The biggest gripe I have about Java is that when no more applications are using the JVM, it doesn't go away. It just sits there wasting resources with no option to terminate it other than by force.
I have taken classes on programming in Java, but since I had no real-world use for it, I have subsequently forgotten it, just as I have all but forgotten C/C++. The business world wants results now. They don't pay you to build each wheel from raw lumber when it's faster and cheaper to buy them pre-made.
Has the FSF issued a statement indicating how the GPL 2.0 should be interpreted? If not, perhaps they should. The computer world has come a long way since "a designated place" was connecting to a BBS via some obscure phone number or FTP/Gopher if you were one of the lucky few with access to the internet.
Why should the courts be the one to decide how the license should be interpreted? The FSF made the license. The onus should fall on them to decide how the spirit of the license should adapt to the changing world. I realize that they've moved on to version 3 where they address some of these issues, but version 2 is still the most commonly used version.
Strange, the GPL 2.0 posted on gnu.org specifically "excludes" the compiler unless it is included with what was received.
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
This prevents the sticky situations where the code is covered under the GPL, but the compiler itself is not readily available (Such as VB 5.0 source code, which is not readily available to the general public)
Out of curiosity, do you have a link to how the GPL 2.0 is interpreted for the Internet Age? GPL 2.0 predates the ubiquity of the internet, and I'm just wondering what the general consensus is with regards to applying the provisions to today's technologies and customs.
Ah, but even with the physical media, a transfer protocol must be used, be it ATA, SATA, SCSI, or whatever floppies use, even then a filesystem protocol must be used to translate the raw data, such as FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, ISO9660, ext2, et cetera. No computer can directly read physical media. It has to be converted into machine-readable form first. Even with regards to the 56 bit header in each TCP/IP packet, there is a table on every piece of physical media that maps where the data is located just as the header in the TCP/IP packet identifies what order the packet belongs in the sequence. I would even go so far as to argue that the only real difference in the bitstreams of a physical media reader and a network interface adapter is the interrupt request level that they use.
By restricting it to specifically physical media that is machine-readable, you could even argue that the media could be formatted in such a way that would require special software to decode (much in the same way that a Mac formatted floppy could not be read in a Windows based machine). The media is completely unusable by you, but you have it in your hands, physically. Would you consider this scenario to be compliant with the GPL, as it is up to you to figure out how to use it?
But then again, source code is NOT machine-readable, it is human-readable. Depending on what type of system you are using, the source code could be encoded in ANSI, UTF-8 (or any other Unicode scheme), or even EBCDIC.
Still, though, you acknowledge that the internet is a transfer medium, and the GPL does not specify what type of medium can be used other than a medium customarily used for software interchange. If you make the assumption that the GPL is implying only storage media (or physical media), you are restricting the license beyond what is actually printed, and the argument in court is "Well they meant to say this". If this actually did work, all legal documents would be intentionally vague so that in a court of law you could bend the verbiage however you like. If the verbiage specifies something with subsets, if you do not specify which subsets it applies to, it applies to all subsets. For instance, if I said that only red shirts could be worn on Mondays (and did not specify which types of red shirts), and you wore a red tank top, I could not then say, well I MEANT to say only red "sleeved" shirts.
Disclaimer: This debate is for the sake of arguing the opposing viewpoints. I am not necessarily disagreeing that the GPL means physical media only, but only that perhaps the GPL has flaws in its implementation.
My original post was AC due to the inconvenience of logging in mid-post (with the new forms for Slashdot). I continued AC afterwards for the sake of consistency. That is neither here nor there, however.
From what I've seen and experienced, legal documents need to be explicit in their verbiage with nothing implied or assumed (otherwise lawyers would spend all of their time in court saying "My client meant to say that", and that would pass court muster). With the license not explicitly stating that the medium must be physical, the license should apply to all medium customarily used for software interchange. I have not purchased software on a physical medium in many years. Although the license may have been written before the ubiquity of the internet, that does not mean that what was held as customary at the time is the only valid custom for the purposes of the license. Additionally, if the license can implicitly require the medium to be physical, why shouldn't it be argued that it is implicitly agreed that a request for physical media will be granted? I have seen in other posts, however, that there have been some that bought the device, and besides the flier, there was, in fact, a physical CD in the box with the source, but we have moved on from that specific case, and are arguing on the more general level.
