I think part of the confusion here about dual licensing is that it can mean two different things to people: 1) What Theo talks about is dual licensing in the sense that some parts of the code is released under one license and another part is released under another license. In that case, you need to conform to both licenses (so the licenses must be compatible) 2) When it comes to software like Mozilla (and many other), dual licensing means that you can use the software under any of the proposed license. That can only work is all copyright holders agree to have all pieces of the software under that second type of dual license. In that case, the licenses are not required to be compatible, because you can choose only one (e.g. Mozilla can be used under any of the MPL, GPL and LGPL, even though the MPL and GPL are incompatible).
So yes, Theo is right that you can't strip the BSD license when merging with GPL code because in this case, we're talking about the first type of dual licensing.
And I suppose calling the other an idiot removes the need for including any argument, right? Mailing to yourself *does* prove you came up with it first. Whether the proof useful in a dispute is another question that depends on the work itself. However, it's sufficient for "moral rights", i.e. claiming you did/wrote/invented it first.
If all you care about is proving you did it first, you can just mail the thing to yourself and keep the sealed envelope. Note however that if a patent is involved, the one who gets the patent is the first to file (in most countries except for the US), so if you don't file someone else can get the patent (even in the US) even if you can prove you invented it first. I would tend to go with "publish it" as a better option.
If I made unlimited copies of the Sunday New York Times or the most recent Harry Potter book and put them out on a street corner -- and people started taking them -- why would I not be responsible in some capacity?... Where does my logic break down?
In at least four places: 1) In the "book on the street corner" example, it's obvious whether some people took copies because there are less copies left than when you put them there (assuming it's possible to prove how many you made) 2) If you put a stack of books on the corner, then you've *already* made the copies, whereas with file sharing no copy is made until someone downloads the file. 3) Putting the books on the street corner is more like uploading files to a website. File sharing would be closer to putting the books in your front yard (or back yard, depending on interpretation). 4) If you make copies and bring them on the street, you can't say you did it by accident, so the intent is clear. If it's available on your machine from P2P, then it's at least *possible* that it wasn't intentional (unlike uploading the content to a remote public website).
The idea is not that much increasing the number of graduates, but the quality of the graduates. You keep the same number, except that now you can select from a much wider pool because money is no longer a barrier. More selective (ideally) means better students.
doubling, then doubling again, then doubling again is x^2, not 2^x.
Sorry to be putting it this way, but this is elementary school stuff. x^2 is 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36,... not quite what I'd call "doubling, then doubling again, then doubling again".
Exponential growth would be: 2, 16, 65536
So now 2^3 = 65536? That's definitely an interesting new definition of the exponent. BTW, what you're describing is the 2^(4^N) series and you're right, it's not very common.
Exponential is exponential (the increase from this year to next year is larger than the increase from last year to this year). It doesn't matter how you measure it. You can measure it in dollars, percentage, pounds or filluvian credits.
Even heard of inflation? Noticed how prices and salaries have both been growing exponentially for quite a while (as in more than a hundred years) now?
Depends how you measure growth. If you measure in dollars, then indefinite exponential growth is possible. Even in constant dollar (or XYZ resource), exponential growth is possible over quite a long time as long as the growth isn't that rapid.
Exponential growth for a business isn't even possible, unless maybe you start out really, really small, and for a short amount of time.
Of course, it's possible. Not only possible, but actually very easy to do. You start with no business and the next year, you have twice as much, and so on. Though seriously, exponential growth is what the general economy has been doing for quite a while. Every year, we get X % growth, so it's exponential. Exponential doesn't mean it has to go through the roof, 0.00001 % annual growth is still exponential.
It's in the javascript options (whether you allow javascript to change the toolbar). I just disable that and see the links properly (or course the js ones look odd).
Here's a solution. Look at your status bar. If you see some wacko, malformed mailto: address appear when you hover over the link, don't click on it. The damned thing is longer than my arm! If it doesn't say joeuser@domain.foo, don't click. That simple.
Not that simple. Many browsers allow the remote site to change the string in the status bar by default (that's the first thing I disable). Until browsers show you the real destination by default, you can't expect people to notice the malformed mailto:
Or just considered they *knew* they couldn't win the war, so it didn't really matter. The only important thing was to go in there, no matter what the consequences are. Also keep in mind that to cover their asses up, they had to make sure the "expert reports" were as vague as possible. They didn't want 100 perfectly clear reports that Irak didn't have WMD, so they had to limit the amount of intelligence they got. Overall, I don't think they planned/knew everything, but I don't believe they're as crazy as they appear.
