"Far more reasonable prices"? Hah. More like they'd just stop allowing reselling and leave the prices as is. After all, captive audience and no competition.
You fail at Nyquist. CDs are sampled at 44.1 kHz, which (by Nyquist's sampling theorem) means that any frequencies below 22.05 kHz can be perfectly reproduced. If you believe that you can hear noises above 22.05 kHz, I would invite you to submit yourself for medical research -- human hearing peaks at about 20 kHz.
Y'know, IPv6 was a finished standard 10 years ago. IPv6 is RFC 2460, dual stack is RFC 4213... The *only* thing you've named that's even a draft standard is Teredo. Otherwise, IPv6 was recommended for general use and roll-out years ago. That Windows Update is breaking things is a case of your IT staff being incompetent, not IPv6 being a "draft standard" or "not ready for use".
That's because there aren't> any user-enabling features of DRM! The only DRM in Steam, which you uphold as such a "wonderful" DRM scheme, restricts the user!
BTW, a mere login page so you can download something you already bought isn't DRM. Don't make things up, please.
Christine seems to think that Google is a monopoly in the world of online advertising -- that much, I find no fault with. However, thinking that they need antitrust actions seems just foolish to me. Sure, they may be a monopoly, but they have yet to actually abuse this monopoly. Since the purpose of antitrust laws is to avert the abuse of monopolies, surely it would be a far better use of the court's time to go after those who continue to abuse their monopolies, such as Microsoft and cable and phone companies?
Given that libre is only used in the English language to refer to what the FSF calls "free software", I'd say that using libre as you are is, at best, an outright lie.
Actually, it's more than that; it states what the government can do. If it's not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, then the government can't do that. Of course, our Constitution has been trashed ever since the idea of "inter-state commerce" got broadened into something rather asinine...
Funny... It's such a shame that Microsoft Word's mathematical typesetting looks like an ape took a shit on the page, and that its typesetting of text isn't much better.
There is one major problem with benevolent dictatorships: no one man is a perfect ruler. Granted, nor is an insanely large set of voters, but somehow, they manage to fuck us over *slightly* less. . . Usually.
Actually, he's just saying that the people we've locked up there hate us now, even if they didn't when they were sent down there, just by merit of being tortured. . .
Consider: intellectual "property" can be freely copied, perfectly, without end. Property laws (and, in fact, our entire economy) are based around the idea that items and property are scarce. Intellectual "property", since it can be freely copied, is not scarce. Why, then, does it make sense to apply laws to something that isn't scarce when said laws only work on items that are scarce?
You'd be wrong on that count. sizeof(size_t) on my x86_64 box is 8. When I use -m32 (thereby telling the compiler to compile a standard x86 binary), sizeof(size_t) is 4. You'll note that 8 bytes for size_t allows it to account for all 64-bits of memory in a 64-bit system. . . Just like size_t is supposed to do.;)
Also, size_t on 32-bit systems goes up to 2^32-1 (the max that can be stored in 32 bits), not 10^32-1 (the max that can be stored in 32 decimal digits). . . Assuming, of course, we're talking your standard binary processors; I can imagine a 32-digit base-10 system having size_t go up to 10^32-1, but, then, who the hell uses a base-10 processor?
So, rather than a fairly simple, clean bit of code, you have decided to create a brand new object and some logic for it. . . You know, this abstraction seems purely insane. You are turning a simple if statement into (psuedocode follows):
This is just great if you're paid by the line, but if you actually like programmers being able to read your code, then I'd recommend against it. Really, reading that feels almost like reading COBOL. Also, I'd recommend against this behavior if you actually want a sane, small binary, and sane, small memory usage. Excessive usage of objects where it's neither needed nor helpful is nothing but a waste.
Really, your example was exactly what insane usage of object-orientation is: pointless, meaningless abstraction, obsessive bloat, and just an insanely high level of complexity for what should be a single line of code. I'd hate to have to maintain your code. ..
Sure, they've documented the voice protocol used; said protocol is called Jingle, and specs are available from the XMPP Council, as XEP-0166. In fact, Google submitted Jingle as a standard fairly soon after GTalk came out. Not their fault that not many clients bothered to use libjingle (a library implementing Jingle, under the BSD license, written by Google).
In that case, my comment is fairly meaningless; I suspect the GPLv2 has something about that, but I can't remember right now, and I don't really feel like doing the research at the moment. I'm about to head off to bed, so I hope that other, more insomniac Slashdotters can provide a more useful response.
The GPLv3 is much, much more specific about that. Specifically:
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
-- GPLv3, section 6
The GPLv3 also defines what 'distribution' is, by using the terms 'conveying' and 'propagating', instead, and then defining those (for some reason, redefining distribution is not kosher, legally speaking). Thus:
To "propagate" a work means to do anything with it that, without
permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for
infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a
computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying,
distribution (with or without modification), making available to the
public, and in some countries other activities as well.
To "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that enables other
parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through
a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
-- GPLv3, Section 0
Though I wonder why you are apparently anti-GPL, whatever your thoughts on it, I must insist that you at least discuss points relevant to the license itself. Thank you, however, for sharing your thoughts and opinions: if nothing else, you'll provide someone out there something good to think about.
And the beautiful thing with this is, you won't be lying! It certainly is $150. . . From you.;)
Damned good thing RMS considers the right to sell software important.
Slashdot Mirror
"Far more reasonable prices"? Hah. More like they'd just stop allowing reselling and leave the prices as is. After all, captive audience and no competition.
