A) What is a bamalance? "bamalance" is a slang term that refers to a bomb or hazardous material disposal truck. It looks a bit like a cross between an ambulance and an armoured car. The "bam" in "bamalance" refers to the explosive properties of a bomb being disposed of, i.e. the laptop.
I mean, the reporter takes their word for it when they say some American who they can't name is giving them $3 billion. I bet the secret investor is Darl McBride.
Respect has to earned, not expected. They've earned my respect. I respect them in the same way that I'd respect a rabid cougar. I stay as far away from them as I can, and when I have to be around them, I'm very, very careful.
If the international community became concerned about global arse-wiping inconsistency it could ultimately become an ISO standard.
I'm imagining Microsoft trying to fasttrack their own proprietary arse wiping standard through ECMA, to grease the skids for their eventual proposal to ISO. This kind of tactic is right up their alley.
They will say that choice in arse wiping standards is good for consumers, even though anyone who tries to implement their OpenArse standard will have gaping holes in their implementation.
Of course, implementors who have licensed the secret Microsoft ArseWiper technology for a nominal fee (under NDA, of course) will be able to completely cover their bases. Everyone else will be up the creek.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Why? What's wrong with me?
Priest Vito Cornelius: I try to serve life. But you only... seem to want to destroy it.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Oh, Father, you're so wrong. Let me explain.
[closes office door, places an empty glass on desk]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is...
[pushes glass off table]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: destroyed...
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [robot cleaners move to clean broken glass] Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [Desk prepares a glass of water and a bowl of fruit] You see, Father, by creating a little destruction, I'm actually encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business. Cheers.
[drinks water with cherry, only to choke on cherry stuck in throat. Zorg frantically presses all buttons on his desk in an attempt to get something to clear his throat]
Priest Vito Cornelius: Where's the robot to pat you in the back? Or the engineer? Or their children, maybe?
[Desk brings out Zorg's pet Picasso; Zorg motions it to try and help him]
Priest Vito Cornelius: There, you see how all your so-called power counts for absolutely nothing? How your entire empire of destruction comes... crashing down. All because of one little... cherry.
[Slaps Zorg in the back, causing him to spit the cherry at Picasso]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [opens doors, throws Cornelius to guards] You saved my life, and in return, I'll spare yours... for now.
Almost. You don't need to be the original author. You just need to have a copyright interest in the work. You can take a work under "GPLv2 or any later version", make some (copyrightable) changes, then release the modified work under "GPLv3 only".
That sounds more like a fork. If by friend Bob also has a copyright interest in the work, and he doesn't want it to be GPLv3 only, are you saying that I can ignore his license preference, and just do my own thing?
From a legal perspective, you're not really relicensing anything.
That's a point I'm having trouble with. Personally choosing to comply with a later version of the GPL, because it's one of many licenses offered to me, seems to be different from making others, downstream from me, comply with that later version of the GPL. In the first case, I'm choosing a license from an acceptable set, while in the second case, I'm altering the acceptable set.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
OK, so I did understand it correctly the first time.
I, personally, can choose the license version I wish to be bound by, but I can't force anyone else to accept the version I want, unless I'm the original author of the work.
No, absolutely not! Any redistributor gets to choose. This is the language that MOST GPL 2 programs use:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
The Linux kernel is DIFFERENT. Its terms are:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
In the case of the Linux kernel, it started out from the beginning as GPLV2 only.
In the case of most every other GPL application, the redistributor gets to decide which version of the license that he is using. Whoops! Thanks for the clarification. I guess the kernel was a bad representative example.
Of course, that means that I actually don't understand the "at your option" clause. Say that I redistribute a GPLv2 work which has that clause:
1) Can I change the license file to read "... version 2 of the License, only."?
2) Can I change the license file to read "... either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."?
3) Can I change the license file to read "... version 3 of the License, only."?
Thus it will not automatically be subjected to GPLv3 unless the developers make a consious decision to move to it.
