Re:Sadly, universities have the least free speech.
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
People around age 18 are desperate to be accepted, and can't stand to be criticized. As a result, when they go to college and say things that they got away with around their high school friends, but that people in college disapprove of, they interpret the withering criticism they get as a denial of their free speech rights. However, the withering criticism is itself speech. If someone says you're an obnoxious racist/sexist/whatever because of something you said, that's their opinion and they have a right to express it. You have a right to speak, but you don't have a right not to be criticized or ostracized because of what you say.
If they put out the design publicly, and they don't have a patent, anyone can build one based on their design, for any purpose. Copyright protects their design document, but does not affect what anyone who legally obtains the design document does (e.g. builds an STM).
"Writing" doesn't mean "pen and paper". Your email to Linus contributing the code might be taken as written permission. On the other hand, who knows what a court might rule?
The interesting cases are when you contribute the code, and then your employer asserts ownership of the code and sells it to Microsoft. Linux might well have to remove the code then. The FSF protects itself against such things by requiring employer disclaimers, but Linus doesn't.
There is no contradiction. Both RMS and Pamela make clear that the employer has a choice: either distribute the whole thing as GPL, or abandon it, or try to rework it so that it doesn't have any GPLed code. RMS's point is that the employer often decides that GPL is the best choice; that's what NeXT decided to do with the Objective-C compiler it built from GCC, for example.
If you release the binary, either you release the source at the same time and in the same way, or you include with the binary a notice, good for three years, telling whoever gets the binary how to get the source. If you do neither, you have already violated the GPL, and the copyright holder can force you to "cease and desist".
Such violations are quite common; I see a lot of people not following the rules correctly when they sell Linux CD-ROMs, for example.
What is much more frequent, in a big company, is that some rookie programmer who doesn't understand copyright law grabs some piece of code off the net, or out of a textbook, and copies it into a proprietary application, not realizing that there is anything wrong with this. I think that more people have run into problems by using code from, say, "Numerical Recipes in C" than by using GPLed code, though.
The point of the Groklaw article is that such mistakes don't instantly force the company to GPL the whole product, though they could force other consequences, like ending the product's distribution until the infringing code can be removed.
There are rules that require disclosure of pending patents during standards body proceedings, which is where Rambus originally got into trouble (trick people into making something a standard, without mentioning that you have patent pending on it). But it appears that they won on appeal.
That's why the Dems lost in 2002. They alienated the grass roots, gave the activists no reason to vote, so they had to rely on big checks.
That's why the establishment Democrats are so afraid of Howard Dean. If you got to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom under Clinton, but you were insignificant in getting Dean elected, you're hosed: your corporate clients won't pay you to get access.
You need to change that "is" to "was": it is no longer true that the average Republican contribution is smaller.
Bill Clinton was the guy who got the Democrats addicted to big checks and soft money. He had all the Hollywood millionaires eating out of his hand. But thanks to McCain-Feingold and Howard Dean, those days are largely over.
Of course unions and PACs are still important, but that's fine. Unions are today, to a much larger extent than in the past, democratic organizations, and PACs such as MoveOn get their money from more than a million people in small checks.
It seems that one fair way to proceed is for the government to levy these taxes and then tell everyone to go nuts, copy everything you want, because it's all paid for. The problem seems to be that the copyright holders want it both ways: to collect the tax money but still have copying be illegal.
China violates human rights, but they are a long way from "one of the worst" these days. Compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, China is a paragon of personal freedom.
If the Chinese want to spy on their people, all they need to do is to encourage use of existing 802.11{a,b,g} equipment with WEP encryption, since it is trivial to sniff.
As others have said, the Chinese are sick of paying patent licensing fees to the West. They already build almost everything, and if they keep the patent fees too, they get to keep all the money. So that means that they will want to design their own standards.
No, no do-over. These folks were trying to exploit a bug to buy stocks at well below the going price and sell immediately, and they got burned. Giving them a do-over would be wrong, since if it had worked for them they would have gotten free money they did not deserve.
It could do a little bit better than this. It understood direct and indirect objects ("give him the orb"), as well as some particles (the difference between "put on" and "put down"), and could figure out some omitted words from context. But they could do this because the situation was so limited.
Moore's Law can't continue to hold out, period. That's because Moore's Law refers to silicon transistors, and you can't make a transistor with a feature that is less than one silicon atom thick.
Intel and IBM both have demonstrated 65 nm experimental processes, though for volume production, 130 nm is the current state of the art. There are only eight more doublings left until the line width is less than the diameter of an atom (the diameter of a silicon atom is about a third of a nanometer). One doubling every two years means it's all over in 16.
Now, we could possibly continue to increase circuit density for a long time after that by going to 3-D, but we would no longer be in the domain of Moore's Law: we'd be adding more transistors but they wouldn't be getting any smaller.
Microsoft didn't invent "COM-like design": we're just talking about distributed objects here.
Gnome's distributed object model is based on CORBA. KDE also has a distributed object model, which is more lightweight than CORBA. It's a good idea, which is why everyone is using it.
First, it says Owner(APPLICANT). That means that SSC is applying for the trademark. Second, notice the date: they didn't file for the trademark until after the staff announced that they were splitting.
Slashdot Mirror
People around age 18 are desperate to be accepted, and can't stand to be criticized. As a result, when they go to college and say things that they got away with around their high school friends, but that people in college disapprove of, they interpret the withering criticism they get as a denial of their free speech rights. However, the withering criticism is itself speech. If someone says you're an obnoxious racist/sexist/whatever because of something you said, that's their opinion and they have a right to express it. You have a right to speak, but you don't have a right not to be criticized or ostracized because of what you say.
