A lot of science is like open-source development. One person does the work, everyone can reap the rewards, and continue to build on it. If corporations have to do the research, they'll wind up replicating each other's work and reinventing the wheel. Not only that, but results are kept secret, and the fragmentation means no one sees the big picture, hindering further breakthroughs.
There's many good reasons why the government funding of scientific research can be more effective than relying on companies to do it themselves.
I agree, and I'll add this assumes the foreign graduates can get the visa and work permits needed to stay in the US. The harder we make it for them to stay, the more go back to their homes.
For anyone who complains about competition from foreign workers for US jobs, consider if they go home, they will be assisting or starting competing companies there. Then it's just *your personal* job that has competition, its the *entire company*, and if the foreign company wins out, *all* the jobs get laid off.
It is by far in our best interest to try to keep all the best and brightest here in our country... we should only be so lucky to have such a draw...
To me, it enforces that the code *is* easy to read, by ensuring the visual indentation matches the semantic intention.
There's never a mismatch between what you intuitively see and what it actually executes. Which is probably why they let you mix tabs and spaces as long as it's consistent visually. Although personally I think it should be a syntax error to mix them (or better yet, an error to use spaces for indentation in general;-p)
crap I meant to mod this overrated but the mouse slipped.
Like other reply said, I don't think this has been true in a long time. I think people ragged on him too much.
Oh come on, this isn't a black and white crime like assault or robbery. They were going to do something "questionable", the gov't said they're going to look into it, and companies decided it wasn't worth the controversy.
Besides, the partnership had just formed, you can't prosecute them for something they haven't done yet. This is basically the equivalent of asking a lawyer if something has legal risk before you do it, only on a corporate scale.
Hate to break it to you, but it sounds to me like the encryption and key lookups from a lot of these other solutions have are going to have a lot more overhead than the TCP handshake.
Besides, you have to do a TCP handshake for every HTTP connection, which is a concern (hence "keep-alive" option), but it's hardly a 10 second delay. Especially since you'll be querying your ISP's nameserver, so it'll be low-latency, not some distant server. And DNS entries are cached anyway, so it's not nearly as bad as you make it sound.
That said, this isn't really my thing, but I'm hesitant regarding the bias to have the DNSSEC people rush their stuff into place as one of the core internet services when there are both other solutions and misgivings with theirs. This deserves some careful thought, not brushing criticisms aside as "trolls".
I wouldn't be so quick brush aside dissension on this issue. This comment in particular: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment034.pdf
seemed well thought out, and at the end suggests several other workarounds with fewer issues. Namely, switch to using TCP instead of UDP so there's a handshake involved instead of blindly accepting incoming datagrams.
It's not that the bug shouldn't be addressed, but maybe DNSSEC is the wrong answer.
I'd rather recomment the Lincoln by Dali, aka "Gala Contemplating the Mediterranean Sea Which at 20 Meters Becomes The Portrait of Abraham Lincoln".
It was directly inspired by computer technology, so very apt.
Poster here
Assuming that's the right house, where is the "Private Road" sign? I backed out along Street View, and couldn't find it.
Besides which, this looks like just another dirt road, with a fair number of houses along it. Their claim that the Google van drove down their long driveway just to take pictures of their house is a little bit of a stretch considering it looks like a normal (dirt) road with other houses branching off, and they just happen to be at the cul-de-sac.
I don't think they're demonstrating a particular CPU, but a technology or design strategy that can be built into *any* chip. So Intel or AMD could pick up this research with their own chips. (subject to patents and licensing of course)
Also, from the article: "So far the new chip is at the proof of concept stage. Commercial applications could become available "in five years, maybe even sooner, in a number of exciting areas," Chandrakasan says
So are you saying that I can write a closed-source program and link it against a GPLed library? Well, if you want to try this theory out in court you certainly can;)
But my money would be on that you can, as long as the binary you're providing doesn't contain any GPL code, just names of symbols to lookup.