If they really are not affected (remains to be seen), it could possibly be either because 1) Apple shipped with a batch that isn't affected or 2) OS X isn't doing things that can trigger the bug.
I personally wouldn't put too much trust into a measurement that depends on gravitational acceleration for several reasons. 1) It means you can't move the setup somewhere else easily because gravity is location-dependent 2) Events like the 2004 tsunami has a slight (but measurable) effect on the Earth's rotation and hence on the acceleration (because of centrifugal force)... and most importantly 3) Your measurement will (*literally*) depend on the phase of the moon (just like tides)
That was my thought. Especially since I'm sure there must lots of parameters that can be tweaked to make the model fit. I can't help but think that "We achieved 80% accuracy learning our training set" isn't a very sexy thing to report in a paper:-)
Water is obviously inconvenient for this, requiring a column 32 ft high, although it is very precise, because minute changes in pressure cause large fluctuations in the height of the column.
Actually, I don't think using water would be very precise because the required vacuum would cause the water to boil until the vapour pressure went high enough to prevent the boiling. This mean you'd have to take into account that vapour pressure (which depends on temperature) in the measurement.
Considering the incredible number of species we know, I'm really curious what they claim was the size of Noah's Ark. Anyone knows? I'm not sure the Titanic would be able to fit all of that... I'm also very curious about the method used to mice and cats aboard the same boat.:-)
Keep in mind that most of the (tech) people hired by Mandriva, Linspire and all are packagers and not developers (I said most, not all). Look at Who wrote 2.6.10 to get an idea of the companies that contribute to the Linux kernel (I assume the other pieces of software are roughly similar). Outside of RedHat, the only other distro you see there is Novel with a contribution around 3%. No way in hell a bunch of distros with MS deals can fork the entire GPL codebase. Without the rest of the community, they wouldn't be better off than if the software was closed source to begin with. There are many things to worry about with MS, but a "giant GPL fork" is not one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I think part of the confusion here about dual licensing is that it can mean two different things to people:
1) What Theo talks about is dual licensing in the sense that some parts of the code is released under one license and another part is released under another license. In that case, you need to conform to both licenses (so the licenses must be compatible)
2) When it comes to software like Mozilla (and many other), dual licensing means that you can use the software under any of the proposed license. That can only work is all copyright holders agree to have all pieces of the software under that second type of dual license. In that case, the licenses are not required to be compatible, because you can choose only one (e.g. Mozilla can be used under any of the MPL, GPL and LGPL, even though the MPL and GPL are incompatible).
So yes, Theo is right that you can't strip the BSD license when merging with GPL code because in this case, we're talking about the first type of dual licensing.
Offering people wrong advice makes you an idiot.
And I suppose calling the other an idiot removes the need for including any argument, right? Mailing to yourself *does* prove you came up with it first. Whether the proof useful in a dispute is another question that depends on the work itself. However, it's sufficient for "moral rights", i.e. claiming you did/wrote/invented it first.
If all you care about is proving you did it first, you can just mail the thing to yourself and keep the sealed envelope. Note however that if a patent is involved, the one who gets the patent is the first to file (in most countries except for the US), so if you don't file someone else can get the patent (even in the US) even if you can prove you invented it first. I would tend to go with "publish it" as a better option.
If I made unlimited copies of the Sunday New York Times or the most recent Harry Potter book and put them out on a street corner -- and people started taking them -- why would I not be responsible in some capacity? ...
Where does my logic break down?
In at least four places:
1) In the "book on the street corner" example, it's obvious whether some people took copies because there are less copies left than when you put them there (assuming it's possible to prove how many you made)
2) If you put a stack of books on the corner, then you've *already* made the copies, whereas with file sharing no copy is made until someone downloads the file.
3) Putting the books on the street corner is more like uploading files to a website. File sharing would be closer to putting the books in your front yard (or back yard, depending on interpretation).
4) If you make copies and bring them on the street, you can't say you did it by accident, so the intent is clear. If it's available on your machine from P2P, then it's at least *possible* that it wasn't intentional (unlike uploading the content to a remote public website).
The idea is not that much increasing the number of graduates, but the quality of the graduates. You keep the same number, except that now you can select from a much wider pool because money is no longer a barrier. More selective (ideally) means better students.
doubling, then doubling again, then doubling again is x^2, not 2^x.
... not quite what I'd call "doubling, then doubling again, then doubling again".
