the problem though is that they will never be able to test it on more platforms than those that have native pdf rendering. So it is unlikely that it will ever be advantageous over those. If we are going this way let's just download compile and run C code from the browser automatically. If anything it may be easier to write cross platform C than cross platform Javascript+HTML!
my browser opens pdf files in the same tab by default. if you talk about integrating the pdf into a webpage you should think about the %lt;object> tag. This attempt seems misguided and I hope no website ever serves it to me.
I see alternating results: http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Benchmark Let's see it again in a couple of years and the result may be one sided. I hate C++ with a passion, but only because I avoid writing in FORTRAN at all.
There is more to this decision than simple "anti-scientific" feelings.
First of all there is the trust we can have in people managing these beasts, i.e. zero. Our administrators are not the ones with public safety in mind. Google some info about two years' ago earthquake to see how well regulation on constructions works.
Second and related, public works in Italy (and many private ones) are often just a way to throw money at your business friends. It is unlikely that something so big will be done in the most efficient and quick way. Most probably it will never recover the expenses, if it ever gets built.
Third there is the timing problem. We are late to the train. Other countries alread recovered the initial expenses and only have to keep mantaining/improving. They can undercut us easily and we would end up buying from them anyway. (also notice we did not have plans for an erichment plant, so we would have to buy enriched uranium...)
Fourth and related, the plants will arrive in no less than 20 years. Then this is essentially a bet on the price of uranium in 20 years. With many developing countries building plants I think this bet is a losing one...
But yes, I am stupid and I only want to slow progress down, laugh at me.
I agree, both sides are asshats. [...], and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
If, as someone else said, the theater doesn't WANT this particular business, they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction - she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
Why? If they kick you out of McDonald's they don't refund you the half finished hamburger, do they?
We wanted to invite a Nobel Prize that was in town. He replied: sure, but I feel it would be bad to do it on the other university dime. We booked another flight a few days later. I suspect this applies more to the well known people than to no-ones like me... In my case probably no one would ever care:)
reading from other comments it looks like he used something that was under non-commercial license only. Which, ironically makes it non-OSS. So the GP is spot on: the guy is a freeloader and deserves no sympathy.
Usually if you are invited by a university the last thing that you are supposed to do is visit another university in the same trip, even if it is in the same city. This applies everywhere in any field: my first hand experience is physics academia. RMS should have refused the invitation immediately, or put the universities in contact. This could have been an occasion for collaboration , instead he was careless and created this impasse.
Then do everyone a favour and name them! You don't want to look like you are spreading false information right? And by the way, the palestinian authority was "called on the carpet" first in this thread.
Of course solar panels will never overcome 10% efficiency, especially if (as the OP said) we invest heavily in researching ways to improve efficiency. This is why we should not fund research that could improve efficiency of solar panels. Because it will obviously not improve the efficiency. You are perfectly right!
You are also right that we should not destroy non-solar plants because for now it is not practical. And as everyone knows to built a solar plant you have to destroy all non solar plants, because they hate each other like dwarves and elves. No, we cannot afford to destroy all our power, so we cannot build any single solar plant.
I guess they mean testing from the ground up i.e. assuming the system is compromised and previous audits are void. That may be a lot more work than just testing against new/newly discovered attacks.
The barrier they seem to not cross yet is deception: you can know their stance on any of those counts. This is in line with previous behaviour, even if a step up in creepiness.
Anyway I would be surprised if something like this holds in court for various reasons, first of all as for all TOS/EULAs: when can I refuse the agreement before or after you consider the sale final? What happens if I refuse? However this will probably never be tested, as usual, and the practise will continue.
How the people should behave is not religion, it is ethics. People can have no religion and be ethical and can have a religion and behave unethically. If you cannot see ethics outside religion you just cannot see ethics outside *your* religion and start to think like a fundamentalist.
I am not an expert on the GPLv3, but I know that there was an effort to give recipients the option to correct the violation without penalties. Of course this requires not selling new boxes in violation, but they would not be liable for the already distributed ones (a factory reset is not a new distribution if the copy is local as usually is). Whatever the purpose of the GPL is, it surely does not include setting up traps for companies: it would be damaging for the whole Open Source/Free Software community.