You fail at Nyquist. CDs are sampled at 44.1 kHz, which (by Nyquist's sampling theorem) means that any frequencies below 22.05 kHz can be perfectly reproduced. If you believe that you can hear noises above 22.05 kHz, I would invite you to submit yourself for medical research -- human hearing peaks at about 20 kHz.
Y'know, IPv6 was a finished standard 10 years ago. IPv6 is RFC 2460, dual stack is RFC 4213... The *only* thing you've named that's even a draft standard is Teredo. Otherwise, IPv6 was recommended for general use and roll-out years ago. That Windows Update is breaking things is a case of your IT staff being incompetent, not IPv6 being a "draft standard" or "not ready for use".
That's because there aren't> any user-enabling features of DRM! The only DRM in Steam, which you uphold as such a "wonderful" DRM scheme, restricts the user!
BTW, a mere login page so you can download something you already bought isn't DRM. Don't make things up, please.
Which is, of course, bullshit. "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" is the quote, by the way.
Except that twos complement is meaningless with unsigned integers, and big endian and little endian are exactly the same. ;)
Christine seems to think that Google is a monopoly in the world of online advertising -- that much, I find no fault with. However, thinking that they need antitrust actions seems just foolish to me. Sure, they may be a monopoly, but they have yet to actually abuse this monopoly. Since the purpose of antitrust laws is to avert the abuse of monopolies, surely it would be a far better use of the court's time to go after those who continue to abuse their monopolies, such as Microsoft and cable and phone companies?
Given that libre is only used in the English language to refer to what the FSF calls "free software", I'd say that using libre as you are is, at best, an outright lie.
Actually, it's more than that; it states what the government can do. If it's not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, then the government can't do that. Of course, our Constitution has been trashed ever since the idea of "inter-state commerce" got broadened into something rather asinine...
You do realise that that all happened on Bush's watch, right?
Funny... It's such a shame that Microsoft Word's mathematical typesetting looks like an ape took a shit on the page, and that its typesetting of text isn't much better.
There is one major problem with benevolent dictatorships: no one man is a perfect ruler. Granted, nor is an insanely large set of voters, but somehow, they manage to fuck us over *slightly* less. . . Usually.
Actually, he's just saying that the people we've locked up there hate us now, even if they didn't when they were sent down there, just by merit of being tortured. . .
Consider: intellectual "property" can be freely copied, perfectly, without end. Property laws (and, in fact, our entire economy) are based around the idea that items and property are scarce. Intellectual "property", since it can be freely copied, is not scarce. Why, then, does it make sense to apply laws to something that isn't scarce when said laws only work on items that are scarce?
You'd be wrong on that count. sizeof(size_t) on my x86_64 box is 8. When I use -m32 (thereby telling the compiler to compile a standard x86 binary), sizeof(size_t) is 4. You'll note that 8 bytes for size_t allows it to account for all 64-bits of memory in a 64-bit system. . . Just like size_t is supposed to do. ;)
Also, size_t on 32-bit systems goes up to 2^32-1 (the max that can be stored in 32 bits), not 10^32-1 (the max that can be stored in 32 decimal digits). . . Assuming, of course, we're talking your standard binary processors; I can imagine a 32-digit base-10 system having size_t go up to 10^32-1, but, then, who the hell uses a base-10 processor?
Cogent is US-based. The FCC may actually be able to have a say. ;)
Nope, just a high school student with a mind for sanity in code (most of the time). ;)
So, rather than a fairly simple, clean bit of code, you have decided to create a brand new object and some logic for it. . . You know, this abstraction seems purely insane. You are turning a simple if statement into (psuedocode follows):
This is just great if you're paid by the line, but if you actually like programmers being able to read your code, then I'd recommend against it. Really, reading that feels almost like reading COBOL. Also, I'd recommend against this behavior if you actually want a sane, small binary, and sane, small memory usage. Excessive usage of objects where it's neither needed nor helpful is nothing but a waste.
Really, your example was exactly what insane usage of object-orientation is: pointless, meaningless abstraction, obsessive bloat, and just an insanely high level of complexity for what should be a single line of code. I'd hate to have to maintain your code. . .
You're in luck. "Link in all the dependencies" is pretty much the right phrase for that. ;)
Sure, they've documented the voice protocol used; said protocol is called Jingle, and specs are available from the XMPP Council, as XEP-0166. In fact, Google submitted Jingle as a standard fairly soon after GTalk came out. Not their fault that not many clients bothered to use libjingle (a library implementing Jingle, under the BSD license, written by Google).
In that case, my comment is fairly meaningless; I suspect the GPLv2 has something about that, but I can't remember right now, and I don't really feel like doing the research at the moment. I'm about to head off to bed, so I hope that other, more insomniac Slashdotters can provide a more useful response.
The GPLv3 is much, much more specific about that. Specifically:
The GPLv3 also defines what 'distribution' is, by using the terms 'conveying' and 'propagating', instead, and then defining those (for some reason, redefining distribution is not kosher, legally speaking). Thus:
Though I wonder why you are apparently anti-GPL, whatever your thoughts on it, I must insist that you at least discuss points relevant to the license itself. Thank you, however, for sharing your thoughts and opinions: if nothing else, you'll provide someone out there something good to think about.
And the beautiful thing with this is, you won't be lying! It certainly is $150. . . From you. ;)
Damned good thing RMS considers the right to sell software important.
It allows them to sell chips with one of the cores broken, thereby getting higher yields from their production lines.