Profile your application before making such committments. You might be surprised at what you find.
What's interesting here is how securely "in the box" people are thinking. They are on a do-or-freaking-die mission to press a consumer architecture into service as a mid-range engineering system.
My shop uses Sun hardware for midsize applications like this, but we also run some Alpha systems (Both older DEC and newer HP).
We have a couple of Sun E20K but I don't know how they are configured exactly (I don't get to touch stuff that belongs to financial depts, nor would I want to:-) But I know these can go up to 1/2 TB, addressable by a single application. And you can't beat their IO.
But somebody who is thinking in terms of "What motherboard should I buy?" probably isn't prepared for the sticker prices of SunFire servers, EMC storage, etc.
When a skunkworks shop needs some large scale system on a budget approaching zero dollars, some creativity is needed. So we get into storage solutions like consumer RAID, and we hear questions like the OP, "what's the largest memory configuration on a commodity 64-bit microcomputer?"
Dual Xeon boards that take 32GB RAM are common enough, but I think that's 16GB per processor and I have no idea how it's addressed or whether any given application knows how to address it.
32GB in premimum RAM will run over $20 grand. Nothing compared to the half-million for an E20K, of course.
"Also not possible, since the GPL is simply a license to copy and redistribute copyrighted software, if the GPL is revoked, I still have been granted rights to the version I was given, via the U.S. Copyright system. I am free to do whatever I wish with it, including rebrand it as my own and sell it as a competing product."
Would you mind explaining how the revocation of the license would also strip the copyright holder of his rights with respect to you, as a consequence of the license being found invalid?
Revocation of the GPL would result in a stronger (absolute!) postion for the copyright holder, but it should put the licensee in a position of status quo (the license was valid when you agreed to it, and remains in force). The other possibility is that the licensee would be compelled to negotiate some license with the copyright holder.
On re-reading your message, I think that's what you were saying, from the copyright holder's perspective.
"Revocation of the GPL" (assuming such an argument is possible, though nobody has raised one yet), would leave the licensees either with no license whatsoever, but more likely, would leave the license in effect, but no new licesing possible.
What's more significant to me, is that there is little or nothing in the GPL that, upon being held to be invalid, would not also have the collateral damage of destroying the whole licensing structure of the software industry, and probably would have an impact on the entertainment industry and possibly even publishing.
Whatever doctrine finds the *very* straightforward declarations of the GPL to be invalid, would be applicable to every other license based on copyright.
That's why I want to hear the specific argument against the GPL, the one that would be stated in court while seeking the "test". Then apply that test to every other software license on the shelf. I'm certain they would all fail, if the GPL fails.
Which clause was illegal for the copyright holder to ask? Which clause was illegal for the licensee to agree to?
Let's hear the parameters of "The Test" before we are told that "The Test" hasn't been passed!
"In October, Developer sues User for Copyright Infringment, claiming GPL is illegal"
Which clause is illegal, and on what legal basis is it illegal?
Was it illegal for the copyright holder to ask, or was it illegal for the licensee to agree to?
How does the validity of this clause affect the relationship of the licensor to the licensee?
You can't just walk into a court room with your hair on fire and spout off that the license is illegal, just because it suits you. You must make an argument based on laws.
There is nothing in the GPL that the copyright holder is not empowered to demand. The legal ramifications of copyright are well-defined, so there isn't much to call into question, and therefore, no basis to carry the GPL into a court room and ask it to be found illegal.
If Developer wants to persuade User to renegotiate the license of Software 1.0, he is free to do that, but after he has made the earlier agreement he can't simply make a unilateral takeback.
If he could do as you describe, imagine that doctrine applied equally everywhere. You no longer have to default on loans, since the lender can reposess your car or home anyway, just by changing their mind about the earlier agreement.
> If they try to argue that the GPL doesn't apply...
You can't even get into the court room without having spelled out your argument in advance.
