They can't do that, sorry. PHP developers are the kind of people who already call / a "backslash." Maybe a "double backslash," and then it can have its own theme song by ZZ Top.
Your numbers are not quite useful. The question is how much more energy is used by running such programs than would be used without running them. Most people who run the clients for distributed computing projects leave their computers on 24/7. How much more energy does it take to run a whole lot of integer math versus to idle or run a screen saver?
My observation is distinct from the old adage attributed to Wendell Phillips. The point is that many people standing up for the rights of all help protect those rights for those who aren't aware of them. People stand up for others' rights all the time. And I would absolutely agree that the government isn't the protector to look to.
There are plenty of good Lisp books and O'Reilly generally refuses to publish any, probably because there aren't any good animals to use for it. I don't know COBOL and don't know where I'd go to learn it, other than college in the 1970's, though, so I can't really help you with that.
The problem is that five of them are 95+-year-old great-grandmothers, who are not only likely to die soon and reduce that number but also really bad about submitting bug reports for things that aren't part of the kernel, such as things costing more than they used to or this newfangled toaster not working on corn chips.
And the other two don't think you counted them for some reason.
This all goes back to what rights the copyright holder actually exclusively holds. Unless your brain itself constitutes a "copy" so as to violate the mechanical rights of the holder, the only way you are infringing the Harry Potter copyright after you sell the book is the same as before you sold it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights.
Raise your hand if your fascination with how computers work was born courtesy of a primitive game. For me, it was an EE uncle who taught me how to read the GW-BASIC code for a game I was playing, a LEM landing simulator (of the 2D variety), and suggested I put more of the data on the screen to make the game easier to play. Heck, even a lot of my instinct for when to use calculus came about later through programming a space engine for a MUSH. Plus ca change, eh?
Correction: The RIAA's claim of how the system works is broken. It not only presents a broken system but is in fact incorrect anyhow, not reflecting the actual system in place. Don't trust the RIAA to explain copyright law any more than you trust the Slashdot editors to explain constitutional law.
For me, it has nothing to do with shades of gray. It is rather that people think Wikipedia is something it is not: A repository of knowledge. Wikipedia is peer-reviewed hearsay. It's very good at that. There are two categories of people who are hurt by that, though: (1) People who think it's a repository of knowledge and (2) those obsessive nerds you mentioned, who think it should (and, by implication, can) be such a thing. They're both wrong. And no, there's no gray area there.;)
CVS? Are you kidding? If your code really had any value to it at all you wouldn't entrust it to such a newfangled, untested technology. The only revision control system that you can really trust is the standard one, RCS. It's even named revision control system!
The wisdom in this probably depends on which one or more of the following are your "product":
1. Recordings of your music
2. Merchandise with your logo on it
3. Attendance at your live performances
4. Promotion of other products (for instance, Miley Cyrus's music is mostly about getting you to watch her on TV and buy her lunch boxes)
For a music act whose real product is #3, giving away #1 counts as advertising. For an act whose real product is #1, giving it away, including giving up copyright protection of it, is bad management. It really does depend on your product and the market for it. That said, I wish more music acts considered live music to be their product and everything else to be promotion of the same.
If it's his own property, placing it online with the intent that you download it probably creates a license. Just because it's not in writing doesn't mean it's not enforceable. And regardless of that, putting it online with the intent that you download it precludes any claim that your downloading it is piracy.
He's definitely practicing one thing that he preaches, though: Finding a way to profit from piracy. In his case, he's profiting by capitalizing on the media attention that talking about copyright piracy gets. If he makes even one dollar, he's profited more from piracy than I have, so I'll give him that.
The problem I have here is that it's not about verifiability in any serious sense of the term. It's about having hearsay to support your statement. When the only permitted source of verification is taking someone else's word for it, then you aren't really verifying anything other than the fact that someone else said it (a fact which, under Wikipedia's definition of 'verifiability' as stated in the story summary, is itself not verifiable).
It's not a question of whether it's a static load. It's a simple question of weight distribution. Your fat* girlfriend is not exerting all her weight on four or five rubber feet.
* - I'm an American man and have bought into images of beauty relevant to this discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
They can't do that, sorry. PHP developers are the kind of people who already call / a "backslash." Maybe a "double backslash," and then it can have its own theme song by ZZ Top.
Prove it.
LOGIC COMPILER ERROR: Out of pronouns. Reverting to proper nouns.
Disprove the hypothesis that martin-boundary can prove that socsoc failed math class.
Your numbers are not quite useful. The question is how much more energy is used by running such programs than would be used without running them. Most people who run the clients for distributed computing projects leave their computers on 24/7. How much more energy does it take to run a whole lot of integer math versus to idle or run a screen saver?