First: there is no issue with GPL and tivoization. GPLv2 allows it and GPLv3 forbids it, full stop. It is as clear as day and every developer can make an informed choice as to what he/she wants to allow with the code.
Now it seems that these things include GPG that is under GPLv3. So it looks an awful lot as a violation, if confirmed. At the same time it seems that the program was removed by online firmware updates, so everything would be kosher for the GPLv3 (that gives the option to stop distributing the offending code and be legally safe)
Anyone can build a business around any concept, regardless of value or worth. Success isn't necessarily a testament to the value of the product or its constituent elements.
Honestly curious, why are you violating the law if someone passes you on the right? What are you expected to do? And: do you think it is true in every case?
You are right that it is a plea. However if it becomes prominent this can be used as a legal way of opting out from being tracked. advertisers will have no excuse to track people against their will. They won't be able to setup their own incredibly hard opt-out system that no one ever uses. It is a way to close a loophole of some laws.
Or just use a language where assignments are not expressions. You lose in terms of obfuscation, so there is always a tradeoff. If you want your program to be unreadable a language with this property is definitely not going to help.
Ehm, if you are going to describe a self-subsistance system why would you even introduce the concept of money? You just swept under the carpet all the complications that make economics a still unsolved problem.
Do you deny that most laws and decrees enacted in the past ten years have the objective of rendering the judicial system ineffective? That no reform whatsoever was made to adapt the law to new technologies? That the courts are understaffed because the government does not want them to work properly? I think all of those are true, so I am not really surprised to see that there are problems in our justice system. May you never wake up from your happy dream.
Our politics has been busy fixing Berlusconi's troubles with justice for more than one decade. main The strategy is to make our judicial system a joke. What would you expect from that?
Not that I am not sad for my country, but it is only expected that our fucked up system will backfire at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
the problem though is that they will never be able to test it on more platforms than those that have native pdf rendering. So it is unlikely that it will ever be advantageous over those. If we are going this way let's just download compile and run C code from the browser automatically. If anything it may be easier to write cross platform C than cross platform Javascript+HTML!
my browser opens pdf files in the same tab by default. if you talk about integrating the pdf into a webpage you should think about the %lt;object> tag. This attempt seems misguided and I hope no website ever serves it to me.
I see alternating results: http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/index.php?title=Benchmark Let's see it again in a couple of years and the result may be one sided. I hate C++ with a passion, but only because I avoid writing in FORTRAN at all.
There is more to this decision than simple "anti-scientific" feelings.
First of all there is the trust we can have in people managing these beasts, i.e. zero. Our administrators are not the ones with public safety in mind. Google some info about two years' ago earthquake to see how well regulation on constructions works.
Second and related, public works in Italy (and many private ones) are often just a way to throw money at your business friends. It is unlikely that something so big will be done in the most efficient and quick way. Most probably it will never recover the expenses, if it ever gets built.
Third there is the timing problem. We are late to the train. Other countries alread recovered the initial expenses and only have to keep mantaining/improving. They can undercut us easily and we would end up buying from them anyway. (also notice we did not have plans for an erichment plant, so we would have to buy enriched uranium...)
Fourth and related, the plants will arrive in no less than 20 years. Then this is essentially a bet on the price of uranium in 20 years. With many developing countries building plants I think this bet is a losing one...
But yes, I am stupid and I only want to slow progress down, laugh at me.
I agree, both sides are asshats. [...], and the management for not putting their money where their mouth is and giving her a refund along with a written notice that she's barred from attending again.
If, as someone else said, the theater doesn't WANT this particular business, they should stop hiding behind 'policy' and just reverse the transaction - she's no longer allowed to watch the movie, so they no longer keep her money. It's not the 'escorting out' which is obnoxious, it's the 'without refund' bit.
Why? If they kick you out of McDonald's they don't refund you the half finished hamburger, do they?
It seems to me that we are saying the same thing. Those definitions do not apply here: that is why this is not open source software.
We wanted to invite a Nobel Prize that was in town. He replied: sure, but I feel it would be bad to do it on the other university dime. We booked another flight a few days later. I suspect this applies more to the well known people than to no-ones like me... In my case probably no one would ever care :)
reading from other comments it looks like he used something that was under non-commercial license only. Which, ironically makes it non-OSS. So the GP is spot on: the guy is a freeloader and deserves no sympathy.