What clause in the GPL is either:
1. Illegal for a copyright holder to ask
or
2. Illegal for the licensee to agree to?
You can't just go into court with the vague idea that maybe you'll be able to persuade a judge to find a license generally unlawful or void just because it suits you. You must make an argument based on applicable laws. The overriding applicable law at work here is *copyright* law, which grants everything needed for a copyright holder to attach a license like the GPL, or one even more restrictive, or even, NONE AT ALL.
There's no case to be made, and that's why there's no reason to expect "a test in court."
"I cannot parse your sentence. I think you are saying that SCO v. IBM does not test the GPL. It certainly does."
It tests the licensing relationship between IBM and SCO, but the result will have no bearing on, say, the author of proftpd and myself for my derivative work. That would require a separate "test".
What's being "tested in court" here, is not the license itself, but rather a certain party's performance to the terms of the license and a possible question of whether other considerations are in force that would releived the party of the obligation to abide by those terms.
But there is no question on the table as to the validity of the license itself. What clause in the very simple license do you imagine could be called into question? Go throught the GPL clause by clause, and point out the one clause that is either (1) illegal for the copyright holder to ask, or (2) illegal for the licensee to agree to, and THEN you have your case where the license can be "tested in court."
But I warn you, if you find this, your findings will be applicable through the entire industry. Because the whole software industry is based on licenses like the GPL: Licenses based on copyright that grant certain privilieges while making certain restrictions.
It would be quite surprising to find a clause that voids the GPL, but somehow manages to spare the Microsoft EULA. These licenses have the same basis in law. To declare them void would necessarily abridge the rights of a copyright holder.
What is the specific argument that could be brought before a court?
The license must be presumed to be valid, unless it has some specific flaw that cannot be settled between the licensor and the licensee, but nobody seems to be able to point to this flaw, much less make a case that there is a conflict that would be properly presented in court.
Do people believe that every document must be "tested in court" before it becomes valid?
"The trouble with Free Software cult is that like any good fanatics, the cultists are hellbent on forcing the same ideology on everybody else."
This is different from the music copyright cult that the record companies practice? They too are hell-bent on forcing their ideology on everybody else, and they appear to be willing to actually use *force*, instead of mere persuasion.
I'm so sick of hearing "GPL stands up in court" or "GPL not tested in court."
There's no way for the GPL to *fail* this test, without the failure being a sufficient condition to cause all other licenses based on copyright to also become invalid.
In fact, the very provisions of copyright that allow the holder to license his work would be called into question, because any language precise enough to "overturn the GPL" in a legal sense would be applicable to all licesnses based on copyright, many of which have themselves "never been tested in court."
My mortgage agreement hasn't been specifically tested in court either; does that mean I should ignore it and not make payments?
In the sense that a healthy person can walk from Golden Gate Park to Fisherman's Wharf for an afternoon stroll (or a less healthy person can do it on public trasnportation in a matter of 15 minutes), you're right. But there are whole worlds contained in that small space. It still amazes me how huge San Fran is, for fitting in such a compact physical space.
>It's strange though, if you go to UPS's tracking >site, you have to check a box saying that you agree >to the "terms and conditions", but you don't need to > do so when you google....strange....
Does this mean Google has agreed to the terms and conditions on your behalf? Without a signed, notarized Power of Attorney that might mean Google has taken responsibility for you adhering to those terms. Or it might mean that Google has different terms.
>When will the quality of music reach tolerable mass?
Lots of good music has been recorded since the invention of the phonograph. I take it you do not enjoy the current mainstream popular material, but I assure you, THAT has been the steady state of popular music for a long, long time.
Every generation leaves behind two kinds of music collections:
1. The music that the record companies wanted you to buy, which you did. and 2. The music that was not force-marketed.
Guess which box of records is worth $5.00 at the yard sale, and which records can be sold for $50.00 a piece?
There's nothing new here. It's been this way forever.
>don't know for you but i still have a lot of pigeons > arround my house ( seems that's a gang...)
"Rock doves" columba livia, certainly not the same: Not migratory, not good to eat, and serves little purpose except to chase off more attractive birds and shit on your car.
Just in my own observations, I've noticed a local extinction of a few things: fireflies, which we used to see in large numbers every night, are completely gone, horned lizards, which were extremely common, but I haven't seen one in >30 years, army ants (benign red ants, now replaced by fire ants), and the scissortail bird Muscivora forficata, which has definitely decreased its population since I've been alive.