Furthermore, you CAN transfer a copy of a web site (which would be partial copy of the internet), and given enough bandwidth and storage space, it is technically possible to transfer a copy of the entire internet, albeit practically infeasible, just as doing a backup of a modern enterprise server cluster would be practically infeasible using 5.25" floppies.
The judges who tried the case are just as human as we are, and thus prone to making mistakes.
By your logic of "same means" the only valid distribution of source would be via skype-phone.
Perhaps the correct course of action would be for the FSF to file an amicus curiae to legally elaborate on the verbiage in the license. Then, and only then, could it be argued that a non-physical medium is not valid.
But still, the question could be asked, where do you draw the line? It is entirely feasible that a personal computer has no removable media options (We actually have some of these where I work, using PXE to reimage the machines as necessary). If someone (a representative of the company that needs to fulfill the requirements of the GPL) were to bring a computer with them to your physical location and transfer the source to your machine via a crossover ethernet cable, would that satisfy the requirements? In this case, non-physical media is the only method of transferring the source to a particular computer. If it does satisfy, at what point does the transfer become unacceptable? Connection via a hub or switch? Perhaps on the other side of a dial-up connection? Where do you draw the line?
It displays [yahoo.com] because it is using the yahoo.com domain (specifically the host rds, which according to a quick Google search is for "redirect script")
My recommendation as a systems admin, is to add an entry to your host files setting "rds.yahoo.com" to map to "127.0.0.1" Doing this will prevent any links using rds.yahoo.com (which is a known cross-site scripting vulnerability)
While I harbor no ill will towards Yahoo, unless they clean this up, it will be blocked on my machines.
No, you are not the only one. I know only one person who actually has a membership to a social network, and he tried to get me to sign up as well (MySpace, back when it was new). I signed up, and the only time I went back to the site was to delete my profile....and yes, I am under 30.
I find the idea of a social network intriguing, but I have yet to see any value in any of the offerings presently available.
No, that's not what will happen. Let's use some hypothetical figures:
Company A writes software and troubleshoots computers, Company B mows lawns.
Let's say in Maryland sales tax is 6% and corporate income tax is 25%.
If Company A does $100,000 worth of business, they will now need to pay 25% income tax and 6% sales tax.
If Company B does $100,000 worth of business, they will only pay the 25% income tax.
At the end of the year Company A pays out $31,000 in taxes, while Company B pays out $25,000.
You may say this is fair since Company A could be considered to be selling a product. If Company A ONLY does troubleshooting, they will still pay $31,000. Does this seem fair to you?
Would it really be bad if the sex-starved space-babes couldn't see what Slashdotters look like? You don't have to see to have sex. People do it in the dark all the time.
The counterweight doesn't necessarily need to be a problem. A robotic ship with ion engines could probably retrieve an asteroid from the "nearby" belt to use as a counterweight. The logical course of action to reliably placing humans on Mars, would be to start with a lunar base on Deimos or Phobos (maybe both to ensure that control could be maintained while one or the other is out of radio contact, although satellites could work for that purpose as well). From there you can have robots construct a space elevator. The real issue is how to support a remote lunar base.
Do you know how freaking expensive LEGO blocks are? And I'm not even talking about the themed sets or Mindstorms.
$10-$20/month would easily be worth it compared to the cost of buying and replacing blocks, the time spent cleaning up stray blocks, ER visits to extract wayward blocks...
Nah, all you need to do is train Corporation Management to level 1, and about 1.5 million ISK. You'll want to train Anchoring as well if you want to recruit via storage container (like many corps do).
1) is Yes (the regulations dictate that you must treat the presentment of the plastic the same as you would cash) 2) also Yes... but you risk the forfeiture of the privilege of accepting Visa as a form of payment.
It's better for the merchant not to ask for ID since Visa forbids merchants from making identification a condition of acceptance
When should you ask a cardholder for an official government ID? Although Visa rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular card acceptance procedures. Laws in several states also make it illegal for merchants to write a cardholder's personal information, such as an address or phone number, on a sales receipt.
