Other than by accellerating it, and measuring the resulting force? And what better way to do that, than by using gravitational "accelleration?" Under uniform gravity, identical masses will have the same weight.
In response to the grandparent, they article states that the discrepancy was discovered by comparing ("comparison with other cylinders shipped in periodically from around the world."), implying that the masses were measured contemporaneously, at the same place. Is there any way to transfer absolute (non-referenced) mass measurements between places, if you can't count atoms precisely?
You and Theo are disingenuous idiots. First, you make an unsubstantiated claim - '"Alternatively" means that the GPL could be used, that is, it can conform to the GPL.', then you redefine a term you just pulled from your ass to mean what you want it to mean ("conform"). That's as dishonest as an argument can possibly be. "Alternately" means exactly what it says, it offers an alternative ("The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternative ) What Theo has been "explicit" about means exactly nothing, except to those like yourself who think he's god.
The author specifically gives a choice between licenses, and yes, you can leave out the one you don't choose, because that's exactly what the author said ("distribute under BSD, or alternately GPL") It makes absolutely no sense to give the choice otherwise.
Probably the most well-known difference between the BSD and GPL licenses is that the former allows code to be "locked up" (as into a commercial product) while the latter does not. Someone chosing the alternate licenses terms (GPL) is likely doing so because they want to ensure any future releases containing their contributions remain open. Forcing them to redistribute under BSD does not allow them to achieve that.
Finally, this is the ONLY meaning a BSD/GPL license can have which makes any sense at all. In terms of using (running, copying binaries, etc.) the code, they're functionally the same, AFAIK. They differ significantly only when you change/add source code. Saying that modified code must forever be distributed with both licenses is saying that a modifier has no choice between the licenses, and choice makes no sense for an end user.
The code in question had the BSD license included, plus the author (copyright holder) added a condition saying that "alternatively," the GPL could be used.
One is therefore free to select the alternate license and ignore the BSD license, and that includes the part about keeping it around.
Now, and this is key, the author has every right to put in something which says "chose either for yourself, but keep both in what you pass on." He didn't, and the only requirement to keep the BSD license is found within the BSD license itself. It is well known that there are multiple ways in which the BSD and GPL licenses clash - you can only have an "either/or" license, not a "both" license. It's simply stupid to try and claim that selective clauses of one license apply when the other license is chosen to be used.
As far as the "all the rights" argument, it doesn't fly. Since you must make a choice between licenses, as soon as you choose the GPL, you give up the rights to BSD, so you have no BSD rights which must be passed on.
As of today, Google has a market capitalization (stock price x outstanding shares) of $160 billion. They could easily issue, say, 10% more shares and collect over $10 billion, even when considering the dilution that would cause. Even without that, their balance sheet shows total cash of over $12 billion, and zero debt.
Why not just add the ability to the Prius to charge the batteries from household AC, and a switch which tells the car to prefer battery power? I picture it going 7 miles before the gasoline engine starts to recharge the batteries. That would be very much more practical, but still allow people to pollute remotely and feel good about themselves when going on short trips.
Your red herring with regard to interference among states fails miserably, too. Look at traditional cooperation in Europe and elsewhere, where countries are comparable to US States with regard to physical RF spectrum issues.
and forcing 100/full, you had better be doing it at both ends.
If you aren't, then the devices will come up as half duplex (assuming they properly implement the standards), you have a duplex mismatch, and you _will_ have network problems. 802.3u requires an end which is set to autonegotiate to assume half duplex if the other end will not autonegotiate.
Except, some Suns can not be forced and will only autonegotiate, in which case you MUST set the switch port to half duplex if you're forcing.
than by your example. 802.11e [sic, that's QoS for 802.11 WLANs] runs over shared, unlicensed spectrum. Regulation is limited to very simple technical matters like power output.
You also seem to be confused by the difference between regulation and ownership, two fundamentally different and completely unrelated principles.
The US government has been delegated the authority to decide how this bit of spectrum is used.
The US government has no such (legitimate) authority. All powers are (in law) derived exclusively from the Constitution, and there is nothing which gives the US government such a power.
Spectrum regulation inarguably is a States Right under the 10th Amendment, disinginuous and self serving federal court rulings aside.
1) Maximizing US Federal Government revenue is equivalent to maximizing public good. 2) That airwaves, which by natural law are a shared public resource, can somehow be auctioned/sold.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean really, I could get you to Mars in a week using a "scaled up" slingshot. So what? That doesn't make it practical.
Other than by accellerating it, and measuring the resulting force? And what better way to do that, than by using gravitational "accelleration?" Under uniform gravity, identical masses will have the same weight.
In response to the grandparent, they article states that the discrepancy was discovered by comparing ("comparison with other cylinders shipped in periodically from around the world."), implying that the masses were measured contemporaneously, at the same place. Is there any way to transfer absolute (non-referenced) mass measurements between places, if you can't count atoms precisely?
which type of hydrogen atom - African or European?
mod points when I need them?