Usually if you are invited by a university the last thing that you are supposed to do is visit another university in the same trip, even if it is in the same city. This applies everywhere in any field: my first hand experience is physics academia. RMS should have refused the invitation immediately, or put the universities in contact. This could have been an occasion for collaboration , instead he was careless and created this impasse.
Then do everyone a favour and name them! You don't want to look like you are spreading false information right? And by the way, the palestinian authority was "called on the carpet" first in this thread.
Of course solar panels will never overcome 10% efficiency, especially if (as the OP said) we invest heavily in researching ways to improve efficiency. This is why we should not fund research that could improve efficiency of solar panels. Because it will obviously not improve the efficiency. You are perfectly right!
You are also right that we should not destroy non-solar plants because for now it is not practical. And as everyone knows to built a solar plant you have to destroy all non solar plants, because they hate each other like dwarves and elves. No, we cannot afford to destroy all our power, so we cannot build any single solar plant.
Which, by the way is not made of solar panels.
I guess they mean testing from the ground up i.e. assuming the system is compromised and previous audits are void. That may be a lot more work than just testing against new/newly discovered attacks.
The barrier they seem to not cross yet is deception: you can know their stance on any of those counts. This is in line with previous behaviour, even if a step up in creepiness.
Anyway I would be surprised if something like this holds in court for various reasons, first of all as for all TOS/EULAs: when can I refuse the agreement before or after you consider the sale final? What happens if I refuse? However this will probably never be tested, as usual, and the practise will continue.
Relax :) (blog post from one of the head developers of KDE)
Qt already adheres to standards. MOC is just a boilerplate generator and the actual code is compiled with any standards-compliant C++ implementation.
How the people should behave is not religion, it is ethics. People can have no religion and be ethical and can have a religion and behave unethically. If you cannot see ethics outside religion you just cannot see ethics outside *your* religion and start to think like a fundamentalist.
I am not an expert on the GPLv3, but I know that there was an effort to give recipients the option to correct the violation without penalties. Of course this requires not selling new boxes in violation, but they would not be liable for the already distributed ones (a factory reset is not a new distribution if the copy is local as usually is). Whatever the purpose of the GPL is, it surely does not include setting up traps for companies: it would be damaging for the whole Open Source/Free Software community.
First: there is no issue with GPL and tivoization. GPLv2 allows it and GPLv3 forbids it, full stop. It is as clear as day and every developer can make an informed choice as to what he/she wants to allow with the code.
Now it seems that these things include GPG that is under GPLv3. So it looks an awful lot as a violation, if confirmed. At the same time it seems that the program was removed by online firmware updates, so everything would be kosher for the GPLv3 (that gives the option to stop distributing the offending code and be legally safe)
Anyone can build a business around any concept, regardless of value or worth. Success isn't necessarily a testament to the value of the product or its constituent elements.
Why do you hate Microsoft?
Honestly curious, why are you violating the law if someone passes you on the right? What are you expected to do? And: do you think it is true in every case?
You are right that it is a plea. However if it becomes prominent this can be used as a legal way of opting out from being tracked. advertisers will have no excuse to track people against their will. They won't be able to setup their own incredibly hard opt-out system that no one ever uses. It is a way to close a loophole of some laws.
Or just use a language where assignments are not expressions. You lose in terms of obfuscation, so there is always a tradeoff. If you want your program to be unreadable a language with this property is definitely not going to help.
Ehm, if you are going to describe a self-subsistance system why would you even introduce the concept of money? You just swept under the carpet all the complications that make economics a still unsolved problem.
Do you deny that most laws and decrees enacted in the past ten years have the objective of rendering the judicial system ineffective? That no reform whatsoever was made to adapt the law to new technologies? That the courts are understaffed because the government does not want them to work properly? I think all of those are true, so I am not really surprised to see that there are problems in our justice system. May you never wake up from your happy dream.
Our politics has been busy fixing Berlusconi's troubles with justice for more than one decade. main The strategy is to make our judicial system a joke. What would you expect from that?
Not that I am not sad for my country, but it is only expected that our fucked up system will backfire at some point.