much more sophisticated. A microwave door is easy to make, just make the metal grid small enough. But that wallpaper is a band-stop filter, i.e. it resonates at a well defined frequency and consumes the energy radiated from the transmitter, while passing other frequencies nearly undisturbed.
Though, I wonder why they make such a big secret out of it. Printed microwave circuits have been around since ages, in fact I learned some of the basics as an EE student. Every RFID tag does the same. So what's the news here?
Without users leaving Gnome to use KDE instead, there would be no incentive for Gnome to fix any of their problems, or re-think any of their usability issues.
Hm. Isn't it that GNOME abandoned their community long ago? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I have is that most GNOME development takes place in secrecy, with developers being payed by companies like Sun and Novell (Ximian). If I look at their bounty program I wonder if there still is a development community left...
They can deduce whatever they like from the clauses of the GPL, it has no effect. That's just their view, how they'd like the GPL to be applied.
They retreat to technical arguments like static vs. dynamic linking because they also cannot clearly define "derived". They say that linking a closed source application against a GPLed library is prohibited. What if I say that just using a programming interface, be it formally defined or not, is automatically non-derivative work, because I do not change, thus do not derive from the "other" software. I just use it the way it's supposed to be used.
And on the other hand, if I glue together a bunch of GPL programs using <insert your favorite skripting language> to form an enterprise class ERP system, isn't that composed work clearly derived from all the parts, even if I don't change a single line of GPLed code?
FSF might say, "if you link statically, it's not verifiable if you actually used the software unchanged, because we cannot exchange the "other" software and see if your program still runs. So we will assume that you violate the GPL", and I say, "then sue me!"
And right there it all becomes law tactics. I suppose it's just the threat of being sued that keeps most people from daring. Pretty obvious, it seems.
But what if I don't care, cause I'm big freakin' evil monopoly...
no credible, large-scale embedded project depends on assembly language nowadays. It will help to know the ins and outs of a processor, but just dumb knowledge of its instruction set brings you nowhere.
It does not make sense to "learn" an assembly language, not at all, and if it takes you months to learn something as simple as assembly language, you're a beginner anyway.
So, if a company requires a potential employee to be an ace in assembly language, what does that tell you about the company?
Why would learning assembly language help you to a job? Widen your horizon, programming languages are just tools. Its the mind that makes the difference.
This attitude is nice and honorable, if you're an OSS activist/evangelist. But I doubt it will get you anywhere fast. In a professional environment you can hardly just dump every XLS file you get as an attachment and shout at the sender to use OpenOffice (or Gnumeric, Kspread, whatever).
If you think that FOSS is automatically better than proprietary, you should probably read ESRs' rant over CUPS.
For me it'd be a great relief if I was able to use some native linux software, FOSS or not. I'd not have to rely on using Crossover Office and still having to pay for M$ for an Office licence.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Human Stupidity
much more sophisticated. A microwave door is easy to make, just make the metal grid small enough. But that wallpaper is a band-stop filter, i.e. it resonates at a well defined frequency and consumes the energy radiated from the transmitter, while passing other frequencies nearly undisturbed. Though, I wonder why they make such a big secret out of it. Printed microwave circuits have been around since ages, in fact I learned some of the basics as an EE student. Every RFID tag does the same. So what's the news here?
Yeah, "tetracell white", like the Jem'Haddar. I spot some similarities with their combat suits, too :)
They can deduce whatever they like from the clauses of the GPL, it has no effect. That's just their view, how they'd like the GPL to be applied.
They retreat to technical arguments like static vs. dynamic linking because they also cannot clearly define "derived". They say that linking a closed source application against a GPLed library is prohibited. What if I say that just using a programming interface, be it formally defined or not, is automatically non-derivative work, because I do not change, thus do not derive from the "other" software. I just use it the way it's supposed to be used.
And on the other hand, if I glue together a bunch of GPL programs using <insert your favorite skripting language> to form an enterprise class ERP system, isn't that composed work clearly derived from all the parts, even if I don't change a single line of GPLed code?
FSF might say, "if you link statically, it's not verifiable if you actually used the software unchanged, because we cannot exchange the "other" software and see if your program still runs. So we will assume that you violate the GPL", and I say, "then sue me!"
And right there it all becomes law tactics. I suppose it's just the threat of being sued that keeps most people from daring. Pretty obvious, it seems.
But what if I don't care, cause I'm big freakin' evil monopoly...
... they use icons.
unless it becomes a "Coalition of the Doing" it's not going anywhere...
no credible, large-scale embedded project depends on assembly language nowadays. It will help to know the ins and outs of a processor, but just dumb knowledge of its instruction set brings you nowhere.
It does not make sense to "learn" an assembly language, not at all, and if it takes you months to learn something as simple as assembly language, you're a beginner anyway.
So, if a company requires a potential employee to be an ace in assembly language, what does that tell you about the company?
Why would learning assembly language help you to a job? Widen your horizon, programming languages are just tools. Its the mind that makes the difference.
This attitude is nice and honorable, if you're an OSS activist/evangelist. But I doubt it will get you anywhere fast. In a professional environment you can hardly just dump every XLS file you get as an attachment and shout at the sender to use OpenOffice (or Gnumeric, Kspread, whatever).
If you think that FOSS is automatically better than proprietary, you should probably read ESRs' rant over CUPS.
For me it'd be a great relief if I was able to use some native linux software, FOSS or not. I'd not have to rely on using Crossover Office and still having to pay for M$ for an Office licence.