Software is not automatically subjected to GPLV3 with the default language of "or, at your option, any later version". All that means is that someone can choose to distribute a GPLV2 application with that language under either GPLV2 or GPLV3. It's each individual distributors choice.
To make it even clearer, only the authors (not just any old distributor) of the work can exercise the option to distribute it under a later version of the license, and all the authors have to agree on it. For example, I can't download a GPLv2 linux kernel, add a couple of lines of new code, and then redistribute the whole thing under GPLv3.
Similarly, If Linus Torvalds decided tomorrow to change to GPLv3, anyone who has ever contributed to the kernel could challenge him (if his or her code is still in the kernel). Linus' only options would be to either get permission, or remove the code in question.
I wasn't aware that the show was ever shot to be half an hour long. I could swear that, of all the condensed episodes I've seen, I've also seen a full hour version.
This reminds me of those old half hour versions of Knight Rider they used to show on Saturday mornings. They would edit out all the drama dialogue, so that all that was left were the Hoff talking to his Firebird and Lots of Turbo boosts. Basically only scenes with action music under them.
They're doing the same thing with Holmes on Homes, on HGTV. Personally, I can't stand it, but I'm one of those guys who always waits for the extended edition of a film to be released before buying it.
I guess I like my entertainment for the nutrition, rather than the taste.
I see a lot of comments along the lines of "That's impossible, because you can't get something for nothing, so STFU.", but the comments in the link make a bad logical deduction, as follows:
1. The machine consistently produces power from the Earth's magnetic field.
2. Point 1 implies that the machine defies the law of conservation of energy.
It is possible for point 1 to be true without implying point 2. In fact, if you assume that the conservation laws hold true a priori, then you can actually deduce some interesting properties of a device for which point 1 holds true.
Conservation of momentum and energy imply that drawing energy out of this device and using it to move something will cause a change in the Earth's motion. Specifically:
A) If you use it to spin something up, then the Earth's rotation will adjust to compensate.
B) If you use it to throw something, then the earth will be thrown in the opposite direction to compensate.
C) It should be possible to drive this device in reverse and actually put energy into the Earth's magnetic field, instead of drawing it out.
So lighten up a bit, people. This thing might actually be useful, even if it doesn't give you something for nothing.
2. There are very few people with the experience to write a good much less great 3d driver.
3. Even with the specs I am guessing that the majority of contributions will be security or code clean up and not performance optimizations. I have to take exception to these two points. There are many people in the open source community that have the skill to write a great 3D driver. I'm thinking specifically of the Mesa and DRI projects. I've been running the open source r300 driver on my FireGL X1-128 for about a year now, and it works just fine for most OpenGL based program. The current set of quirks are mostly texture based, and I believe these problems are a direct result of a lack of hardware documentation.
Look, I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but saying "it doesn't matter if we had the specs because we couldn't do any better than the 'experts' even if we had specs", doesn't fly with me, when the current reverse engineered driver I am using right now to reply to you is better in some respects than the binary alternative. If we can improve on the binary driver without documentation, I believe we could do even better with it.
That's simply not true. The "testable hypotheses" step is very much governed by opinions such as those expressed above. If you assume something's bunk, you'll never test it except by accident when testing something else. I wouldn't assume a hypothesis was bunk, without first testing it myself. That's the whole point of the scientific method. You test to prove or you test to disprove. Refusing to test at all contributes nothing to the discussion.
If I don't think a hypothesis is testable, or if I don't think the given test is valid, then that's a different story. The underlying theory has to be described using a consistent framework, and hypotheses have to be testable within that framework. Making a hypothesis that doesn't conform the the logic of the theory, or designing a test that doesn't test a logically consistent hypothesis is pointless. You might as well just dress up like a witch doctor and dance around while chanting.
This isn't oppression of unappreciated genius, just avoidance of blatant idiocy. What I like about science is that it doesn't really matter what either of you says. All that really matters is the math, testable hypotheses, and repeatability.
I bet if you switch to wearing your watch on your right hand, it keeps its charge better the more you use your computer.
