_Group_artists
links to lists for each label of artists whose record company is part of the Universal Group
this is either a very good troll or a complete idiot.
The list is of 'Universal Records' artists, that is only one label among the many many that are part of Vivendi Universal Group, the biggest record company in the world.
This list gives only some of the labels which make up Universal, I believe only the American part.
Mercury, Polydor, A&M, Def Jam, Interscope... Many of the biggest artists in the world are included.
This troll has launched a lengthy and utterly pointless debate about the worth of the Universal Records artists.. Please mod down.
This is a big deal. It's a massive, massive victory for those fighting the current distribution model.
or blacks.
it would be good if someone could come up with a system of government whereby, if a majority of the people think a law is unjust, they can have that law changed to better reflect what they feel is acceptable behaviour, regardless of the wishes of an elite. this of course without being sued, without civil disobedience, without suffering imprisonment or state violence. some people think that it could never work though.
maybe they didn't have any change
>I don't know why the submitter had interest in a days old blog about a years old experiment
because it was on Digg yesterday.
it's not about being compensated, it's about playing the blame game.
"oh noes! mission-critical microsoft software fucked up!"
"if microsoft messed up then it must have been unavoidable. this is internet stuff is harder than it seems, hey? also, all our competitors were probably hit too. not to worry."
"oh noes! mission-critical red hat/suse/big name distro software fucked up!"
"i can understand why you thought this linux stuff would be ok, what with all the big companies supporting it. you did your best trying to save money for the company, but it didn't work out. we'll go back to microsoft, but no hard feelings."
"oh noes! mission-critical obscure/community supported distro software fucked up!"
"this is all your fault for thinking you could use crazy untested hippy software in an enterprise environment. clear your desk."
"It's fairly trivial to show that this is NP hard"
this is utter crap. you know little to nothing about what you're talking about.
the troll, and i agree it is a troll, asks for a compressed form of a given large natural language text. nothing is said about compressing or analysing for compression any given input. this is not NP-hard, and indeed has nothing to do with NP. there is no input, no input size and no reference at all made to computation cost.
any CS student with some programming knowledge and a textbook on compression could compress a wikipedia snapshot by ~50%. winzip probably achieves ~75%. the 'proposed competition' merely offers a reward for a best-yet compression ratio. this needn't require any technical leaps, just slightly better (more tailormade for the job?) compression algos.
the completely different problem you describe in your reply is a certainly difficult problem, but i would like to see your 'trivial' proof that it is NP-hard. it's probably more accurate to say that it is unsolvable, since perfect compression can never be attained.
in future, don't counter drivel with nonsense.
but it does have to be about naked women.
>With regards to the visual arts, couldn't we simply adapt Xenakis' definition to say that it is the operation of group theory on images?
No, because group theory is not sufficient to describe the reason a picture of a naked woman is beautiful.
Woolly
there is no difference between n(n-1)/2 and n^2 you fool. the only difference is a constant since n(n-1) ~ n^2. since metcalfe didn't include a constant of proportionality in his theory this makes no difference, the point is about asymptotics.
there is a difference in your numerical example only because it is misconceived.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour
hth.
>this whole sketchy story is just bogus
right. if anyone speculating about this had bothered to RTFA, this is a 'true story' given as an example, w/o any real details whatsoever, as part of an 'article' on why you should be careful what you post about yourself online.
IOW, the whole thing is about as 'true' as the true stories they told you at school about the kids who put fireworks in their pocket / took acid and thought they could fly, depending on what level of education you were at.
powerbook refers to the powerPC chip architecture, dipshit.
>to actually find the edges of an image and determine what colors are in there is a trivial process
bullshit.
>Then, you perform some sort of edge detection.
that simple, eh?
>it's not something there's much demand for
crap.
anyone who disagrees with this is welcome to perform the task without manual adjustments on one nontrivial, standard digital photograph and post the results and their method as a reply.
think again
>It's easy to write but no one has done it.
It's actually, both mathematically and computationally, a very difficult problem.
Image Segmentation
I'm sure if you know how to do it, and write a nice paper, those folks will be very interested though..
A tip: most things that are obvious problems that 'no one has done' are actually quite difficult if you think about them for more then 10 seconds.
neither is the Preview button
people are always going on about this and it sounds like a great idea in theory, but you would need an effective mechanism to prevent bait-and-switch trolls.
slashdot css changes broke the 'i' tag for reasons of their own. they wanted to do something retarded with 'blockquote' i believe.
i stands for italic and should be implemented as italic. if you don;t have italic you can implement it as nothing. yes you are entitled to change the 'em' it means emphasis and is implementation dependent ie it's up to the browser and/or the css how emphasis is shown. but i should not have been changed.
the parent poster was quite justified in getting it wrong.
n/t
you are pointless. fuck off and die.