That's actually the thing I never understood about the gun control debate in the US. I keep hearing USians saying guns are important to protect yourself and that it should be/remain a right. Yet, when it comes to airplanes, why isn't the TSA *mandating* guns on airplanes. That would only be consistent, no?
I do double-xor with a one-time pad. I've even figured out a way to do what without having to give the one-time-pad to the recipient, so I guess it counts as asymmetric cryptography.
Just a thought that occurred to me. In *some* (probably not all) way, patent trolls might be helping open source software. The reasoning is this. Patents are currently used in two main ways: 1) by big corporations trying to shut out competition from smaller companies (or OSS projects) 2) by trolls trying to make money off the big corporations. Considering that the laws in most countries are mainly bought for by the big corporations, we'll be stuck with patents for as long as 1) is worth more to the big players than 2) costs them. So I'd say the more trolls, the likelier it is we'll get rid of software patents. Example: see how the whole mess around the Blackberries has helped convince people that giving out injunctions right away is bad?
No, it's only called fraud when you or me do something like that. In this case, it's called creative accounting or Hollywood accounting. The problem is not only that the laws (mainly lobbied by corporations) are so damn complicated, but these companies typically have so much more accountants/lawyers than the various governments that is pretty much impossible to actually prove anything in a court.
Might as well ask for X megabucks plain and simple. You know that even if the movie is the most successful of all time, the studios will still manage to make it look like it lost money on it.
1. Dropping Vdd to a CMOS transistors requires you to drop the threshold voltage to maintain performance. 2. As the two voltages approach each other, theres an increase in the current in the substrate (the current which flows between n-wells in a typical CMOS transistor). 3. This substrate current ends up contributing to massive amounts of leakage current.
I suspect they work around that by using a High-k dielectric. That means they can use a move a large number of charge carriers in/out of the channel without having to apply a large voltage.
Clinton's eloquence is best expressed by her actions and by results of those actions....and the fact she voted in favour of the war in Iraq, which means either: 1) She's willing to do anything, no matter how wrong, as long as it's a good political move at the moment (hey, everyone's behind the president). 2) She was too stupid to figure out the whole WMD/Al-Qaeda reason for invading was complete BS.
I think (and hope for her) that the answer is 1). But still, not someone I'd recommend.
Semiconductors sometimes increase resistance at an almost exponential rate and usually have a point where they become full insulators.
Actually, pure (non-doped) semi-conductors have *decreased* resistance when the temperature goes up. When doped, the overall resistance tends to go up a bit with temperature, but certainly not exponentially.
Electronics that operate at 100C+ is specificly and expensively designed to do so. A big lump of copper and a fan is usually easier.
Actually, my current laptop (Code 2 Duo) will operate up to around 100 degrees before shutting down (actually it decreases speed at 95 degrees).
Has anybody else noticed that Catholicism is quickly becoming the more "accepting/open-minded" branch of Christianity, especially compared to "mainstream Christianity" in the US? Discuss.
Obviously, the religious nuts in the US have recently done a lot of damage. That being said, the Catholic church hasn't really improved (it just looks better because some others are getting worse). What I consider one of the biggest crimes of that church these days is it's stance against contraception and the damage it's causing in many poor regions of the world (population increase and AIDS). With Ratzinger, it will likely get even worse. The only good thing about him is that he's so un-charismatic that he'll probably drive a few people away. Yes, the Catholic church has many stayed away from science -- probably because denying evolution doesn't bring them anything -- and instead is a lot more focused on controlling society, which is how it gets its main power.
It doesn't matter whether he removes a designation to use "any later" as he has already done, or adds it back. It's the same kind of change. So, either he did not have the right to make the change he has already made, or he has the right to make a further change by putting back the text he removed.
Well, he definitely has the right to do add extra permissions (e.g. new license option) on anything he wrote (i.e. owns copyright for) or remove permissions on anything new he writes/modifies. So *effectively*, as he modifies things, he can really really remove license alternatives ("or any later version") by modifying the code, but he can't really add permissions on anything but his own code, which is useless as it's just a small part of the kernel. That being said, I'm pretty sure that Linux was *always* released as v2-only and never had the "or any later version" clause. That would make it pretty much impossible to change license unless every single contributor agreed.
Do you work on speex or just like it? I may need to contract some work on speex in order to develop something that works as well as the 1.6 K bit MELP and is open.