You and Theo are disingenuous idiots. First, you make an unsubstantiated claim - '"Alternatively" means that the GPL could be used, that is, it can conform to the GPL.', then you redefine a term you just pulled from your ass to mean what you want it to mean ("conform"). That's as dishonest as an argument can possibly be. "Alternately" means exactly what it says, it offers an alternative ("The choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternative ) What Theo has been "explicit" about means exactly nothing, except to those like yourself who think he's god.
The author specifically gives a choice between licenses, and yes, you can leave out the one you don't choose, because that's exactly what the author said ("distribute under BSD, or alternately GPL") It makes absolutely no sense to give the choice otherwise.
Probably the most well-known difference between the BSD and GPL licenses is that the former allows code to be "locked up" (as into a commercial product) while the latter does not. Someone chosing the alternate licenses terms (GPL) is likely doing so because they want to ensure any future releases containing their contributions remain open. Forcing them to redistribute under BSD does not allow them to achieve that.
Finally, this is the ONLY meaning a BSD/GPL license can have which makes any sense at all. In terms of using (running, copying binaries, etc.) the code, they're functionally the same, AFAIK. They differ significantly only when you change/add source code. Saying that modified code must forever be distributed with both licenses is saying that a modifier has no choice between the licenses, and choice makes no sense for an end user.
The situation is this:
The code in question had the BSD license included, plus the author (copyright holder) added a condition saying that "alternatively," the GPL could be used.
One is therefore free to select the alternate license and ignore the BSD license, and that includes the part about keeping it around.
Now, and this is key, the author has every right to put in something which says "chose either for yourself, but keep both in what you pass on." He didn't, and the only requirement to keep the BSD license is found within the BSD license itself. It is well known that there are multiple ways in which the BSD and GPL licenses clash - you can only have an "either/or" license, not a "both" license. It's simply stupid to try and claim that selective clauses of one license apply when the other license is chosen to be used.
As far as the "all the rights" argument, it doesn't fly. Since you must make a choice between licenses, as soon as you choose the GPL, you give up the rights to BSD, so you have no BSD rights which must be passed on.
changes the fact that they're acting like clueless noobs.
I'm sure they must have said "...one fairly effluent community..."
the Smurfs. There's a pRon (=$$$) story to be told, with all those males and only one Smurfette.
We don't need no stinking estimates. It's not hard to look up the real numbers.
the Oz books were published between 1900 and 1920. Works published before 1923 are in the public domain. (Mickey was born circa 1928).
Here's my vote that they do Tik-Tok first. My mom had first editions of all the books when I was a kid, that was my favorite.
As of today, Google has a market capitalization (stock price x outstanding shares) of $160 billion. They could easily issue, say, 10% more shares and collect over $10 billion, even when considering the dilution that would cause. Even without that, their balance sheet shows total cash of over $12 billion, and zero debt.
It's not a problem for them.
I mean, it removes a lot of the incentive to sniff the network, doesn't it?
Let's see if it works here.
this is exactly like the light show I saw at a Dead concert once.
Max Headroom would be proud.
Why not just add the ability to the Prius to charge the batteries from household AC, and a switch which tells the car to prefer battery power? I picture it going 7 miles before the gasoline engine starts to recharge the batteries. That would be very much more practical, but still allow people to pollute remotely and feel good about themselves when going on short trips.
That's "7 of 9" to you, buddy.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
communicating via RF is no more commerce than is growing wheat for your own consumption, fuck the Supremes, we're no longer a nation of law.
Your red herring with regard to interference among states fails miserably, too. Look at traditional cooperation in Europe and elsewhere, where countries are comparable to US States with regard to physical RF spectrum issues.
and forcing 100/full, you had better be doing it at both ends.
If you aren't, then the devices will come up as half duplex (assuming they properly implement the standards), you have a duplex mismatch, and you _will_ have network problems. 802.3u requires an end which is set to autonegotiate to assume half duplex if the other end will not autonegotiate.
Except, some Suns can not be forced and will only autonegotiate, in which case you MUST set the switch port to half duplex if you're forcing.
than by your example. 802.11e [sic, that's QoS for 802.11 WLANs] runs over shared, unlicensed spectrum. Regulation is limited to very simple technical matters like power output.
You also seem to be confused by the difference between regulation and ownership, two fundamentally different and completely unrelated principles.
Spectrum regulation inarguably is a States Right under the 10th Amendment, disinginuous and self serving federal court rulings aside.
assumptions that
1) Maximizing US Federal Government revenue is equivalent to maximizing public good.
2) That airwaves, which by natural law are a shared public resource, can somehow be auctioned/sold.
It is the modern equivalent of the English Enclosure movement.
he should have seen that one coming.