Why not just use the cleartext they just entered, and lose all the hashing completely? I mean, If it's the wrong cleartext phrase, then you'll just get garbage out, right?
I agree 100% on that count. I also develop code, and I prefer the GPL. I was trying to understand what would make the author think that a BSD license would protect him from patent suits more than a GPL license would, since neither has the power to nullify a patent, and the only thing I could come up with was "If they don't know about it, they can't sue us!". Apparently, though, as pointed out to me by another responder, the MIT license or a public domain gift, rather than the BSD license, would be better for that purpose. It is a rather cynical interpretation, but I was trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt, as far as not talking out of his ass is concerned.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did screw that up. I bet that the author of the article was thinking the same thing, though. I can't think of any other way a more permissive license would give an advantage with regards to patents.
I think the point the article is trying to make (although not explicitly) is that a BSD style license would allow big software companies to hide their use of open source software in their products.
Assuming the company is distributing its open source derived software, the GPL requires public disclosure of the original open source software and any derivations, which would give patent holders evidence of infringement.
The BSD license, however, lets the company distribute their product without acknowledging any open source content. They can keep all their code secret. This places a greater burden on the patent holder to prove that a patent is being infringed at all.
I think this is the "protection" the article refers to.
Ok, I thought the theory showed that c is the limiting speed for an object with rest mass. IOW, the energy input required to accelerate a mass grows without bounds as you approach c. I also thought that the energy to speed plot dropped down from that asymptote at c to a local minimum at some speed above c, and then grew without bound as speed increased without bound, and that the speed at that minima would correspond to an energy term in the rest mass of tachyons.
I beleive any component of the gravitational curvature tangential to the path of the photon will "accelerate" the wavelength of the photon, even though the speed of the photon stays the same
I think your last bit is on the mark. Licensing something under the GPL does not assign copyrights. You retain the copyrights to your code, even though it is GPL licensed. You can assign copyright to anyone you want, and this is independent of the licensing scheme of the work. I believe the FSF demands copyright be assigned to them for all GNU software.
Hmmm... I wonder if the FSF have the right to not release my code under the GPL, after I assign to them the copyright. I should probably GPL the work before assigning the copyright to anyone. I don't think that the GPL can be revoked on a work by the new copyright holder. Can anyone confirm this?
That's not true. You don't need a license to use any GPL software, in the same sense that you don't need a license to use (i.e. read) a book.
You do, however, need a license to redistribute GPL software because in the absense of a license, copyright law prohibits redistribution.
So it actually copyright law that restricts your actions, and the GPL is saying it's ok for you to do what copyright law says you can't do, unless you have the author's permission. The GPL is the author giving you permission, but only if you behave yourself.
Since distributing the code indicates acceptance of the license, it doesn't matter what comes out of your mouth. The action of distribution trumps your statements. It's like me saying I did not type this sentence.
for the non-profit purpose of promoting the ethical and legal use of software
If I copy it just to get a giggle, that makes me happy, and when I'm happy, I want to code. Since I use Linux, I guess the video has promoted me to use my software ethically and legally. Cool.
You can simulate a mini tactical nuke by holding a pair of binoculars up to the laser emitter, eyepiece to the emitter. The lenses will spread the beam into a deadly swath of destruction in the direction you shoot.
We used to do this with Miles gear in the army. Who says war can't be fun?
Spectral analysis. In some cases, the planet crosses between us and the star, and if it has an atmosphere, then the gasses in the atmosphere will absorb some of the light from the star. Different compounds in the atmosphere will absorb different colors of light, so the colour of the star will appear different to us when the planet is in front of the star. By analysing the colour difference, you can determine the chemical composition of the planet's atmosphere.
The megapixels number refers to the total number of pixels on the entire screen. If it were per inch, then there would be 2560x1600 pixels per square inch, which is not what they are saying.
Copyright law restricts the reproduction of a work, not its consumption. If you write and publish a book, then I have a right to read it by virtue of it being published (i.e. made public). I don't even have to pay you to read it.
Are you saying that there are (or should be) laws that allow a writer to exercise control over who can read his published book?
You have given an example of an unfair restriction (i.e. no black readers). Can you please give an example of a fair restriction?
I think there was a question related to this in Scaled Composite's FAQ.
IIRC, Burt doesn't have any plans to sell tickets for flights in Spaceship One. Instead, he will design a craft that can be certified by the FAA. Then you can then buy a bunch and start your own airline if you want.
I disagree that the only way to make discovery worthwhile is to apply patches.
Even if patches are not applied to existing software, there may be awareness of a new type of security hole. This awareness is valuable in the context of new software design, since that new software need not fall into the same trap as the flawed software.
The first link describes using one of the computers in your house as a wireless access point.
The idea is that the computer that has the wired internet connection gets a wireless NIC added to it, and this NIC is set up as the "wireless" access point for any other wireless NICs in the area.
Kinda like how you may have set up a linux box to be the house router via a wired hub in the past, only now the house side NIC is wireless and you don't need the hub anymore.
According to Banach-Tarski, you can take an (ideal) Audi A4, cut it into five pieces and construct two identical, complete Audi A4s from the pieces, using only rotations and translations of the pieces.