The real problem with XP is that when hardware fails, you've got to reactivate, which is at Microsoft's discretion, and may not be workable in any given situation.
There are so many accounts of passenger pigeons *darkening the daytime sky*. It's hard to imagine an animal that was alive in great numbers just a few generations ago, that is now *completely* extinct.
It went from being *the* most abundant species of bird, to *extinct* in the span of maybe 50 years, during a period of relatively low population and industrializaion, compared with today.
"Why? Because ANY reason that lets you prevent others from taking pictures of your camers can be turned around and used to prevent the store from taking your picture"
In a public place, this is close to accurate. In a *private* place, like a store, you are nowhere near the mark.
The store owner is not compelled to let you in the store at all, except for the few specific reasons that he isn't allowed to stop only you while allowing others to enter, e.g., race, religion, gender, disability, etc.
The right to refuse service, ask you to leave, and make a trespass complaint if you refuse, begins long before we start talking about "cameras" and so on.
Be careful. The information on that site is incomplete and clearly slanted to try to make the case from various angles that have been tried by tax protestors for years. They lose, because there are many more arguments, and more cogent and legally valid ones, than the "31" listed on your site.
> Show me where you think the law is
The law is in the Code of Federal Regulations, just like all other laws promulgated by Federal Agencies, with updates published in the Federal Register. This authority comes from Congress, which empowers them by delegating lawmaking authority to the agencies.
Don't stake your future or your assets on assumptions that come from this same, tired, *losing* tax protestor line.
Smokescreen and no substance? It has as much weight as anything else done under the authority of Congress. Don't like the tax status quo? Get organized on a national scale and elect representatives who believe as you do, and send them to DC. That, fortunately or unfortunately, is the solution.
Re:Don't look here or you might learn something!
on
Tracking Your Taxes
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>Read the site and learn!
What tax protestor advocates like the one you linked to never mention, is that tax protestors NEVER WIN. It's great to believe you've found some loophole that relieves you of the obligation to pay taxes, but to follow thorogh without destroying your financial status or being indicted is another story.
Good luck with that. Unqualified success stories are few and far between among tax protestors. Those that do succeed, usually do so by appearing in forma pauperis at their bankruptcy hearing. (I.e., you offer to settle your tax bill by giving the IRS 100% of your current assets, which amount to an army surplus backpack, six dollars forty two cents cash, and a few miscellaneous bits of twine, plastic, and paper, twelve pounds of aluminum cans, and a grocery cart.)
> I would've personally prefered "From ash to zsh"
I had the exact same thought, and couldn't believe someone missed the boat on this. Also holding possibilities is the alphabetical "ash, bash, csh,..., zsh"
>It's a perfectly valid point! Everybody wants to >"Space", but unless there's money to be made, the >Big Men With Dollars aren't going to look in your >direction.
Another way of saying that people with romantic vision aren't successful, or else they *would* be the "Big Men With Dollars."
"How do you suppose they fit every little detail into under two hours of runtime?"
It's not the details that matter. It's the spirit and the flavor of the piece that's important.
Let's say there's a rock song you like. Now, one day you hear a Muzak version. Can you stand to hear it? If you answer "yes", then you probably won't understand what's wrong with a filmmaker making a film while completely missing something fundamental about the spirit and flavor of the source material.
If the film is not dripping wet with a certain flavor of satire and irony, it has missed the point of the source material. You might be able to tolerate that, but you should at least try to understand those who cannot.
Slashdot Mirror
Caching is often a bigger win than RAM Disk.
:-) But I know these can go up to 1/2 TB, addressable by a single application. And you can't beat their IO.
Profile your application before making such committments. You might be surprised at what you find.
What's interesting here is how securely "in the box" people are thinking. They are on a do-or-freaking-die mission to press a consumer architecture into service as a mid-range engineering system.
My shop uses Sun hardware for midsize applications like this, but we also run some Alpha systems (Both older DEC and newer HP).