But none of those licenses gives you permission to remove my copyright statement
Sure, the copyright statement stays (never said it wouldn't), just like it does when (e.g.) you take BSD software and make it proprietary (but still need to keep the original license).
And even if you do remove it, the permission still exists.
You mean the permission still exists to take the original contribution and license it under any of the original licenses? Sure.
You may mingle my work with additional works that do not permit use of some of those licenses, as long as there is one license that they all allow in common.
In common or compatible, but sure.
But as long as a copyrighted element of mine persists in the software, you must make it available with all of the terms I specified.
This is the part that's not clear... Let's say you release software under "v2 or later" and I add some v3 code in it. Obviously, I can't just stick a "v2 or later" license on the result because the new bit is v3-only. So what do I do? It's obvious that anyone can still use your code as "v2 or later" and even if they extract your code from my package, they can release it under "v2 or later" because they're not using my copyrighted stuff at all. So I'm not sure what the issue is...
I'm not following here... So I tell you you may redistribute my software under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version", you go off and redistribute it under "v2-only" (or "v3-only"), and then I can sue you for copyright infringement (because you're in breach of my license)? If that were really the case, there would be thousands of "illegal" GPL applications, starting with anyone linking with Mozilla. Do you have any link where this is described?
This is the text the FSF recommends when licensing your software under the GPL (was the same for GPLv2):
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
It's clear you can choose one of the other, hence you are free to strip any you want. In your quote, you're saying "and any later version". I'm not sure where the "and" comes from, but it's certainly not the common formulation for GPL software. Think about this: if you really couldn't strip some versions when distributing GPL software that has the "or any later version" clause, it would mean that software released as GPLv2 or later would be incompatible with software released as GPLv3 or later, which would even be incompatible with software released as GPLv3-only. In other words, "or any later version" can only be useful when you can actually drop something. Just curious, what was the piece of software that was using "and" instead of "or"?
Bruce, anyone has the right to *remove* the "or any later version" (it's "or", not "and"). Basically, the licenses says "you can redistribute under and GPL version >=2". If I choose to release as GPLv2, I'm still complying. OTOH, adding the "or any later version" is not possible unless anyone agrees. It's pretty much the same as dual-licensing. If the software says "distribute as GPL or BSD", I can keep both or strip any of them when redistributing. However, if the software says "GPL", I can't just distribute it saying "use the GPL or the BSD".
In any case, Linus *never* used the "or any later version" for Linux, it was *always* GPLv2. It's just that nobody really paid attention until there was a discussion about GPLv3.
What surprises me even more is why the hell people and developers bother with Apple products? Seriously, I just don't understand how you can piss everybody off *and* have a large loyal fanbase. Have they developed some mind control chip or are there more masochistic people in the works than I had previously thought?
...until someone attempts to bring down an aircraft by setting their clothes on fire. Of course once clothes are banned, he next step will be someone shoving a bomb up his ass... at which point I think I'll switch to train/ship for long distances.
On interesting thing would be a shiny surface with a 0-degree zig-zag. Will reflect the beam back *exactly* where it comes from, no matter what the angle is. Could be interesting...
I suppose you also believe that evolution, intelligent design and the Flying Spaghetti Monster should have equal representation in the school curriculum? And should the page about the landing on the moon have half the text stating that it is not an accepted fact and that the landing could have been faked. There's no such thing as absolute truth, but if you include every single point of view, you end up not carrying any information either. There's a fine line here and it's definitely not easy to do a good job.
Sure that would work... if spammers were still using their own servers like they did in the 90s. Otherwise, you'd have to find a way to figure out from the zombie sending email what spammer is being and send him the bill.
Seriously, I don't see how anything working remotely as described can work. First, it guarantees that any OSS mailing list will be flagged as spam because we our emails tend to be on the web and we all receive lots of spam. Then how the hell is someone going to know what percentage of spam I receive (or do they expect everyone to give them access to their inbox?)? Even if that were to work, all the spammers would have to do is let the zombies send one email at a time, at which point either they block all my email or they leave it all through. Dumb idea or dumb reporting?
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually the thing I never understood about the gun control debate in the US. I keep hearing USians saying guns are important to protect yourself and that it should be/remain a right. Yet, when it comes to airplanes, why isn't the TSA *mandating* guns on airplanes. That would only be consistent, no?