-Pg 29, Rules for Visa Merchants--Card Acceptance and Chargeback Management Guidelines Even if the cardholder refuses to show ID, the card must still be accepted or else the merchant is in violation of their agreement and therefore subject to termination and blacklisting.
(That said, with the laws against spreading false information, shouldn't a certain news channel named after an animal and you know who in the elliptical-shaped office be careful?)
This is the same device used in "Minority Report". It's been around for quite some time, and it has a few patches for games as well. Specifically, it worked with "Black & White". I never actually used it, but it would apparently control the game exactly as you would expect, since you actually "grab" things in the game.
I like to upgrade my machines a little at a time. As of this time, I could not upgrade to just the new motherboard. I couldn't even get away with upgrading the CD/DVD drives. I'm still using PATA for everything since I don't have a SATA compatible computer.
Looks like I have exceeded my upgrade window...
IDE Zip 100 - Virtually useless (of course the same holds true now) 3.5" Floppy - Virtually useless (no one uses floppies anymore) 200 GB IDE HD - Useless (SATA needed now) ATAPI DVD Burner - Useless (SATA needed now) ATAPI CDRW Burner - Useless (SATA needed now) 512 MB DDR RAM - Useless (DDR2 needed now) Radeon 9250 AGP - Useless (PCI Express needed now)
I remember back in the early to mid-90s, before VoIP was even really thought about, that modems (and faxes by definition) would have problems if there were too many DACs between the demarc and the dialed destination.
Digital is great for many things. It increases bandwidth significantly, but it will always be limited compared to the potential of analog (specifically irrational numbers). Digital has a limited precision compared to the infinite precision of analog.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest gripe I have about Java is that when no more applications are using the JVM, it doesn't go away. It just sits there wasting resources with no option to terminate it other than by force.
I have taken classes on programming in Java, but since I had no real-world use for it, I have subsequently forgotten it, just as I have all but forgotten C/C++. The business world wants results now. They don't pay you to build each wheel from raw lumber when it's faster and cheaper to buy them pre-made.
Has the FSF issued a statement indicating how the GPL 2.0 should be interpreted? If not, perhaps they should. The computer world has come a long way since "a designated place" was connecting to a BBS via some obscure phone number or FTP/Gopher if you were one of the lucky few with access to the internet.
:)
Why should the courts be the one to decide how the license should be interpreted? The FSF made the license. The onus should fall on them to decide how the spirit of the license should adapt to the changing world. I realize that they've moved on to version 3 where they address some of these issues, but version 2 is still the most commonly used version.
* Yes, I actually did mention Gopher.
Out of curiosity, do you have a link to how the GPL 2.0 is interpreted for the Internet Age? GPL 2.0 predates the ubiquity of the internet, and I'm just wondering what the general consensus is with regards to applying the provisions to today's technologies and customs.
Ah, but even with the physical media, a transfer protocol must be used, be it ATA, SATA, SCSI, or whatever floppies use, even then a filesystem protocol must be used to translate the raw data, such as FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, ISO9660, ext2, et cetera. No computer can directly read physical media. It has to be converted into machine-readable form first. Even with regards to the 56 bit header in each TCP/IP packet, there is a table on every piece of physical media that maps where the data is located just as the header in the TCP/IP packet identifies what order the packet belongs in the sequence. I would even go so far as to argue that the only real difference in the bitstreams of a physical media reader and a network interface adapter is the interrupt request level that they use.
By restricting it to specifically physical media that is machine-readable, you could even argue that the media could be formatted in such a way that would require special software to decode (much in the same way that a Mac formatted floppy could not be read in a Windows based machine). The media is completely unusable by you, but you have it in your hands, physically. Would you consider this scenario to be compliant with the GPL, as it is up to you to figure out how to use it?
But then again, source code is NOT machine-readable, it is human-readable. Depending on what type of system you are using, the source code could be encoded in ANSI, UTF-8 (or any other Unicode scheme), or even EBCDIC.