That's true, but it takes a bit of practice before you get used to using a mouse with your left hand. Alternatively, I guess you could keep your watch on the left hand, and just learn to do it left handed.
However, have they actually developed anything in the last year or two that did not suck and then disappear? Didn't they market some kind of vacuum cleaner a couple of years ago? There used to be some links out there, but they're all gone now.
Who the fuck is Rogers to decide what I am doing with the bandwidth I AM PAYING THEM for?
They're the guys that own the fiber.
I think the problem is that there is a disconnect between what you want to buy and what Rogers is actually selling.
You want to buy bandwidth. By bandwidth, you mean a pipe of a certain size, and it's none of Rogers' goddamn business what you stuff down that pipe, as long as you pay your bill. I'm with you on this point.
Rogers sells memberships. They advertise many benefits of membership, including a snappy web portal, a bunch of email addresses, some web hosting space, and the use of a really big pipe that connects to the Internet. It's this pipe that gets the spotlight from Marketing. They really emphasize how huge this pipe is, and how this hugeness is going to make your life so much better.
Thing is, while they tell you how big the pipe is, they never actually promise to rent you the whole thing, or even an exclusive piece of it. You think you're renting bandwidth, but you're actually only renting access rights. Oh yeah, and that access is shared with a couple hundred other members.
The reason Rogers sells memberships instead of bandwidth is because they can only sell bandwidth once, but they can sell as many memberships as they like. That translates directly into more profit.
So, if you're hogging the pipe, then you're fucking with their business model, because you are making it painfully obvious to everyone else sharing the pipe that they are not getting the bandwidth they think they are renting (but are not actually entitled to).
Roger's response is to prioritize recognizable web and email packets, because these are the things most members use their service for. They're probably ordering the priorities of all the other TCP and UDP ports by bandwidth usage, with the heaviest stuff at the bottom of the queue, to decrease latency. In fact, I'd be willing to bet SSH packets are at the bottom of the queue, not because they are encrypted, but because they comprise the highest bandwidth usage in the pipe. That's probably because L337 D00d is tunneling his download of the uncompressed Blu-Ray image of LotR through SSH, to avoid drawing the attention of the Eye.
So, yeah, we should have the option to rent pure bandwidth, but reality sucks balls, and the only other option we have is to switch to DSL.
Sometimes I miss my C64 and QuantumLink. At least I knew where I stood...
I like option (2) also. Guaranteed minimum bandwidth is the way to go. Your users can still use the whole pipe if it's available, but they get throttled back when other users want their fair share of the pipe.
Of course, if you've oversold your pipe, then you have a problem. I guess that's why ISP always state their limits as "up to 3 Gb/s", instead of "at least 300Kb/s". The first statement sounds great to Marketing, and doesn't legally promise a floor on the bandwidth, like the second statement does.
Slashdot Mirror
beat me to it.
If the international community became concerned about global arse-wiping inconsistency it could ultimately become an ISO standard.
I'm imagining Microsoft trying to fasttrack their own proprietary arse wiping standard through ECMA, to grease the skids for their eventual proposal to ISO. This kind of tactic is right up their alley.
They will say that choice in arse wiping standards is good for consumers, even though anyone who tries to implement their OpenArse standard will have gaping holes in their implementation.
Of course, implementors who have licensed the secret Microsoft ArseWiper technology for a nominal fee (under NDA, of course) will be able to completely cover their bases. Everyone else will be up the creek.
Thank you. Never heard that one before. I gotta get a new girlfriend soon...
I don't get the jetta line.
Priest Vito Cornelius: I try to serve life. But you only... seem to want to destroy it.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Oh, Father, you're so wrong. Let me explain. [closes office door, places an empty glass on desk]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is... [pushes glass off table]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: destroyed...