(Otherwise, we could turn this around on its head --the windows drivers are the ones in the wrong because they can link against ndiswrapper, a GPL program, and therefore all of the applicable vendors must now release their driver source code!)
That sounds wrong to me and essentially makes LGPL = GPL.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Except LGPL also permits static linking, for whatever that's worth. Of course it's not what certain GPL promoters want it to mean, and really I'm sympathetic to their cause, but there are limits to what you can claim as "derived". IMHO, those limits allow a symbol table without making it a "derived work". Otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to use reverse-engineered protocols and file formats, which are a well established freedom for compatibility and interoperability.
This is all relative to the GPL 2.0 btw, I don't know the 3.0 very well. But take this comment from the FSF FAQ:
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
So they want to have a blurry definition depending on how extensively you use the library, and I don't think that will stand up very well.
Personally, I would put the blurry line as a matter of distribution... if you distribute your executable bundled with the GPL'd library, then you are providing a derived work. If you require end users to acquire and install the library themselves, then you are linking against a specification, and the user is free to choose the implementation. Further, any potential license violation is at the user's end, for they were the one to mix the GPL'd library with the proprietary executable. For example, OS X masquerading BSD libedit as GNU readline.
Sure it is. Using Linux's module interface does indeed make it a derived work of the Linux kernel. If that doesn't, then what does? Making changes to an interface, or changes to a given implementation of an interface definitely makes it a derived work.
However, I think you miss the point that many people (e.g. OP and myself too) consider the case of linking-against-header to NOT be a derived work. And of course many other people disagree, but this issue has not been decided in court, so neither side can claim a definitive opinion.
The key argument here is that you are using a work, but that's not necessarily the same thing as deriving a work. The header defines a public interface, in other words a standard or a protocol. For example, if I GPL the text of a standard describing a network protocol, that does not mean that all implementations must be GPL. Or if a GPL program provides a command line or network/socket-based interface, I can use a non-GPL program to tell it what to do. Similarly, if my linker produces code that can interface with a GPL library, it's simply using a function call mechanism to do the same thing. If you want to complain about that, simply replace the direct function call with a remote procedure call serialized through a socket, and things get very blurry, yet the same functionality remains.
Of course, statically linking or using headers with inline functions does mean the executable has GPL code in it, and thus must be GPL. But to me, purely dynamic linking means that there is a clear separation of GPL code, and a client executable is no longer a "derived" work.
I was under the impression that Blu-ray *requires* encryption on video content... is this true? If so, this will be a big nuisance in the way of burning home movies to disc, or sharing your own media with others.
Not that it really matters until there's good Linux support so I can play the movies on my media center... which I'm sure will involve downloading libraries from a country with more freedom than the United Corporations (err States) of America.:-/
Here's the link to the youtube video. There were two hits, both worth seeing. (This is the more damning/in depth of the two) http://youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Really, it's not that hard to go to youtube and search for a two-word topic. In fact, easier than writing a reply to complain about not providing a link:-P
interpretation of Skinner's experiment that has been disputed I find the alternative explanations weak in terms of dissuading the use of the 'superstition' label. For example the foraging explanation -- although the behavior demonstrated may have some relationship to a food gathering technique, it remains that the action was not resulting in the presentation of food. That the birds continued to perform that particular behavior indicates that they thought it would bring them food, when it was in fact unrelated... i.e. the birds had developed a superstition.
What could be classified as "religious" activity has NEVER been observed in any creature besides humans. We are also unique in a number of other ways, such as abstract communication skills, which happens to be a prerequisite for religion. (Otherwise you just have a bunch of individuals practicing their own various superstitions without organization.) In any case, whether or not religion is observed in other animals doesn't really settle anything because you can use each case to argue for either side. I think the key is that religion is simply a shared superstition, the origin of which is an over-active pattern detector.
If that is the case, then the majority of people on this planet are either incurably sick or crazy. Ding ding ding! We have a winner:) I'll add they might also simply be intellectually lazy, which is probably the real problem. Everyone wants a happy ending and an easy explanation. (You'll be rewarded someday in heaven, everything happens because god has a plan, right?)