I do double-xor with a one-time pad. I've even figured out a way to do what without having to give the one-time-pad to the recipient, so I guess it counts as asymmetric cryptography.
Just a thought that occurred to me. In *some* (probably not all) way, patent trolls might be helping open source software. The reasoning is this. Patents are currently used in two main ways: 1) by big corporations trying to shut out competition from smaller companies (or OSS projects) 2) by trolls trying to make money off the big corporations. Considering that the laws in most countries are mainly bought for by the big corporations, we'll be stuck with patents for as long as 1) is worth more to the big players than 2) costs them. So I'd say the more trolls, the likelier it is we'll get rid of software patents. Example: see how the whole mess around the Blackberries has helped convince people that giving out injunctions right away is bad?
Same here. I'm 31 and can hear up to somewhere between 18 and 18.5 kHz (TV is slightly below 16 kHz). Wonder what frequency that device uses.
No, it's only called fraud when you or me do something like that. In this case, it's called creative accounting or Hollywood accounting. The problem is not only that the laws (mainly lobbied by corporations) are so damn complicated, but these companies typically have so much more accountants/lawyers than the various governments that is pretty much impossible to actually prove anything in a court.
Might as well ask for X megabucks plain and simple. You know that even if the movie is the most successful of all time, the studios will still manage to make it look like it lost money on it.
The term you're looking for is Hollywood accounting.
1. Dropping Vdd to a CMOS transistors requires you to drop the threshold voltage to maintain performance.
2. As the two voltages approach each other, theres an increase in the current in the substrate (the current which flows between n-wells in a typical CMOS transistor).
3. This substrate current ends up contributing to massive amounts of leakage current.
I suspect they work around that by using a High-k dielectric. That means they can use a move a large number of charge carriers in/out of the channel without having to apply a large voltage.
Clinton's eloquence is best expressed by her actions and by results of those actions. ...and the fact she voted in favour of the war in Iraq, which means either:
1) She's willing to do anything, no matter how wrong, as long as it's a good political move at the moment (hey, everyone's behind the president).
2) She was too stupid to figure out the whole WMD/Al-Qaeda reason for invading was complete BS.
I think (and hope for her) that the answer is 1). But still, not someone I'd recommend.
If I'm interested enough, I'll click the freaking link...
I'm sorry, this is against the Slashdot terms of conduct.
Semiconductors sometimes increase resistance at an almost exponential rate and usually have a point where they become full insulators.
Actually, pure (non-doped) semi-conductors have *decreased* resistance when the temperature goes up. When doped, the overall resistance tends to go up a bit with temperature, but certainly not exponentially.
Electronics that operate at 100C+ is specificly and expensively designed to do so. A big lump of copper and a fan is usually easier.
Actually, my current laptop (Code 2 Duo) will operate up to around 100 degrees before shutting down (actually it decreases speed at 95 degrees).
Has anybody else noticed that Catholicism is quickly becoming the more "accepting/open-minded" branch of Christianity, especially compared to "mainstream Christianity" in the US? Discuss.
Obviously, the religious nuts in the US have recently done a lot of damage. That being said, the Catholic church hasn't really improved (it just looks better because some others are getting worse). What I consider one of the biggest crimes of that church these days is it's stance against contraception and the damage it's causing in many poor regions of the world (population increase and AIDS). With Ratzinger, it will likely get even worse. The only good thing about him is that he's so un-charismatic that he'll probably drive a few people away. Yes, the Catholic church has many stayed away from science -- probably because denying evolution doesn't bring them anything -- and instead is a lot more focused on controlling society, which is how it gets its main power.
It doesn't matter whether he removes a designation to use "any later" as he has already done, or adds it back. It's the same kind of change. So, either he did not have the right to make the change he has already made, or he has the right to make a further change by putting back the text he removed.
Well, he definitely has the right to do add extra permissions (e.g. new license option) on anything he wrote (i.e. owns copyright for) or remove permissions on anything new he writes/modifies. So *effectively*, as he modifies things, he can really really remove license alternatives ("or any later version") by modifying the code, but he can't really add permissions on anything but his own code, which is useless as it's just a small part of the kernel. That being said, I'm pretty sure that Linux was *always* released as v2-only and never had the "or any later version" clause. That would make it pretty much impossible to change license unless every single contributor agreed.
Do you work on speex or just like it? I may need to contract some work on speex in order to develop something that works as well as the 1.6 K bit MELP and is open.