We have a couple of Sun E20K but I don't know how they are configured exactly (I don't get to touch stuff that belongs to financial depts, nor would I want to
But somebody who is thinking in terms of "What motherboard should I buy?" probably isn't prepared for the sticker prices of SunFire servers, EMC storage, etc.
When a skunkworks shop needs some large scale system on a budget approaching zero dollars, some creativity is needed. So we get into storage solutions like consumer RAID, and we hear questions like the OP, "what's the largest memory configuration on a commodity 64-bit microcomputer?"
Dual Xeon boards that take 32GB RAM are common enough, but I think that's 16GB per processor and I have no idea how it's addressed or whether any given application knows how to address it.
32GB in premimum RAM will run over $20 grand. Nothing compared to the half-million for an E20K, of course.
"Also not possible, since the GPL is simply a license to copy and redistribute copyrighted software, if the GPL is revoked, I still have been granted rights to the version I was given, via the U.S. Copyright system. I am free to do whatever I wish with it, including rebrand it as my own and sell it as a competing product."
Would you mind explaining how the revocation of the license would also strip the copyright holder of his rights with respect to you, as a consequence of the license being found invalid?
Revocation of the GPL would result in a stronger (absolute!) postion for the copyright holder, but it should put the licensee in a position of status quo (the license was valid when you agreed to it, and remains in force). The other possibility is that the licensee would be compelled to negotiate some license with the copyright holder.
On re-reading your message, I think that's what you were saying, from the copyright holder's perspective.
"Revocation of the GPL" (assuming such an argument is possible, though nobody has raised one yet), would leave the licensees either with no license whatsoever, but more likely, would leave the license in effect, but no new licesing possible.
What's more significant to me, is that there is little or nothing in the GPL that, upon being held to be invalid, would not also have the collateral damage of destroying the whole licensing structure of the software industry, and probably would have an impact on the entertainment industry and possibly even publishing.
Whatever doctrine finds the *very* straightforward declarations of the GPL to be invalid, would be applicable to every other license based on copyright.
That's why I want to hear the specific argument against the GPL, the one that would be stated in court while seeking the "test". Then apply that test to every other software license on the shelf. I'm certain they would all fail, if the GPL fails.
Which clause was illegal for the copyright holder to ask? Which clause was illegal for the licensee to agree to?
Let's hear the parameters of "The Test" before we are told that "The Test" hasn't been passed!
"In October, Developer sues User for Copyright Infringment, claiming GPL is illegal"
Which clause is illegal, and on what legal basis is it illegal?
Was it illegal for the copyright holder to ask, or was it illegal for the licensee to agree to?
How does the validity of this clause affect the relationship of the licensor to the licensee?
You can't just walk into a court room with your hair on fire and spout off that the license is illegal, just because it suits you. You must make an argument based on laws.
There is nothing in the GPL that the copyright holder is not empowered to demand. The legal ramifications of copyright are well-defined, so there isn't much to call into question, and therefore, no basis to carry the GPL into a court room and ask it to be found illegal.
If Developer wants to persuade User to renegotiate the license of Software 1.0, he is free to do that, but after he has made the earlier agreement he can't simply make a unilateral takeback.
If he could do as you describe, imagine that doctrine applied equally everywhere. You no longer have to default on loans, since the lender can reposess your car or home anyway, just by changing their mind about the earlier agreement.
> If they try to argue that the GPL doesn't apply...
You can't even get into the court room without having spelled out your argument in advance.
What clause in the GPL is either:
1. Illegal for a copyright holder to ask
or
2. Illegal for the licensee to agree to?
You can't just go into court with the vague idea that maybe you'll be able to persuade a judge to find a license generally unlawful or void just because it suits you. You must make an argument based on applicable laws. The overriding applicable law at work here is *copyright* law, which grants everything needed for a copyright holder to attach a license like the GPL, or one even more restrictive, or even, NONE AT ALL.
There's no case to be made, and that's why there's no reason to expect "a test in court."
"I cannot parse your sentence. I think you are saying that SCO v. IBM does not test the GPL. It certainly does."