These guys don't know how the rules work.
If they put out the design publicly, and they don't have a patent, anyone can build one based on their design, for any purpose. Copyright protects their design document, but does not affect what anyone who legally obtains the design document does (e.g. builds an STM).
Contributing, my ass. He created it, period, and personally invented the first version of HTTP and HTML as well as the first browser.
Programmer salaries in India are more like $10K to $20K a year, not $3K.
House cats kill tens of millions of birds every year.
"Writing" doesn't mean "pen and paper". Your email to Linus contributing the code might be taken as written permission. On the other hand, who knows what a court might rule?
The interesting cases are when you contribute the code, and then your employer asserts ownership of the code and sells it to Microsoft. Linux might well have to remove the code then. The FSF protects itself against such things by requiring employer disclaimers, but Linus doesn't.
There is no contradiction. Both RMS and Pamela make clear that the employer has a choice: either distribute the whole thing as GPL, or abandon it, or try to rework it so that it doesn't have any GPLed code. RMS's point is that the employer often decides that GPL is the best choice; that's what NeXT decided to do with the Objective-C compiler it built from GCC, for example.
If you release the binary, either you release the source at the same time and in the same way, or you include with the binary a notice, good for three years, telling whoever gets the binary how to get the source. If you do neither, you have already violated the GPL, and the copyright holder can force you to "cease and desist".
Such violations are quite common; I see a lot of people not following the rules correctly when they sell Linux CD-ROMs, for example.
What is much more frequent, in a big company, is that some rookie programmer who doesn't understand copyright law grabs some piece of code off the net, or out of a textbook, and copies it into a proprietary application, not realizing that there is anything wrong with this. I think that more people have run into problems by using code from, say, "Numerical Recipes in C" than by using GPLed code, though.
The point of the Groklaw article is that such mistakes don't instantly force the company to GPL the whole product, though they could force other consequences, like ending the product's distribution until the infringing code can be removed.
No, on 64-bit Linux platforms int is still 32 bits, while long is 64 bits. Pointers are also 64 bits.
The two most common C models are commonly referred to as ILP32 (int, long, pointers all 32 bit) or LP64 (long and pointer are 64 bit).
There are rules that require disclosure of pending patents during standards body proceedings, which is where Rambus originally got into trouble (trick people into making something a standard, without mentioning that you have patent pending on it). But it appears that they won on appeal.
That's why the establishment Democrats are so afraid of Howard Dean. If you got to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom under Clinton, but you were insignificant in getting Dean elected, you're hosed: your corporate clients won't pay you to get access.
You need to change that "is" to "was": it is no longer true that the average Republican contribution is smaller.
Bill Clinton was the guy who got the Democrats addicted to big checks and soft money. He had all the Hollywood millionaires eating out of his hand. But thanks to McCain-Feingold and Howard Dean, those days are largely over.
Of course unions and PACs are still important, but that's fine. Unions are today, to a much larger extent than in the past, democratic organizations, and PACs such as MoveOn get their money from more than a million people in small checks.
It seems that one fair way to proceed is for the government to levy these taxes and then tell everyone to go nuts, copy everything you want, because it's all paid for. The problem seems to be that the copyright holders want it both ways: to collect the tax money but still have copying be illegal.
Depends on whether you are a competent C++ programmer or not, and understand things like big-endian vs. little-endian.
China violates human rights, but they are a long way from "one of the worst" these days. Compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, China is a paragon of personal freedom.
If the Chinese want to spy on their people, all they need to do is to encourage use of existing 802.11{a,b,g} equipment with WEP encryption, since it is trivial to sniff.
As others have said, the Chinese are sick of paying patent licensing fees to the West. They already build almost everything, and if they keep the patent fees too, they get to keep all the money. So that means that they will want to design their own standards.
No, no do-over. These folks were trying to exploit a bug to buy stocks at well below the going price and sell immediately, and they got burned. Giving them a do-over would be wrong, since if it had worked for them they would have gotten free money they did not deserve.
Then there are the English women puzzled by the expressions they get from Americans when they say "Knock me up the next time you're in town".
It could do a little bit better than this. It understood direct and indirect objects ("give him the orb"), as well as some particles (the difference between "put on" and "put down"), and could figure out some omitted words from context. But they could do this because the situation was so limited.
But Gnome uses CORBA, not DCOM.
Moore's Law can't continue to hold out, period. That's because Moore's Law refers to silicon transistors, and you can't make a transistor with a feature that is less than one silicon atom thick.
Intel and IBM both have demonstrated 65 nm experimental processes, though for volume production, 130 nm is the current state of the art. There are only eight more doublings left until the line width is less than the diameter of an atom (the diameter of a silicon atom is about a third of a nanometer). One doubling every two years means it's all over in 16.
Now, we could possibly continue to increase circuit density for a long time after that by going to 3-D, but we would no longer be in the domain of Moore's Law: we'd be adding more transistors but they wouldn't be getting any smaller.
Microsoft didn't invent "COM-like design": we're just talking about distributed objects here. Gnome's distributed object model is based on CORBA. KDE also has a distributed object model, which is more lightweight than CORBA. It's a good idea, which is why everyone is using it.
Cloning .NET is another matter, of course.
But that's stupid: invite 20 friends to a party and a spam investigation is launched?
First, it says Owner(APPLICANT). That means that SSC is applying for the trademark. Second, notice the date: they didn't file for the trademark until after the staff announced that they were splitting.