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [robot cleaners move to clean broken glass] Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain... of life.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [Desk prepares a glass of water and a bowl of fruit] You see, Father, by creating a little destruction, I'm actually encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business. Cheers. [drinks water with cherry, only to choke on cherry stuck in throat. Zorg frantically presses all buttons on his desk in an attempt to get something to clear his throat]
Priest Vito Cornelius: Where's the robot to pat you in the back? Or the engineer? Or their children, maybe? [Desk brings out Zorg's pet Picasso; Zorg motions it to try and help him]
Priest Vito Cornelius: There, you see how all your so-called power counts for absolutely nothing? How your entire empire of destruction comes... crashing down. All because of one little... cherry. [Slaps Zorg in the back, causing him to spit the cherry at Picasso]
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: [opens doors, throws Cornelius to guards] You saved my life, and in return, I'll spare yours... for now.
Priest Vito Cornelius: You're a monster, Zorg.
Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg: I know.
stolen shamelessly from IMDB
Almost. You don't need to be the original author. You just need to have a copyright interest in the work. You can take a work under "GPLv2 or any later version", make some (copyrightable) changes, then release the modified work under "GPLv3 only".
That sounds more like a fork. If by friend Bob also has a copyright interest in the work, and he doesn't want it to be GPLv3 only, are you saying that I can ignore his license preference, and just do my own thing?From a legal perspective, you're not really relicensing anything.
That's a point I'm having trouble with. Personally choosing to comply with a later version of the GPL, because it's one of many licenses offered to me, seems to be different from making others, downstream from me, comply with that later version of the GPL. In the first case, I'm choosing a license from an acceptable set, while in the second case, I'm altering the acceptable set.Read GPLv2, which states:
0. . . . Each licensee is addressed as "you".
. . .
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
OK, so I did understand it correctly the first time.I, personally, can choose the license version I wish to be bound by, but I can't force anyone else to accept the version I want, unless I'm the original author of the work.
The Linux kernel is DIFFERENT. Its terms are:
In the case of the Linux kernel, it started out from the beginning as GPLV2 only.
In the case of most every other GPL application, the redistributor gets to decide which version of the license that he is using.
Whoops! Thanks for the clarification. I guess the kernel was a bad representative example.
Of course, that means that I actually don't understand the "at your option" clause. Say that I redistribute a GPLv2 work which has that clause:
1) Can I change the license file to read "... version 2 of the License, only."?
2) Can I change the license file to read "... either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."?
3) Can I change the license file to read "... version 3 of the License, only."?
Software is not automatically subjected to GPLV3 with the default language of "or, at your option, any later version". All that means is that someone can choose to distribute a GPLV2 application with that language under either GPLV2 or GPLV3. It's each individual distributors choice.
To make it even clearer, only the authors (not just any old distributor) of the work can exercise the option to distribute it under a later version of the license, and all the authors have to agree on it. For example, I can't download a GPLv2 linux kernel, add a couple of lines of new code, and then redistribute the whole thing under GPLv3.
Similarly, If Linus Torvalds decided tomorrow to change to GPLv3, anyone who has ever contributed to the kernel could challenge him (if his or her code is still in the kernel). Linus' only options would be to either get permission, or remove the code in question.
I wasn't aware that the show was ever shot to be half an hour long. I could swear that, of all the condensed episodes I've seen, I've also seen a full hour version.
They're doing the same thing with Holmes on Homes, on HGTV. Personally, I can't stand it, but I'm one of those guys who always waits for the extended edition of a film to be released before buying it.
I guess I like my entertainment for the nutrition, rather than the taste.
1. The machine consistently produces power from the Earth's magnetic field.
2. Point 1 implies that the machine defies the law of conservation of energy.
It is possible for point 1 to be true without implying point 2. In fact, if you assume that the conservation laws hold true a priori, then you can actually deduce some interesting properties of a device for which point 1 holds true.
Conservation of momentum and energy imply that drawing energy out of this device and using it to move something will cause a change in the Earth's motion. Specifically:
A) If you use it to spin something up, then the Earth's rotation will adjust to compensate.
B) If you use it to throw something, then the earth will be thrown in the opposite direction to compensate.