Still, though, you acknowledge that the internet is a transfer medium, and the GPL does not specify what type of medium can be used other than a medium customarily used for software interchange. If you make the assumption that the GPL is implying only storage media (or physical media), you are restricting the license beyond what is actually printed, and the argument in court is "Well they meant to say this". If this actually did work, all legal documents would be intentionally vague so that in a court of law you could bend the verbiage however you like. If the verbiage specifies something with subsets, if you do not specify which subsets it applies to, it applies to all subsets. For instance, if I said that only red shirts could be worn on Mondays (and did not specify which types of red shirts), and you wore a red tank top, I could not then say, well I MEANT to say only red "sleeved" shirts.
Disclaimer: This debate is for the sake of arguing the opposing viewpoints. I am not necessarily disagreeing that the GPL means physical media only, but only that perhaps the GPL has flaws in its implementation.
My original post was AC due to the inconvenience of logging in mid-post (with the new forms for Slashdot). I continued AC afterwards for the sake of consistency. That is neither here nor there, however.
From what I've seen and experienced, legal documents need to be explicit in their verbiage with nothing implied or assumed (otherwise lawyers would spend all of their time in court saying "My client meant to say that", and that would pass court muster). With the license not explicitly stating that the medium must be physical, the license should apply to all medium customarily used for software interchange. I have not purchased software on a physical medium in many years. Although the license may have been written before the ubiquity of the internet, that does not mean that what was held as customary at the time is the only valid custom for the purposes of the license. Additionally, if the license can implicitly require the medium to be physical, why shouldn't it be argued that it is implicitly agreed that a request for physical media will be granted? I have seen in other posts, however, that there have been some that bought the device, and besides the flier, there was, in fact, a physical CD in the box with the source, but we have moved on from that specific case, and are arguing on the more general level.
Furthermore, you CAN transfer a copy of a web site (which would be partial copy of the internet), and given enough bandwidth and storage space, it is technically possible to transfer a copy of the entire internet, albeit practically infeasible, just as doing a backup of a modern enterprise server cluster would be practically infeasible using 5.25" floppies.
The judges who tried the case are just as human as we are, and thus prone to making mistakes.
By your logic of "same means" the only valid distribution of source would be via skype-phone.
Perhaps the correct course of action would be for the FSF to file an amicus curiae to legally elaborate on the verbiage in the license. Then, and only then, could it be argued that a non-physical medium is not valid.
But still, the question could be asked, where do you draw the line? It is entirely feasible that a personal computer has no removable media options (We actually have some of these where I work, using PXE to reimage the machines as necessary). If someone (a representative of the company that needs to fulfill the requirements of the GPL) were to bring a computer with them to your physical location and transfer the source to your machine via a crossover ethernet cable, would that satisfy the requirements? In this case, non-physical media is the only method of transferring the source to a particular computer. If it does satisfy, at what point does the transfer become unacceptable? Connection via a hub or switch? Perhaps on the other side of a dial-up connection? Where do you draw the line?
It displays [yahoo.com] because it is using the yahoo.com domain (specifically the host rds, which according to a quick Google search is for "redirect script")
My recommendation as a systems admin, is to add an entry to your host files setting "rds.yahoo.com" to map to "127.0.0.1" Doing this will prevent any links using rds.yahoo.com (which is a known cross-site scripting vulnerability)
While I harbor no ill will towards Yahoo, unless they clean this up, it will be blocked on my machines.
No, you are not the only one. I know only one person who actually has a membership to a social network, and he tried to get me to sign up as well (MySpace, back when it was new). I signed up, and the only time I went back to the site was to delete my profile. ...and yes, I am under 30.
I find the idea of a social network intriguing, but I have yet to see any value in any of the offerings presently available.
No, that's not what will happen. Let's use some hypothetical figures:
Company A writes software and troubleshoots computers, Company B mows lawns.
Let's say in Maryland sales tax is 6% and corporate income tax is 25%.
If Company A does $100,000 worth of business, they will now need to pay 25% income tax and 6% sales tax.
If Company B does $100,000 worth of business, they will only pay the 25% income tax.
At the end of the year Company A pays out $31,000 in taxes, while Company B pays out $25,000.