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of science is like open-source development. One person does the work, everyone can reap the rewards, and continue to build on it. If corporations have to do the research, they'll wind up replicating each other's work and reinventing the wheel. Not only that, but results are kept secret, and the fragmentation means no one sees the big picture, hindering further breakthroughs.
There's many good reasons why the government funding of scientific research can be more effective than relying on companies to do it themselves.
haha, now I'm not going to be able to get that out of my head when I see their logo.
I agree, and I'll add this assumes the foreign graduates can get the visa and work permits needed to stay in the US. The harder we make it for them to stay, the more go back to their homes.
For anyone who complains about competition from foreign workers for US jobs, consider if they go home, they will be assisting or starting competing companies there. Then it's just *your personal* job that has competition, its the *entire company*, and if the foreign company wins out, *all* the jobs get laid off.
It is by far in our best interest to try to keep all the best and brightest here in our country... we should only be so lucky to have such a draw...
To me, it enforces that the code *is* easy to read, by ensuring the visual indentation matches the semantic intention. ;-p)
There's never a mismatch between what you intuitively see and what it actually executes. Which is probably why they let you mix tabs and spaces as long as it's consistent visually. Although personally I think it should be a syntax error to mix them (or better yet, an error to use spaces for indentation in general
I wonder: do use spaces for indentation?
I use tabs, and the indentation-equals-block makes a lot of sense to me.
crap I meant to mod this overrated but the mouse slipped. Like other reply said, I don't think this has been true in a long time. I think people ragged on him too much.
Oh come on, this isn't a black and white crime like assault or robbery. They were going to do something "questionable", the gov't said they're going to look into it, and companies decided it wasn't worth the controversy.
Besides, the partnership had just formed, you can't prosecute them for something they haven't done yet. This is basically the equivalent of asking a lawyer if something has legal risk before you do it, only on a corporate scale.
Hate to break it to you, but it sounds to me like the encryption and key lookups from a lot of these other solutions have are going to have a lot more overhead than the TCP handshake.
Besides, you have to do a TCP handshake for every HTTP connection, which is a concern (hence "keep-alive" option), but it's hardly a 10 second delay. Especially since you'll be querying your ISP's nameserver, so it'll be low-latency, not some distant server. And DNS entries are cached anyway, so it's not nearly as bad as you make it sound.
That said, this isn't really my thing, but I'm hesitant regarding the bias to have the DNSSEC people rush their stuff into place as one of the core internet services when there are both other solutions and misgivings with theirs. This deserves some careful thought, not brushing criticisms aside as "trolls".
I wouldn't be so quick brush aside dissension on this issue. This comment in particular:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/DNS/comments/comment034.pdf
seemed well thought out, and at the end suggests several other workarounds with fewer issues. Namely, switch to using TCP instead of UDP so there's a handshake involved instead of blindly accepting incoming datagrams. It's not that the bug shouldn't be addressed, but maybe DNSSEC is the wrong answer.
Oh yeah? Real programmers program with butterflies and cosmic rays!
http://xkcd.com/378/
So then they're like the LGPL... which came first? I agree with Google's point about limiting license replication...
so then how does MPL differ from LGPL?
Yeah, when you figure out how to move to Mars and merge our culture with the Martians', let me know.
I'd rather recomment the Lincoln by Dali, aka "Gala Contemplating the Mediterranean Sea Which at 20 Meters Becomes The Portrait of Abraham Lincoln". It was directly inspired by computer technology, so very apt. Poster here
Assuming that's the right house, where is the "Private Road" sign? I backed out along Street View, and couldn't find it.
Besides which, this looks like just another dirt road, with a fair number of houses along it. Their claim that the Google van drove down their long driveway just to take pictures of their house is a little bit of a stretch considering it looks like a normal (dirt) road with other houses branching off, and they just happen to be at the cul-de-sac.