C) It should be possible to drive this device in reverse and actually put energy into the Earth's magnetic field, instead of drawing it out.
So lighten up a bit, people. This thing might actually be useful, even if it doesn't give you something for nothing.
3. Even with the specs I am guessing that the majority of contributions will be security or code clean up and not performance optimizations.
I have to take exception to these two points. There are many people in the open source community that have the skill to write a great 3D driver. I'm thinking specifically of the Mesa and DRI projects. I've been running the open source r300 driver on my FireGL X1-128 for about a year now, and it works just fine for most OpenGL based program. The current set of quirks are mostly texture based, and I believe these problems are a direct result of a lack of hardware documentation.
Look, I'm not saying you don't have a right to your opinion, but saying "it doesn't matter if we had the specs because we couldn't do any better than the 'experts' even if we had specs", doesn't fly with me, when the current reverse engineered driver I am using right now to reply to you is better in some respects than the binary alternative. If we can improve on the binary driver without documentation, I believe we could do even better with it.
Yup. HPUX (10.20, and maybe 11.00 - can't recall) did the same thing.
If I don't think a hypothesis is testable, or if I don't think the given test is valid, then that's a different story. The underlying theory has to be described using a consistent framework, and hypotheses have to be testable within that framework. Making a hypothesis that doesn't conform the the logic of the theory, or designing a test that doesn't test a logically consistent hypothesis is pointless. You might as well just dress up like a witch doctor and dance around while chanting.
This isn't oppression of unappreciated genius, just avoidance of blatant idiocy. What I like about science is that it doesn't really matter what either of you says. All that really matters is the math, testable hypotheses, and repeatability.
That's true, but it takes a bit of practice before you get used to using a mouse with your left hand. Alternatively, I guess you could keep your watch on the left hand, and just learn to do it left handed.
They're the guys that own the fiber.
I think the problem is that there is a disconnect between what you want to buy and what Rogers is actually selling.
You want to buy bandwidth. By bandwidth, you mean a pipe of a certain size, and it's none of Rogers' goddamn business what you stuff down that pipe, as long as you pay your bill. I'm with you on this point.
Rogers sells memberships. They advertise many benefits of membership, including a snappy web portal, a bunch of email addresses, some web hosting space, and the use of a really big pipe that connects to the Internet. It's this pipe that gets the spotlight from Marketing. They really emphasize how huge this pipe is, and how this hugeness is going to make your life so much better.
Thing is, while they tell you how big the pipe is, they never actually promise to rent you the whole thing, or even an exclusive piece of it. You think you're renting bandwidth, but you're actually only renting access rights. Oh yeah, and that access is shared with a couple hundred other members.
The reason Rogers sells memberships instead of bandwidth is because they can only sell bandwidth once, but they can sell as many memberships as they like. That translates directly into more profit.
So, if you're hogging the pipe, then you're fucking with their business model, because you are making it painfully obvious to everyone else sharing the pipe that they are not getting the bandwidth they think they are renting (but are not actually entitled to).
Roger's response is to prioritize recognizable web and email packets, because these are the things most members use their service for. They're probably ordering the priorities of all the other TCP and UDP ports by bandwidth usage, with the heaviest stuff at the bottom of the queue, to decrease latency. In fact, I'd be willing to bet SSH packets are at the bottom of the queue, not because they are encrypted, but because they comprise the highest bandwidth usage in the pipe. That's probably because L337 D00d is tunneling his download of the uncompressed Blu-Ray image of LotR through SSH, to avoid drawing the attention of the Eye.
So, yeah, we should have the option to rent pure bandwidth, but reality sucks balls, and the only other option we have is to switch to DSL.
Sometimes I miss my C64 and QuantumLink. At least I knew where I stood...
Of course, if you've oversold your pipe, then you have a problem. I guess that's why ISP always state their limits as "up to 3 Gb/s", instead of "at least 300Kb/s". The first statement sounds great to Marketing, and doesn't legally promise a floor on the bandwidth, like the second statement does.