I add that the entire commercial product, if a single program, must be distributed under the GPL (or not distributed at all).
But the GPL is absolutely not against commercial software. You are perfectly free to sell commercial copies of others' GPLed software (or, indeed, any free software).
What the GPL is against is non-libre software, which is not the same as commercial software.
Infinity is a concept. Infinity itself doesn't exist.
Woah! Self-contradiction there.
Infinity implies unbounded, so the concept exists while the "number" does not. So, in the context of a number system, infinity does not exist. n+1 can never be infinity since n is infinite. Dedekind, Cantor, Zermelo and hosts of others illustrate the concept of infinity exists but that no object can *be* infinity.
Why not? Why can't we just say, "Let there be an object which we will call 'infinity', having this property: if x is a real number, then x < infinity."? As long as the properties are internally consistant, there's nothing wrong with this. We aren't dealing with the philosophical concept of the infinite. "In the context of a number system", we are dealing with mathematics. In mathematics every term is just a label for an object with some properties associated with it. Naturally, the properties are chosen to make objects what we want them to be. So if we want something to represent the concept "what you get if start with nothing and keep going higher forever", then the definition of infinity above captures that concept perfectly.
Actually, the answer to whether infinity exists depends on what infinity is defined to mean. Without a definition, the question is ill-formed. If we define infinity to mean "a square circle", then infinity does not exist.
No, it does not. Assume infinity exists. What is infinity - 1? Infinity - 1 can not be a finite number since no finite number + 1 = infinity. If that's the case, then infinity - 1 = infinity.
Wrong. It just implies that infinity - 1 cannot be defined operation if (1) we want the result to be finite and (2) we want subtraction to be the inverse function of addition.
You could just as well argue that 0 doesn't exist. After all, what is 5 / 0? There is no number * 0 = 5. Aha, so 5 / 0 = infinity, but then infinity * 0 is STILL not 5. But this just means 5 / 0 isn't useful to define, not that 0 doesn't exist.
That can't be true without violating the rules of arithmetic. You should be able to subtract infinity from both sides which would leave -1 = 0. I could go on but you get the point.
Your fallacy is that algebraic rules and principles work no matter what objects you are dealing with. For example, if you have two real numbers x and y, then either x < y, x = y, or x > y. But in the complex numbers, this isn't true. Greater-than and less-than aren't even defined. And as noted above division isn't defined when the divisor is 0.
Well, it looks like SCO has really messed up now. "Hey, everybody! The license that let's us use your code isn't valid!" What on earth were they thinking? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
I agree that the second and third films weren't as good as the first.
But if you want to see a really bad version of LotR, see the animated movie directed by Ralph Bakshi entitled simply The Lord of the Rings. It's quite humorous to watch.
I applaud this move. The sooner all this nonsense becomes unbearable, the sooner (educated) consumers will tell the media companies to take their DRM and shove it.
Ugh. I'm starting to get really annoyed whenever someone suggests something of this sort on Slashdot. The logical conclusion of this sort of reasoning is not to worry about anything, because inevitably some kind of revolution will happen and it will be okay. I prefer not to need a revolution in the first place.
Bottom line: If you don't agree with something, don't support it.
LotR is not a children's story. It started that way, but soon Tolkien diverged from this. For instance,
"For the enemy was flinging into the City all the heads of those who had fallen fighting at Osgiliath, or on the Rammas, or in the fields. There were grim to look on; for though some were crushed and shapeless, and some had been cruelly hewn, yet many had features that could be told, and it seemed that they died in pain; and all were branded with the foul token of the Lidless Eye. But marred and dishonoured as they were, it often chanced that thus a man would see again the face of someone he had known, who had walked proudly once in arms, or tilled the fields, or ridden in upon a holiday from the green vales in the hills." --
The Lord of the Rings, Book V, Chapter 4, "The Siege of Gondor"
A few chapters later someone commits suicide by lighting himself on fire. Such a nice children's story...
So I can only surmise that when RMS says it is incompatible with free software, he means the GPL. It is acceptable to use the software, look at it, but you can give it to someone else, but they cannot take away the terms MS set. Sounds a bit like the GPL, but with different terms.
No, he means free software. If you have to ask someone permission to use or distribute part of it, it is not free.
(hey RMS, you don't want to agree to those terms, you don't have to use the software).
Saying, "Just ignore it." is not a valid response to a complaint. The mere existance of the terms is the problem. And you don't need to tell RMS not to use software under a non-free license; he's been doing that for years.
"And you could never send him an email without getting it back, grammer corrected. What a prick."
1: The spelling you were looking for was 'grammar'.
2: It is incorrect to begin a sentance with "And".
It's okay in informal writing. Also, the spelling you were looking for was 'sentence'. Do not criticize when at the same time you are guilty of your criticism.
Okay, so how does XML compare to HTML? Remember that HTML does not require closing tags, nor does it require tags be closed in the same order they're opened, nor does it require combo end/begin tags to be explicitly noted.... Are you claiming this is somehow easier for the browser to parse than XHTML?
Actually, HTML requires closing tags for most elements (some, like P, are an exception), and elements must be properly nested. e.g. <B><I>xyzzy</B></I> is not allowed.
Why math is NOT a sport
on
Is Math A Sport?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In order for something to qualify as a sport, there need to be accepted rules in place to determine who wins and loses, or what the participants' scores are. Math itself cannot be "won".
You can have math competitions, of course. These have rules. But the problem is that there is no accepted standard for how the competition actually works. Different mathematics competitions are very different, (oral vs. written, etc.) If you say math is a sport, there are many different kinds of event you might be considering.