I don't think they're demonstrating a particular CPU, but a technology or design strategy that can be built into *any* chip. So Intel or AMD could pick up this research with their own chips. (subject to patents and licensing of course)
Also, from the article: "So far the new chip is at the proof of concept stage. Commercial applications could become available "in five years, maybe even sooner, in a number of exciting areas," Chandrakasan says
But my money would be on that you can, as long as the binary you're providing doesn't contain any GPL code, just names of symbols to lookup. (Otherwise, we could turn this around on its head --the windows drivers are the ones in the wrong because they can link against ndiswrapper, a GPL program, and therefore all of the applicable vendors must now release their driver source code!) That sounds wrong to me and essentially makes LGPL = GPL.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Except LGPL also permits static linking, for whatever that's worth. Of course it's not what certain GPL promoters want it to mean, and really I'm sympathetic to their cause, but there are limits to what you can claim as "derived". IMHO, those limits allow a symbol table without making it a "derived work". Otherwise we wouldn't be allowed to use reverse-engineered protocols and file formats, which are a well established freedom for compatibility and interoperability.
This is all relative to the GPL 2.0 btw, I don't know the 3.0 very well. But take this comment from the FSF FAQ:
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.So they want to have a blurry definition depending on how extensively you use the library, and I don't think that will stand up very well.
Personally, I would put the blurry line as a matter of distribution... if you distribute your executable bundled with the GPL'd library, then you are providing a derived work. If you require end users to acquire and install the library themselves, then you are linking against a specification, and the user is free to choose the implementation. Further, any potential license violation is at the user's end, for they were the one to mix the GPL'd library with the proprietary executable. For example, OS X masquerading BSD libedit as GNU readline.
However, I think you miss the point that many people (e.g. OP and myself too) consider the case of linking-against-header to NOT be a derived work. And of course many other people disagree, but this issue has not been decided in court, so neither side can claim a definitive opinion.
The key argument here is that you are using a work, but that's not necessarily the same thing as deriving a work. The header defines a public interface, in other words a standard or a protocol. For example, if I GPL the text of a standard describing a network protocol, that does not mean that all implementations must be GPL. Or if a GPL program provides a command line or network/socket-based interface, I can use a non-GPL program to tell it what to do. Similarly, if my linker produces code that can interface with a GPL library, it's simply using a function call mechanism to do the same thing. If you want to complain about that, simply replace the direct function call with a remote procedure call serialized through a socket, and things get very blurry, yet the same functionality remains.
Of course, statically linking or using headers with inline functions does mean the executable has GPL code in it, and thus must be GPL. But to me, purely dynamic linking means that there is a clear separation of GPL code, and a client executable is no longer a "derived" work.
Both work for me with Safari 3...
I was under the impression that Blu-ray *requires* encryption on video content... is this true?
:-/
If so, this will be a big nuisance in the way of burning home movies to disc, or sharing your own media with others.
Not that it really matters until there's good Linux support so I can play the movies on my media center... which I'm sure will involve downloading libraries from a country with more freedom than the United Corporations (err States) of America.
Here's the link to the youtube video. There were two hits, both worth seeing. (This is the more damning/in depth of the two)
:-P
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs
Really, it's not that hard to go to youtube and search for a two-word topic. In fact, easier than writing a reply to complain about not providing a link
Then you quit and sue for a couple year's worth of *his* salary.
Not that I'm biased or anything ;)
I hadn't heard that line before...
What could be classified as "religious" activity has NEVER been observed in any creature besides humans. We are also unique in a number of other ways, such as abstract communication skills, which happens to be a prerequisite for religion. (Otherwise you just have a bunch of individuals practicing their own various superstitions without organization.) In any case, whether or not religion is observed in other animals doesn't really settle anything because you can use each case to argue for either side. I think the key is that religion is simply a shared superstition, the origin of which is an over-active pattern detector.
If that is the case, then the majority of people on this planet are either incurably sick or crazy. Ding ding ding! We have a winner