It tests the licensing relationship between IBM and SCO, but the result will have no bearing on, say, the author of proftpd and myself for my derivative work. That would require a separate "test".
What's being "tested in court" here, is not the license itself, but rather a certain party's performance to the terms of the license and a possible question of whether other considerations are in force that would releived the party of the obligation to abide by those terms.
But there is no question on the table as to the validity of the license itself. What clause in the very simple license do you imagine could be called into question? Go throught the GPL clause by clause, and point out the one clause that is either (1) illegal for the copyright holder to ask, or (2) illegal for the licensee to agree to, and THEN you have your case where the license can be "tested in court."
But I warn you, if you find this, your findings will be applicable through the entire industry. Because the whole software industry is based on licenses like the GPL: Licenses based on copyright that grant certain privilieges while making certain restrictions.
It would be quite surprising to find a clause that voids the GPL, but somehow manages to spare the Microsoft EULA. These licenses have the same basis in law. To declare them void would necessarily abridge the rights of a copyright holder.
>The GPL was not "tested in court"
What is the specific argument that could be brought before a court?
The license must be presumed to be valid, unless it has some specific flaw that cannot be settled between the licensor and the licensee, but nobody seems to be able to point to this flaw, much less make a case that there is a conflict that would be properly presented in court.
Do people believe that every document must be "tested in court" before it becomes valid?
"The trouble with Free Software cult is that like any good fanatics, the cultists are hellbent on forcing the same ideology on everybody else."
This is different from the music copyright cult that the record companies practice? They too are hell-bent on forcing their ideology on everybody else, and they appear to be willing to actually use *force*, instead of mere persuasion.
"Where life is different is in small businesses/startups."
Which is to say, MOST businesses, the ones that employ the largest number people, overall?
I'm so sick of hearing "GPL stands up in court" or "GPL not tested in court."
There's no way for the GPL to *fail* this test, without the failure being a sufficient condition to cause all other licenses based on copyright to also become invalid.
In fact, the very provisions of copyright that allow the holder to license his work would be called into question, because any language precise enough to "overturn the GPL" in a legal sense would be applicable to all licesnses based on copyright, many of which have themselves "never been tested in court."
My mortgage agreement hasn't been specifically tested in court either; does that mean I should
ignore it and not make payments?
Hard drives? No thanks. I'd rather have solid state portable media and clean (digital) inputs.
How about a cellphone/PDA that can take 2GB CF cards, and has sp/dif I/O, that docks in your car or wherever else you have amplification?
The Empeg is cool, but so are the DIN cases for mini-ITX boards.
> San Francisco isn't big.
In the sense that a healthy person can walk from Golden Gate Park to Fisherman's Wharf for an afternoon stroll (or a less healthy person can do it on public trasnportation in a matter of 15 minutes), you're right. But there are whole worlds contained in that small space. It still amazes me how huge San Fran is, for fitting in such a compact physical space.
>It's strange though, if you go to UPS's tracking
>site, you have to check a box saying that you agree
>to the "terms and conditions", but you don't need to
> do so when you google....strange....
Does this mean Google has agreed to the terms and conditions on your behalf? Without a signed, notarized Power of Attorney that might mean Google has taken responsibility for you adhering to those terms. Or it might mean that Google has different terms.
>When will the quality of music reach tolerable mass?
Lots of good music has been recorded since the invention of the phonograph. I take it you do not enjoy the current mainstream popular material, but I assure you, THAT has been the steady state of popular music for a long, long time.
Every generation leaves behind two kinds of music collections:
1. The music that the record companies wanted you to buy, which you did.
and
2. The music that was not force-marketed.
Guess which box of records is worth $5.00 at the yard sale, and which records can be sold for $50.00 a piece?
There's nothing new here. It's been this way forever.
The factory radio in my girlfriend's Ford truck is some kind of Pioneer/OEM thing, that plays MP3 discs.
I put a Sony aftermarket player in my car, which has RCA inputs and also plays MP3 discs.
Buy the car without any optional radio stuff, and go aftermarket.
>don't know for you but i still have a lot of pigeons
> arround my house ( seems that's a gang...)