Mathematics is an area of research. There may be competitions and prizes based on it, but that doesn't make it a sport. Such competitions are just separate games that involve math (or not games at all). You could invent a game that involved throwing rocks. Though the game you invented may be a sport, that doesn't make rocks a sport. (And no, if you name the game "Rocks" it doesn't change anything.)
Slashdot Mirror
I add that the entire commercial product, if a single program, must be distributed under the GPL (or not distributed at all).
But the GPL is absolutely not against commercial software. You are perfectly free to sell commercial copies of others' GPLed software (or, indeed, any free software).
What the GPL is against is non-libre software, which is not the same as commercial software.
Infinity is a concept. Infinity itself doesn't exist.
Woah! Self-contradiction there.
Infinity implies unbounded, so the concept exists while the "number" does not. So, in the context of a number system, infinity does not exist. n+1 can never be infinity since n is infinite. Dedekind, Cantor, Zermelo and hosts of others illustrate the concept of infinity exists but that no object can *be* infinity.
Why not? Why can't we just say, "Let there be an object which we will call 'infinity', having this property: if x is a real number, then x < infinity."? As long as the properties are internally consistant, there's nothing wrong with this. We aren't dealing with the philosophical concept of the infinite. "In the context of a number system", we are dealing with mathematics. In mathematics every term is just a label for an object with some properties associated with it. Naturally, the properties are chosen to make objects what we want them to be. So if we want something to represent the concept "what you get if start with nothing and keep going higher forever", then the definition of infinity above captures that concept perfectly.
Actually, the answer to whether infinity exists depends on what infinity is defined to mean. Without a definition, the question is ill-formed. If we define infinity to mean "a square circle", then infinity does not exist.
No, it does not. Assume infinity exists. What is infinity - 1? Infinity - 1 can not be a finite number since no finite number + 1 = infinity. If that's the case, then infinity - 1 = infinity.
Wrong. It just implies that infinity - 1 cannot be defined operation if (1) we want the result to be finite and (2) we want subtraction to be the inverse function of addition.
You could just as well argue that 0 doesn't exist. After all, what is 5 / 0? There is no number * 0 = 5. Aha, so 5 / 0 = infinity, but then infinity * 0 is STILL not 5. But this just means 5 / 0 isn't useful to define, not that 0 doesn't exist.
That can't be true without violating the rules of arithmetic. You should be able to subtract infinity from both sides which would leave -1 = 0. I could go on but you get the point.
Your fallacy is that algebraic rules and principles work no matter what objects you are dealing with. For example, if you have two real numbers x and y, then either x < y, x = y, or x > y. But in the complex numbers, this isn't true. Greater-than and less-than aren't even defined. And as noted above division isn't defined when the divisor is 0.
You mean seven words?
Because, unless you went and rewired the whole keyboard, you'd still have the same keyboard layout, just now all your keys are mislabeled.
Well, it looks like SCO has really messed up now. "Hey, everybody! The license that let's us use your code isn't valid!" What on earth were they thinking? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...
I agree that the second and third films weren't as good as the first.
But if you want to see a really bad version of LotR, see the animated movie directed by Ralph Bakshi entitled simply The Lord of the Rings. It's quite humorous to watch.
I applaud this move. The sooner all this nonsense becomes unbearable, the sooner (educated) consumers will tell the media companies to take their DRM and shove it.
Ugh. I'm starting to get really annoyed whenever someone suggests something of this sort on Slashdot. The logical conclusion of this sort of reasoning is not to worry about anything, because inevitably some kind of revolution will happen and it will be okay. I prefer not to need a revolution in the first place.
Bottom line: If you don't agree with something, don't support it.
LotR is not a children's story. It started that way, but soon Tolkien diverged from this. For instance,
A few chapters later someone commits suicide by lighting himself on fire. Such a nice children's story...
So I can only surmise that when RMS says it is incompatible with free software, he means the GPL. It is acceptable to use the software, look at it, but you can give it to someone else, but they cannot take away the terms MS set. Sounds a bit like the GPL, but with different terms.
No, he means free software. If you have to ask someone permission to use or distribute part of it, it is not free.
(hey RMS, you don't want to agree to those terms, you don't have to use the software).
Saying, "Just ignore it." is not a valid response to a complaint. The mere existance of the terms is the problem. And you don't need to tell RMS not to use software under a non-free license; he's been doing that for years.
"And you could never send him an email without getting it back, grammer corrected. What a prick."
1: The spelling you were looking for was 'grammar'.
2: It is incorrect to begin a sentance with "And".
It's okay in informal writing. Also, the spelling you were looking for was 'sentence'. Do not criticize when at the same time you are guilty of your criticism.
3: Am I a prick? Yes. Well done.
Okay, so how does XML compare to HTML? Remember that HTML does not require closing tags, nor does it require tags be closed in the same order they're opened, nor does it require combo end/begin tags to be explicitly noted.... Are you claiming this is somehow easier for the browser to parse than XHTML?
Actually, HTML requires closing tags for most elements (some, like P, are an exception), and elements must be properly nested. e.g. <B><I>xyzzy</B></I> is not allowed.
In order for something to qualify as a sport, there need to be accepted rules in place to determine who wins and loses, or what the participants' scores are. Math itself cannot be "won".
You can have math competitions, of course. These have rules. But the problem is that there is no accepted standard for how the competition actually works. Different mathematics competitions are very different, (oral vs. written, etc.) If you say math is a sport, there are many different kinds of event you might be considering.
Mathematics is an area of research. There may be competitions and prizes based on it, but that doesn't make it a sport. Such competitions are just separate games that involve math (or not games at all). You could invent a game that involved throwing rocks. Though the game you invented may be a sport, that doesn't make rocks a sport. (And no, if you name the game "Rocks" it doesn't change anything.)