Yes, I'm the lead developer/maintainer.
So how should one allocate the fractional parts?
Easy. Forced deportation.
But none of those licenses gives you permission to remove my copyright statement
Sure, the copyright statement stays (never said it wouldn't), just like it does when (e.g.) you take BSD software and make it proprietary (but still need to keep the original license).
And even if you do remove it, the permission still exists.
You mean the permission still exists to take the original contribution and license it under any of the original licenses? Sure.
You may mingle my work with additional works that do not permit use of some of those licenses, as long as there is one license that they all allow in common.
In common or compatible, but sure.
But as long as a copyrighted element of mine persists in the software, you must make it available with all of the terms I specified.
This is the part that's not clear... Let's say you release software under "v2 or later" and I add some v3 code in it. Obviously, I can't just stick a "v2 or later" license on the result because the new bit is v3-only. So what do I do? It's obvious that anyone can still use your code as "v2 or later" and even if they extract your code from my package, they can release it under "v2 or later" because they're not using my copyrighted stuff at all. So I'm not sure what the issue is...
I'm not following here... So I tell you you may redistribute my software under "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version", you go off and redistribute it under "v2-only" (or "v3-only"), and then I can sue you for copyright infringement (because you're in breach of my license)? If that were really the case, there would be thousands of "illegal" GPL applications, starting with anyone linking with Mozilla. Do you have any link where this is described?
This is the text the FSF recommends when licensing your software under the GPL (was the same for GPLv2):
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
It's clear you can choose one of the other, hence you are free to strip any you want. In your quote, you're saying "and any later version". I'm not sure where the "and" comes from, but it's certainly not the common formulation for GPL software. Think about this: if you really couldn't strip some versions when distributing GPL software that has the "or any later version" clause, it would mean that software released as GPLv2 or later would be incompatible with software released as GPLv3 or later, which would even be incompatible with software released as GPLv3-only. In other words, "or any later version" can only be useful when you can actually drop something. Just curious, what was the piece of software that was using "and" instead of "or"?
Bruce, anyone has the right to *remove* the "or any later version" (it's "or", not "and"). Basically, the licenses says "you can redistribute under and GPL version >=2". If I choose to release as GPLv2, I'm still complying. OTOH, adding the "or any later version" is not possible unless anyone agrees. It's pretty much the same as dual-licensing. If the software says "distribute as GPL or BSD", I can keep both or strip any of them when redistributing. However, if the software says "GPL", I can't just distribute it saying "use the GPL or the BSD".
In any case, Linus *never* used the "or any later version" for Linux, it was *always* GPLv2. It's just that nobody really paid attention until there was a discussion about GPLv3.
What surprises me even more is why the hell people and developers bother with Apple products? Seriously, I just don't understand how you can piss everybody off *and* have a large loyal fanbase. Have they developed some mind control chip or are there more masochistic people in the works than I had previously thought?
...until someone attempts to bring down an aircraft by setting their clothes on fire. Of course once clothes are banned, he next step will be someone shoving a bomb up his ass... at which point I think I'll switch to train/ship for long distances.
On interesting thing would be a shiny surface with a 0-degree zig-zag. Will reflect the beam back *exactly* where it comes from, no matter what the angle is. Could be interesting...
Then how do you reckon the universe actually...works...and stuff.
I don't believe in that Universe thing you keep talking about.
I suppose you also believe that evolution, intelligent design and the Flying Spaghetti Monster should have equal representation in the school curriculum? And should the page about the landing on the moon have half the text stating that it is not an accepted fact and that the landing could have been faked. There's no such thing as absolute truth, but if you include every single point of view, you end up not carrying any information either. There's a fine line here and it's definitely not easy to do a good job.
Sure that would work... if spammers were still using their own servers like they did in the 90s. Otherwise, you'd have to find a way to figure out from the zombie sending email what spammer is being and send him the bill.
Seriously, I don't see how anything working remotely as described can work. First, it guarantees that any OSS mailing list will be flagged as spam because we our emails tend to be on the web and we all receive lots of spam. Then how the hell is someone going to know what percentage of spam I receive (or do they expect everyone to give them access to their inbox?)? Even if that were to work, all the spammers would have to do is let the zombies send one email at a time, at which point either they block all my email or they leave it all through. Dumb idea or dumb reporting?