I'm in Canada. I went into Staples one day to try to buy a package of A4 paper. The guy behind the counter looked at me like I had two fucking heads. He then called his supplier, who told him that he didn't have any, but that he could order some from England, that I could have it for $23, and it would be here in three to five weeks. (I said no, but thanks for trying).
I realize this guy was clueless, but I still haven't found a walk-in place where I can buy A4....
Slashdot Mirror
No mention of Sun Microsystems in that list, hehe...
Why not just use the cleartext they just entered, and lose all the hashing completely? I mean, If it's the wrong cleartext phrase, then you'll just get garbage out, right?
I agree 100% on that count. I also develop code, and I prefer the GPL. I was trying to understand what would make the author think that a BSD license would protect him from patent suits more than a GPL license would, since neither has the power to nullify a patent, and the only thing I could come up with was "If they don't know about it, they can't sue us!". Apparently, though, as pointed out to me by another responder, the MIT license or a public domain gift, rather than the BSD license, would be better for that purpose. It is a rather cynical interpretation, but I was trying to give the author the benefit of the doubt, as far as not talking out of his ass is concerned.
Thanks for pointing that out. I did screw that up. I bet that the author of the article was thinking the same thing, though. I can't think of any other way a more permissive license would give an advantage with regards to patents.
Assuming the company is distributing its open source derived software, the GPL requires public disclosure of the original open source software and any derivations, which would give patent holders evidence of infringement.
The BSD license, however, lets the company distribute their product without acknowledging any open source content. They can keep all their code secret. This places a greater burden on the patent holder to prove that a patent is being infringed at all.
I think this is the "protection" the article refers to.
Ok, I thought the theory showed that c is the limiting speed for an object with rest mass. IOW, the energy input required to accelerate a mass grows without bounds as you approach c. I also thought that the energy to speed plot dropped down from that asymptote at c to a local minimum at some speed above c, and then grew without bound as speed increased without bound, and that the speed at that minima would correspond to an energy term in the rest mass of tachyons.
Yet another reason why sneakernet still rocks!!!
I beleive any component of the gravitational curvature tangential to the path of the photon will "accelerate" the wavelength of the photon, even though the speed of the photon stays the same
Hmmm... I wonder if the FSF have the right to not release my code under the GPL, after I assign to them the copyright. I should probably GPL the work before assigning the copyright to anyone. I don't think that the GPL can be revoked on a work by the new copyright holder. Can anyone confirm this?
You do, however, need a license to redistribute GPL software because in the absense of a license, copyright law prohibits redistribution.
So it actually copyright law that restricts your actions, and the GPL is saying it's ok for you to do what copyright law says you can't do, unless you have the author's permission. The GPL is the author giving you permission, but only if you behave yourself.
Since distributing the code indicates acceptance of the license, it doesn't matter what comes out of your mouth. The action of distribution trumps your statements. It's like me saying I did not type this sentence.
If I copy it just to get a giggle, that makes me happy, and when I'm happy, I want to code. Since I use Linux, I guess the video has promoted me to use my software ethically and legally. Cool.
Hey! What have you got against Tux anywa- Oh, wait. Never mind...
What I'd like to know is what Distro he will be running.
We used to do this with Miles gear in the army. Who says war can't be fun?
Spectral analysis. In some cases, the planet crosses between us and the star, and if it has an atmosphere, then the gasses in the atmosphere will absorb some of the light from the star. Different compounds in the atmosphere will absorb different colors of light, so the colour of the star will appear different to us when the planet is in front of the star. By analysing the colour difference, you can determine the chemical composition of the planet's atmosphere.
The megapixels number refers to the total number of pixels on the entire screen. If it were per inch, then there would be 2560x1600 pixels per square inch, which is not what they are saying.
Copyright law restricts the reproduction of a work, not its consumption. If you write and publish a book, then I have a right to read it by virtue of it being published (i.e. made public). I don't even have to pay you to read it.
Are you saying that there are (or should be) laws that allow a writer to exercise control over who can read his published book?
You have given an example of an unfair restriction (i.e. no black readers). Can you please give an example of a fair restriction?
I bet a fluorescent light on DC power wouldn't flicker.
IIRC, Burt doesn't have any plans to sell tickets for flights in Spaceship One. Instead, he will design a craft that can be certified by the FAA. Then you can then buy a bunch and start your own airline if you want.
Even if patches are not applied to existing software, there may be awareness of a new type of security hole. This awareness is valuable in the context of new software design, since that new software need not fall into the same trap as the flawed software.
Ironic, isn't it, that the viruses these people write must be executable, while the writers are not...
The idea is that the computer that has the wired internet connection gets a wireless NIC added to it, and this NIC is set up as the "wireless" access point for any other wireless NICs in the area.
Kinda like how you may have set up a linux box to be the house router via a wired hub in the past, only now the house side NIC is wireless and you don't need the hub anymore.
According to Banach-Tarski, you can take an (ideal) Audi A4, cut it into five pieces and construct two identical, complete Audi A4s from the pieces, using only rotations and translations of the pieces.
I realize this guy was clueless, but I still haven't found a walk-in place where I can buy A4. ...