My observation is distinct from the old adage attributed to Wendell Phillips. The point is that many people standing up for the rights of all help protect those rights for those who aren't aware of them. People stand up for others' rights all the time. And I would absolutely agree that the government isn't the protector to look to.
Explain your logic. My point is that freedom includes the right to keep freedoms you aren't (yet) aware of.
If you're truly free, you don't have to be aware of your rights for them to be protected from infringement.
There are plenty of good Lisp books and O'Reilly generally refuses to publish any, probably because there aren't any good animals to use for it. I don't know COBOL and don't know where I'd go to learn it, other than college in the 1970's, though, so I can't really help you with that.
As they discovered, revolution was unavoidable anyhow, so it doesn't really matter.
If they send me there for the rest of my life, they had certainly better also send ... oh, wait. I see the capital letter now.
The problem is that five of them are 95+-year-old great-grandmothers, who are not only likely to die soon and reduce that number but also really bad about submitting bug reports for things that aren't part of the kernel, such as things costing more than they used to or this newfangled toaster not working on corn chips.
And the other two don't think you counted them for some reason.
30,000 lines of Makefiles and build scripts. All of it avoidable by using Eclipse.
Linus is not a quality Nazi at all. He hasn't even once ki... Oh, wait.
Yes, it was. When I saw this headline, I actually thought "Wait ... is this a dupe and a sign that I've had too much coffee?"
This all goes back to what rights the copyright holder actually exclusively holds. Unless your brain itself constitutes a "copy" so as to violate the mechanical rights of the holder, the only way you are infringing the Harry Potter copyright after you sell the book is the same as before you sold it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Exclusive_rights.
Raise your hand if your fascination with how computers work was born courtesy of a primitive game. For me, it was an EE uncle who taught me how to read the GW-BASIC code for a game I was playing, a LEM landing simulator (of the 2D variety), and suggested I put more of the data on the screen to make the game easier to play. Heck, even a lot of my instinct for when to use calculus came about later through programming a space engine for a MUSH. Plus ca change, eh?
Correction: The RIAA's claim of how the system works is broken. It not only presents a broken system but is in fact incorrect anyhow, not reflecting the actual system in place. Don't trust the RIAA to explain copyright law any more than you trust the Slashdot editors to explain constitutional law.
What part of the first five words of my comment, which you quoted, did you fail to comprehend as explaining exactly what you tried to say?
For me, it has nothing to do with shades of gray. It is rather that people think Wikipedia is something it is not: A repository of knowledge. Wikipedia is peer-reviewed hearsay. It's very good at that. There are two categories of people who are hurt by that, though: (1) People who think it's a repository of knowledge and (2) those obsessive nerds you mentioned, who think it should (and, by implication, can) be such a thing. They're both wrong. And no, there's no gray area there. ;)
CVS? Are you kidding? If your code really had any value to it at all you wouldn't entrust it to such a newfangled, untested technology. The only revision control system that you can really trust is the standard one, RCS. It's even named revision control system!
The wisdom in this probably depends on which one or more of the following are your "product":
1. Recordings of your music
2. Merchandise with your logo on it
3. Attendance at your live performances
4. Promotion of other products (for instance, Miley Cyrus's music is mostly about getting you to watch her on TV and buy her lunch boxes)
For a music act whose real product is #3, giving away #1 counts as advertising. For an act whose real product is #1, giving it away, including giving up copyright protection of it, is bad management. It really does depend on your product and the market for it. That said, I wish more music acts considered live music to be their product and everything else to be promotion of the same.
If it's his own property, placing it online with the intent that you download it probably creates a license. Just because it's not in writing doesn't mean it's not enforceable. And regardless of that, putting it online with the intent that you download it precludes any claim that your downloading it is piracy.
He's definitely practicing one thing that he preaches, though: Finding a way to profit from piracy. In his case, he's profiting by capitalizing on the media attention that talking about copyright piracy gets. If he makes even one dollar, he's profited more from piracy than I have, so I'll give him that.
The problem I have here is that it's not about verifiability in any serious sense of the term. It's about having hearsay to support your statement. When the only permitted source of verification is taking someone else's word for it, then you aren't really verifying anything other than the fact that someone else said it (a fact which, under Wikipedia's definition of 'verifiability' as stated in the story summary, is itself not verifiable).
Did you do the math on that on an early Pentium chip?
It's not a question of whether it's a static load. It's a simple question of weight distribution. Your fat* girlfriend is not exerting all her weight on four or five rubber feet.
* - I'm an American man and have bought into images of beauty relevant to this discussion.
Yeah, but what happens when they try to huff it?