just using Facebook means giving them information.
It's even worse than that. If you previously logged on/off on Facebook, and fail to clear your browser cache and cookies, then Facebook will track every other website you visit afterward that uses some scripts of theirs (such as the Like buttons). And unlike normal cookie tracking, they know exactly who you are from your profile data.
Inverse: We put a not on both sides of the statement. If I shoot a monkey, then that monkey dies. != If I do not shoot a monkey, then that monkey does not die!
FTFY (Not as dramatic, but eventually the monkey will die of other causes)
All they have to do is create a tablet-specific OS.
You mean like Windows CE?
Even though it shares the 'Windows' name, it's a different OS (only reusing some of the Win32 and.NET APIs), with different kernel flavors, one of which targets ARM (and has done so for over 10 years).
JBoss is built on top of Tomcat. Tomcat doesn't have support for Java EE applications. If all you need is a servlet container, then by all means use Tomcat.
Now if you meant to say 'throw away Java EE', then perhaps you had a point, depending on the actual use cases.
Give it a few decades in seismically active regions, and you will find that everything moved enough to make that GPS system useless. Unless maybe if you measured relative to a fixed point on the yard.
You are correct. The payload data of an SMS packet is 140 octets, which can contain 7-bit, 8-bit or 16-bit (UTF-16) text. The total frame size is a number of octets longer and depends on the underlying protocol.
I'm afraid you misunderstand what 'mitochondrial Eve' entails.
It simply means that all living humans have some mitochondrial DNA in common, which they all inherited from a single female ancestor.
It does not mean there was only one female ancestor.
That common ancestor lived at the same time with other females (and males), some of which passed on their mitochondrial DNA to people living today, just not to all of them.
red dwarfs are small and not very massive. They are usually stars that went nova but were too small to collapse and form a black hole.
That's incorrect. Red dwarfs do not have enough mass to go nova. They just slowly burn up their nuclear fuel until they cool off. And it takes a supernova to create a neutron star or black hole. A nova is a less energetic phenomenon where one star steals gas from a companion star, until the density/temperature becomes critical and the star's surface layer is blast away in a fusion reaction. In many cases this can be repeated several times, since most of the star survives.
Another possibility would be to only distribute your binaries and provide a download link to the QT binary libs on the Nokia site. That way Nokia remains the distributor and you will not have to provide any source code. To be safe you should still attribute Nokia by putting a notice in your software (e.g. About popup) that you're using the QT libs version X (c) Nokia under the LGPL 2.1 license.
The LGPL v2.1 license explicitly allows you to also use the code under the GPL v2 license instead. In that case you will have to distribute your binaries with all sources (including your own, but you may dual-license with some commercial license if you wish) under the GPL v2 or compatible license. Note that the GPL v2 is not compatible with the GPL v3 license unless the license headers state that you can use the sources under the GPL v2 or a later version
It is worth noting that QT is multi-licensed: LGPL v2.1, or GPL v3 with a special exception (allowing you to include it in certain non-GPL compatible open source code, e.g. licenced MPL), or commercial (then you have to pay, but you can use it practically as you please). See here.
4. You may copy and distribute the Library (or a portion or derivative of it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange.
If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
and
6. [...] For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library" must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that you distribute.
Basically, you have to provide to everyone that you distribute your binaries to (directly or via third party) and that ask for it, the sources and make scripts needed to compile the QT libraries. In practice you can just download a copy of the QT sources and either put that on your distribution medium or offer it for download on your site next to your binaries. The safest thing is probably to bundle everything (your executables, the QT binaries and QT sources) in one installer. In that case, nobody can bother you about the sources afterwards
Also acceptable is to provide a direct link to the Nokia download site, but you will have to download and keep a copy for yourself, so you can provide the sources yourself if the original provider disappears.
Dynamic linking is certainly possible with the QT libraries.
Just because your C++ applications contains some function signatures, symbols and constants from the QT API doesn't make it a 'real' derived work, since this is using the library as intended. One part of LGPL section 5 states this:
If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work.
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
So linking to the QT dynamic libraries does not put any restrictions on your own program. You are however still required to distribute the QT parts as specified by the LGPL (provide the code and such).
Only when using static linking will your code be a derived work, and be bound by the same license.
So, if someone holds a performance in their house and wants people to pay for it, but at the same time they have a big window with open curtains that allows people to see the action from the street, then they should be able to sue the neighbour that tells other people about the free view through the window?
NEVER has any commercially available GMO been found to produce something harmful
I think the Monarch butterfly would disagree (if it could speak for itself).
But I was mainly speaking of genetic defects that would make the crops inedible or inviable within a few generations.
I'm not against GM food per se, I'm just arguing that it might not be smart to bet the future of mankind on monocultures of genetically not-proven-stable food crops.
Because they aggressively enforce their patents, Monsanto will destroy the hybrids when they find out. They basically just spray your field with Roundup to check this. Anything that survives has their IP and cannot be replicated.