Sorry to be putting it this way, but this is elementary school stuff. x^2 is 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36,
Exponential growth would be: 2, 16, 65536
So now 2^3 = 65536? That's definitely an interesting new definition of the exponent. BTW, what you're describing is the 2^(4^N) series and you're right, it's not very common.
So 2^x isn't exponential? I suppose you can enlighten me on that?
Exponential is exponential (the increase from this year to next year is larger than the increase from last year to this year). It doesn't matter how you measure it. You can measure it in dollars, percentage, pounds or filluvian credits.
Even heard of inflation? Noticed how prices and salaries have both been growing exponentially for quite a while (as in more than a hundred years) now?
Depends how you measure growth. If you measure in dollars, then indefinite exponential growth is possible. Even in constant dollar (or XYZ resource), exponential growth is possible over quite a long time as long as the growth isn't that rapid.
Exponential growth for a business isn't even possible, unless maybe you start out really, really small, and for a short amount of time.
Of course, it's possible. Not only possible, but actually very easy to do. You start with no business and the next year, you have twice as much, and so on. Though seriously, exponential growth is what the general economy has been doing for quite a while. Every year, we get X % growth, so it's exponential. Exponential doesn't mean it has to go through the roof, 0.00001 % annual growth is still exponential.
That's easy, it means it must be made of something lighter than hydrogen, like... euh... well...
That's all you need
All they found was a paper clip :-(
It's in the javascript options (whether you allow javascript to change the toolbar). I just disable that and see the links properly (or course the js ones look odd).
Here's a solution. Look at your status bar. If you see some wacko, malformed mailto: address appear when you hover over the link, don't click on it. The damned thing is longer than my arm! If it doesn't say joeuser@domain.foo, don't click. That simple.
Not that simple. Many browsers allow the remote site to change the string in the status bar by default (that's the first thing I disable). Until browsers show you the real destination by default, you can't expect people to notice the malformed mailto:
Or just considered they *knew* they couldn't win the war, so it didn't really matter. The only important thing was to go in there, no matter what the consequences are. Also keep in mind that to cover their asses up, they had to make sure the "expert reports" were as vague as possible. They didn't want 100 perfectly clear reports that Irak didn't have WMD, so they had to limit the amount of intelligence they got. Overall, I don't think they planned/knew everything, but I don't believe they're as crazy as they appear.
If they really are not affected (remains to be seen), it could possibly be either because 1) Apple shipped with a batch that isn't affected or 2) OS X isn't doing things that can trigger the bug.
Read. Original comment. Again. Idiot. (oh and read the replies in case you missed it the first time)
If these guys are making an object levitate they are weighting it (not measuring the mass), which is exactly what I was pointing out.
I personally wouldn't put too much trust into a measurement that depends on gravitational acceleration for several reasons. ... and most importantly
1) It means you can't move the setup somewhere else easily because gravity is location-dependent
2) Events like the 2004 tsunami has a slight (but measurable) effect on the Earth's rotation and hence on the acceleration (because of centrifugal force)
3) Your measurement will (*literally*) depend on the phase of the moon (just like tides)
That was my thought. Especially since I'm sure there must lots of parameters that can be tweaked to make the model fit. I can't help but think that "We achieved 80% accuracy learning our training set" isn't a very sexy thing to report in a paper :-)
Water is obviously inconvenient for this, requiring a column 32 ft high, although it is very precise, because minute changes in pressure cause large fluctuations in the height of the column.
Actually, I don't think using water would be very precise because the required vacuum would cause the water to boil until the vapour pressure went high enough to prevent the boiling. This mean you'd have to take into account that vapour pressure (which depends on temperature) in the measurement.
Microsoft has opened itself to being sued for deceptive marketing practices
Considering they got away claiming they were selling Operating Systems, I don't think this will be a problem.
Considering the incredible number of species we know, I'm really curious what they claim was the size of Noah's Ark. Anyone knows? I'm not sure the Titanic would be able to fit all of that... I'm also very curious about the method used to mice and cats aboard the same boat. :-)
Keep in mind that most of the (tech) people hired by Mandriva, Linspire and all are packagers and not developers (I said most, not all). Look at Who wrote 2.6.10 to get an idea of the companies that contribute to the Linux kernel (I assume the other pieces of software are roughly similar). Outside of RedHat, the only other distro you see there is Novel with a contribution around 3%. No way in hell a bunch of distros with MS deals can fork the entire GPL codebase. Without the rest of the community, they wouldn't be better off than if the software was closed source to begin with. There are many things to worry about with MS, but a "giant GPL fork" is not one of them.