"Rock doves" columba livia, certainly not the same: Not migratory, not good to eat, and serves little purpose except to chase off more attractive birds and shit on your car.
Just in my own observations, I've noticed a local extinction of a few things: fireflies, which we used to see in large numbers every night, are completely gone, horned lizards, which were extremely common, but I haven't seen one in >30 years, army ants (benign red ants, now replaced by fire ants), and the scissortail bird Muscivora forficata, which has definitely decreased its population since I've been alive.
The real problem with XP is that when hardware fails, you've got to reactivate, which is at Microsoft's discretion, and may not be workable in any given situation.
There are so many accounts of passenger pigeons *darkening the daytime sky*. It's hard to imagine an animal that was alive in great numbers just a few generations ago, that is now *completely* extinct.
It went from being *the* most abundant species of bird, to *extinct* in the span of maybe 50 years, during a period of relatively low population and industrializaion, compared with today.
"Why? Because ANY reason that lets you prevent others from taking pictures of your camers can be turned around and used to prevent the store from taking your picture"
In a public place, this is close to accurate.
In a *private* place, like a store, you are nowhere near the mark.
The store owner is not compelled to let you in the store at all, except for the few specific reasons that he isn't allowed to stop only you while allowing others to enter, e.g., race, religion, gender, disability, etc.
The right to refuse service, ask you to leave, and make a trespass complaint if you refuse, begins long before we start talking about "cameras" and so on.
>I'm dead serious
Be careful. The information on that site is incomplete and clearly slanted to try to make the case from various angles that have been tried by tax protestors for years. They lose, because there are many more arguments, and more cogent and legally valid ones, than the "31" listed on your site.
> Show me where you think the law is
The law is in the Code of Federal Regulations, just like all other laws promulgated by Federal Agencies, with updates published in the Federal Register. This authority comes from Congress, which empowers them by delegating lawmaking authority to the agencies.
Don't stake your future or your assets on assumptions that come from this same, tired, *losing* tax protestor line.
Smokescreen and no substance? It has as much weight as anything else done under the authority of Congress. Don't like the tax status quo? Get organized on a national scale and elect representatives who believe as you do, and send them to DC. That, fortunately or unfortunately, is the solution.
>Read the site and learn!
What tax protestor advocates like the one you linked to never mention, is that tax protestors NEVER WIN. It's great to believe you've found some loophole that relieves you of the obligation to pay taxes, but to follow thorogh without destroying your financial status or being indicted is another story.
Good luck with that. Unqualified success stories are few and far between among tax protestors. Those that do succeed, usually do so by appearing in forma pauperis at their bankruptcy hearing. (I.e., you offer to settle your tax bill by giving the IRS 100% of your current assets, which amount to an army surplus backpack, six dollars forty two cents cash, and a few miscellaneous bits of twine, plastic, and paper, twelve pounds of aluminum cans, and a grocery cart.)
> I would've personally prefered "From ash to zsh"
..., zsh"
I had the exact same thought, and couldn't believe someone missed the boat on this. Also holding possibilities is the alphabetical "ash, bash, csh,
"who finds 98% of british people horribly unattractive?"
When you live on an island, you take what you can get.
>It's a perfectly valid point! Everybody wants to
>"Space", but unless there's money to be made, the
>Big Men With Dollars aren't going to look in your
>direction.
Another way of saying that people with romantic vision aren't successful, or else they *would* be the "Big Men With Dollars."
"How do you suppose they fit every little detail into under two hours of runtime?"
It's not the details that matter. It's the spirit and the flavor of the piece that's important.
Let's say there's a rock song you like. Now, one day you hear a Muzak version. Can you stand to hear it? If you answer "yes", then you probably won't understand what's wrong with a filmmaker making a film while completely missing something fundamental about the spirit and flavor of the source material.
If the film is not dripping wet with a certain flavor of satire and irony, it has missed the point of the source material. You might be able to tolerate that, but you should at least try to understand those who cannot.
> It's too bad they aren't sniping them.
And how many vigilante shootings do you think will go by before they face guerillas who shoot back?