So then the farmer isn't allowed to use seeds from that generation to grow the next one. And so his cultivar (which may be many generations old) is lost and has to be replaced with new seeds.
Which seeds does he get? Probably the Monsanto variety, since otherwise he'd risk cross-pollination and starting over again.
Well we are (using monuculture strains). In part thanks to corporations like Monsanto.
My point is that if you replace a whole generation of annual crops like grain with a GM variety, then this new generation will be even more vulnerable than the old monoculture, due to unknown genetic defects. At least the old strains evolved naturally (albeit selected by man), and proved their genetic stability for many generations. And since grain is grown from previous year's harvest, it will be very costly if the next generation turns out nonviable.
So while monocultures are bad, GM monocultures are even worse.
It isn't. Nor did I say it is.
Western agriculture is heavily subsidized by the government (both in the US and in Europe). This makes farming certain crops more attractive than others.
In large parts of India the ground water levels are dropping because the water is being used to grow huge fields of lettuce, which is grown for global corporations like McDonald's and others.
Local farmers are strongly discouraged by their governments to cultivate anything else.
The governments in turn are strongly 'persuaded' by the mega corporations.
Even in the USA/Europe these corporations have a lot of influence on the government, so the government tends to subsidize those crops that are most profitable for the corporations. Local farmers earn most by cultivating these crops, hence encouraging mono cultures.
In itself, GM food isn't bad. But replacing all our old crop strains with GM species that are not yet genetically stable and might turn out inedible in a few generations might not be the smartest move man can make. So it is the combination of the two that makes it bad.
You nead a reason why genetically modified food is bad? Well, let's see:
They genetically altered a major food source (grain) without really knowing the long term consequences (the splicing and insertion of new genes basically occurs in random places of the target DNA).
Because they 'enhanced' it (made it resistant to the weedkiller they sell), they made it very attractive to cultivate.
This, combined with aggressive marketing lead to world-wide use of their altered grain varieties (which they control completely through patents).
The genetically altered grain cross-breads with non-altered grains, so eventually the whole world will have GE grain.
Now imagine that this altered grain turns out to be particulary vulnerable to some new strain of virus.
These things happen, but with sufficient genetic variety, only a small part of the crops are affected.
But since we basically created a grain monoculture, most of the crops will be lost. Sure there are some reserves, but not in sufficient quantities to prevent famine.
And it would take years to turn the limited amount of unaltered grain (which btw people would want to eat) in sufficient starter seed for the whole world.
That's why genetically modified food is a bad thing when controlled by mega corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even worse than that. If you previously logged on/off on Facebook, and fail to clear your browser cache and cookies, then Facebook will track every other website you visit afterward that uses some scripts of theirs (such as the Like buttons). And unlike normal cookie tracking, they know exactly who you are from your profile data.
FTFY (Not as dramatic, but eventually the monkey will die of other causes)
You mean like Windows CE? .NET APIs), with different kernel flavors, one of which targets ARM (and has done so for over 10 years).
Even though it shares the 'Windows' name, it's a different OS (only reusing some of the Win32 and
JBoss is built on top of Tomcat. Tomcat doesn't have support for Java EE applications. If all you need is a servlet container, then by all means use Tomcat.
Now if you meant to say 'throw away Java EE', then perhaps you had a point, depending on the actual use cases.
Give it a few decades in seismically active regions, and you will find that everything moved enough to make that GPS system useless. Unless maybe if you measured relative to a fixed point on the yard.
You are correct. The payload data of an SMS packet is 140 octets, which can contain 7-bit, 8-bit or 16-bit (UTF-16) text. The total frame size is a number of octets longer and depends on the underlying protocol.
I'm afraid you misunderstand what 'mitochondrial Eve' entails.
It simply means that all living humans have some mitochondrial DNA in common, which they all inherited from a single female ancestor.
It does not mean there was only one female ancestor.
That common ancestor lived at the same time with other females (and males), some of which passed on their mitochondrial DNA to people living today, just not to all of them.
There is no step 4. Step 2 is the ? step, step 3 is Profit!
That's incorrect. Red dwarfs do not have enough mass to go nova. They just slowly burn up their nuclear fuel until they cool off. And it takes a supernova to create a neutron star or black hole. A nova is a less energetic phenomenon where one star steals gas from a companion star, until the density/temperature becomes critical and the star's surface layer is blast away in a fusion reaction. In many cases this can be repeated several times, since most of the star survives.
Another possibility would be to only distribute your binaries and provide a download link to the QT binary libs on the Nokia site. That way Nokia remains the distributor and you will not have to provide any source code. To be safe you should still attribute Nokia by putting a notice in your software (e.g. About popup) that you're using the QT libs version X (c) Nokia under the LGPL 2.1 license .