You may say this is fair since Company A could be considered to be selling a product. If Company A ONLY does troubleshooting, they will still pay $31,000. Does this seem fair to you?
Would it really be bad if the sex-starved space-babes couldn't see what Slashdotters look like? You don't have to see to have sex. People do it in the dark all the time.
The counterweight doesn't necessarily need to be a problem. A robotic ship with ion engines could probably retrieve an asteroid from the "nearby" belt to use as a counterweight. The logical course of action to reliably placing humans on Mars, would be to start with a lunar base on Deimos or Phobos (maybe both to ensure that control could be maintained while one or the other is out of radio contact, although satellites could work for that purpose as well). From there you can have robots construct a space elevator. The real issue is how to support a remote lunar base.
After looking at it for years, you don't even see the code anymore. You just see redhead, blonde, brunette...
Do you know how freaking expensive LEGO blocks are? And I'm not even talking about the themed sets or Mindstorms.
$10-$20/month would easily be worth it compared to the cost of buying and replacing blocks, the time spent cleaning up stray blocks, ER visits to extract wayward blocks...
I'll throw in some links to help this "discussion" out:
1) Article on the Tesla Coil
2) Where you can buy one
It is now, it was the Rolling Stones logo before (a mouth with the tongue hanging out)
Nah, all you need to do is train Corporation Management to level 1, and about 1.5 million ISK. You'll want to train Anchoring as well if you want to recruit via storage container (like many corps do).
You know what else would be really cool? A "Rolling Stones" button! (3rd key down, 2nd column of icon keys, right below Firefox)
1) is Yes (the regulations dictate that you must treat the presentment of the plastic the same as you would cash)
2) also Yes... but you risk the forfeiture of the privilege of accepting Visa as a form of payment.
rules do not preclude merchants from asking for cardholder ID, merchants
cannot make an ID a condition of acceptance. Therefore, merchants cannot
refuse to complete a purchase transaction because a cardholder refuses to
provide ID. Visa believes merchants should not ask for ID as part of their regular
card acceptance procedures. Laws in several states also make it illegal for
merchants to write a cardholder's personal information, such as an address or
phone number, on a sales receipt.
-Pg 29, Rules for Visa Merchants--Card Acceptance and Chargeback Management Guidelines Even if the cardholder refuses to show ID, the card must still be accepted or else the merchant is in violation of their agreement and therefore subject to termination and blacklisting.
I'd love it if my time was "only" worth $320/day. As it is now, my company values my time at $173/day.
Oh, and my title is "Systems Administrator/Programmer"
Much like the laws against stealing.
The government hate competition.
(That said, with the laws against spreading false information, shouldn't a certain news channel named after an animal and you know who in the elliptical-shaped office be careful?)
Exactly. You're just too much of a *Happy Camper*.
You mean like this?
P5 Virtual Reality Glove
This is the same device used in "Minority Report". It's been around for quite some time, and it has a few patches for games as well. Specifically, it worked with "Black & White". I never actually used it, but it would apparently control the game exactly as you would expect, since you actually "grab" things in the game.
I like to upgrade my machines a little at a time. As of this time, I could not upgrade to just the new motherboard. I couldn't even get away with upgrading the CD/DVD drives. I'm still using PATA for everything since I don't have a SATA compatible computer.
Looks like I have exceeded my upgrade window...
IDE Zip 100 - Virtually useless (of course the same holds true now)
3.5" Floppy - Virtually useless (no one uses floppies anymore)
200 GB IDE HD - Useless (SATA needed now)
ATAPI DVD Burner - Useless (SATA needed now)
ATAPI CDRW Burner - Useless (SATA needed now)
512 MB DDR RAM - Useless (DDR2 needed now)
Radeon 9250 AGP - Useless (PCI Express needed now)
I find a mix of Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Chumbawumba to be excellent when working in Crystal Reports.
I remember back in the early to mid-90s, before VoIP was even really thought about, that modems (and faxes by definition) would have problems if there were too many DACs between the demarc and the dialed destination.
Digital is great for many things. It increases bandwidth significantly, but it will always be limited compared to the potential of analog (specifically irrational numbers). Digital has a limited precision compared to the infinite precision of analog.