The LGPL v2.1 license explicitly allows you to also use the code under the GPL v2 license instead. In that case you will have to distribute your binaries with all sources (including your own, but you may dual-license with some commercial license if you wish) under the GPL v2 or compatible license. Note that the GPL v2 is not compatible with the GPL v3 license unless the license headers state that you can use the sources under the GPL v2 or a later version
It is worth noting that QT is multi-licensed: LGPL v2.1, or GPL v3 with a special exception (allowing you to include it in certain non-GPL compatible open source code, e.g. licenced MPL), or commercial (then you have to pay, but you can use it practically as you please). See here.
The relevant parts of the LGPL v2.1 are:
and
Basically, you have to provide to everyone that you distribute your binaries to (directly or via third party) and that ask for it, the sources and make scripts needed to compile the QT libraries. In practice you can just download a copy of the QT sources and either put that on your distribution medium or offer it for download on your site next to your binaries. The safest thing is probably to bundle everything (your executables, the QT binaries and QT sources) in one installer. In that case, nobody can bother you about the sources afterwards
Also acceptable is to provide a direct link to the Nokia download site, but you will have to download and keep a copy for yourself, so you can provide the sources yourself if the original provider disappears.
Regards.
Just because your C++ applications contains some function signatures, symbols and constants from the QT API doesn't make it a 'real' derived work, since this is using the library as intended.
One part of LGPL section 5 states this:
On the GNU website you can find the official standpoint on this matter.
So linking to the QT dynamic libraries does not put any restrictions on your own program. You are however still required to distribute the QT parts as specified by the LGPL (provide the code and such).
Only when using static linking will your code be a derived work, and be bound by the same license.
So, if someone holds a performance in their house and wants people to pay for it, but at the same time they have a big window with open curtains that allows people to see the action from the street, then they should be able to sue the neighbour that tells other people about the free view through the window?
Ah that's the beauty of the thing, come winter they will freeze to death.
No. It's the galactic core explosion.
Just use bleach. It will do the job faster, more reliant and cheaper.
A bit of googling turned up this: http://aramedia.com/kbfarsi.jpg
I think the Monarch butterfly would disagree (if it could speak for itself).
But I was mainly speaking of genetic defects that would make the crops inedible or inviable within a few generations.
I'm not against GM food per se, I'm just arguing that it might not be smart to bet the future of mankind on monocultures of genetically not-proven-stable food crops.
Because they aggressively enforce their patents, Monsanto will destroy the hybrids when they find out. They basically just spray your field with Roundup to check this. Anything that survives has their IP and cannot be replicated.
So then the farmer isn't allowed to use seeds from that generation to grow the next one. And so his cultivar (which may be many generations old) is lost and has to be replaced with new seeds.
Which seeds does he get? Probably the Monsanto variety, since otherwise he'd risk cross-pollination and starting over again.
Well we are (using monuculture strains). In part thanks to corporations like Monsanto.
My point is that if you replace a whole generation of annual crops like grain with a GM variety, then this new generation will be even more vulnerable than the old monoculture, due to unknown genetic defects. At least the old strains evolved naturally (albeit selected by man), and proved their genetic stability for many generations.
And since grain is grown from previous year's harvest, it will be very costly if the next generation turns out nonviable.
So while monocultures are bad, GM monocultures are even worse.
It isn't. Nor did I say it is.
Western agriculture is heavily subsidized by the government (both in the US and in Europe). This makes farming certain crops more attractive than others.
In large parts of India the ground water levels are dropping because the water is being used to grow huge fields of lettuce, which is grown for global corporations like McDonald's and others.
Local farmers are strongly discouraged by their governments to cultivate anything else.
The governments in turn are strongly 'persuaded' by the mega corporations.
Even in the USA/Europe these corporations have a lot of influence on the government, so the government tends to subsidize those crops that are most profitable for the corporations. Local farmers earn most by cultivating these crops, hence encouraging mono cultures.
In itself, GM food isn't bad. But replacing all our old crop strains with GM species that are not yet genetically stable and might turn out inedible in a few generations might not be the smartest move man can make. So it is the combination of the two that makes it bad.
So I'm a moron just because you say so? Oh please! What are you, a five year old?
You nead a reason why genetically modified food is bad? Well, let's see:
They genetically altered a major food source (grain) without really knowing the long term consequences (the splicing and insertion of new genes basically occurs in random places of the target DNA).
Because they 'enhanced' it (made it resistant to the weedkiller they sell), they made it very attractive to cultivate.
This, combined with aggressive marketing lead to world-wide use of their altered grain varieties (which they control completely through patents).
The genetically altered grain cross-breads with non-altered grains, so eventually the whole world will have GE grain.
Now imagine that this altered grain turns out to be particulary vulnerable to some new strain of virus.
These things happen, but with sufficient genetic variety, only a small part of the crops are affected.
But since we basically created a grain monoculture, most of the crops will be lost. Sure there are some reserves, but not in sufficient quantities to prevent famine.
And it would take years to turn the limited amount of unaltered grain (which btw people would want to eat) in sufficient starter seed for the whole world.
That's why genetically modified food is a bad thing when controlled by mega corporations.
So they found it in its mother's basement?