Patent trolls don't generally have a competing product. The amount of money that Apple stands to gain by having a competitor locked out of the market is likely to be a lot more than what they can reasonably collect if they win a later patent case.
But more importantly, it keeps competitors out of the minds of possible consumers.
Indeed, I doubt very much that Linus wants to go through the hassle of relicensing to GPLv3. I'm sure there are developers that would like to do that, but reimplementing the code from developers that can't or won't relicense it under the GPLv3 is enough of a poison pill to keep it from happening.
I suppose they could change the requirements for new patches in, but I doubt that's worthwhile given that you'd have to find people to reimplement large swaths of the kernel. Granted I'm sure some of that ought to be done anyways as there's probably parts of the kernel that could use a rewrite at this stage, but still not going to happen.
Android can't be GPL v3 licensed without relicensing the kernel, which won't happen. That's the part where you'd have to change the license if you want to prevent that from happening and as it stands it's compatible with the language of the GPL v2 that the Linux kernel uses.
Not suggesting that I like the locked down phones or that it isn't injurious to the ecosystem, but that is how that is.
The GPL does however prevent people from distributing derivative works without the source and then there is the matter of the anti-tivoization language in the GPL v3.
Some might consider the ability to link in GPL code in otherwise non-GPL code and vice versa to be a fundamental freedom that open source is supposed to provide.
If the professor is doing that, then the professor isn't very good at lecturing. Giving the same lecture over and over is indeed a waste of time. Some classes need more explanation on one point or a different emphasis on another. A good teacher will tell you that no two classes are alike, even if there are mostly the same students in both classes.
That's not to say that having prerecorded lectures is a waste of time, there are plenty of reasons to do it, and ultimately it's great to provide them to the students, just not as an alternative to class time. Which is my main concern when instructors provide those tapes.
This varies a great deal and unfortunately class size and the culture of the school greatly impact that. The schools I've been to were fairly small and were very focused on interactions between the students and the instructor and really between students. It's not typically something that just happens, it does have to be developed.
That being said, it does happen somewhat naturally although not typically in an organized and coordinated fashion, that part needs help. As the K-12 system ditches the banking model of education it should become more and more common for students to do that in college as well.
Q&A of that sort tends to be a waste of time. Sure there should be some time for that during class, but really that's what office hours are for. If you're going to convene a class, there's much better ways of using the time. For instance meaningful discussion and group work.
You're supposed to do the readings before class, and that's typically how instructors assign them so that you've got a basis for listening during the lecture.
I'm using the term lecture somewhat loosely as you're really not supposed to be talking for more than about 10 minutes tops without some form of student engagement. Lecturing longer than that tends to be counterproductive and make it hard to follow. Also it probably means that you haven't divided the material up into reasonable size bites.
Not if you got to a good school. I remember during my undergraduate days, most of the faculty was clearly and obviously engaged in the process of teaching. Every once in a while you'd end up with somebody that shouldn't be teaching, but for the most part it was clear that they wanted to be there.
Nobody trusted him since he left wikileaks. Openleaks was and will always be a joke due to the insistence on only dealing with leaks where they can track the ID. I can understand that, but by the same token anybody that's that unconcerned with being fingered is probably better off just dealing with a journalist anyways.
Hemp cloth isn't banned nor has it ever been banned. I know this because I can go to the local mall and buy items that are made with hemp without having to use code words and the package itself says that it's made from hemp.
Now, if you're talking about cultivation, that's a completely different matter. Either way, you shouldn't be spreading that sort of misinformation.
Genetic engineering isn't the issue. The issue is that they do their test plots without any precautions against contaminating neighboring plants and it's been documented that the genes do end up in other fields and in some cases in weeds.
As for repealing prohibition, it's never a good idea to repeal things like this because there's a hardcore group that doesn't give a damn what the consequences to their actions are. Sure, that's ultimately the path that's going to be taken, but it's really not conducive to democracy to have allow a bunch of self centered brats undermine the system by refusing to obey the law.
This isn't like the boycotts and sit ins of the 50s and 60s for civil rights, this is because a bunch of babies doesn't feel like changing the law the right way.
I take it you've got a medical degree, otherwise complaining about folks spreading their ignorance would be rich with irony.
If it really is as you say, then provide some sort of citation. The US is hardly the entire world, and if that's really the case then surely there's studies out of Europe that show that you're not full of it.
Consoles, assuming they were engineered properly, are much more efficient with their RAM than computers are. I'm not current on such things, but typically in the past you'd be dealing with units of bits and as such you wouldn't be wasting as much as you'd end up wasting with a typical computer. Traditionally the same goes with storage space as well.
Thanks for proving my point for me. This is precisely what I was talking about. Einstein didn't only hang out with 8 year olds, he also hung out with some of the most intellectually advanced individuals of his generation a group which one would have a really hard time typically meeting.
It's not that they can't make friends, it's that sometimes it's nice to spend time with folks that are actually interested in carrying on an intelligent conversation. And for somebody that is apparently anti-intellectual, I'm sure it would surprise you to learn that being the apex of the world around you intellectually is frequently a source of confidence problems as you never know when you're full of it because nobody is capable of calling you on it.
Probably because it was arrogant and ignorant. 99 cents in 1970 comes out to a lot more than 99 cents does today. Plus that was before most of the income redistribution occurred, when folks had a pension waiting for them at retirement.
I take it your score wasn't high enough to gain entrance.
Believe it or not, sometimes it's nice to have people available that are cognitively strong enough that they represent some challenge. It's astonishingly annoying to argue with people that lack the education and cognitive faculties to put up a decent argument.
Creationism is a completely unscientific belief, and yes the teacher should be fired for bringing known pseudoscience into a science classroom. Science is confusing enough with the constant churn of new ideas without introducing ones that water it down.
Now, if he or she wants to cover it in a more suitable subject like philosophy, then that's fine, but just because you can find a small number of nutters that believe it does not mean that it's a scientifically valid hypothesis.
This is also the reason why the burden of proof lies on the party making the positive claim in most cases. One can never prove that something doesn't exist conclusively. But, without any evidence at all to support the notion that God exists, and even less to support the belief in creationism, I think it's pretty safe to suggest that for all intents and purposes that it's not even close.
That's easy, she lived to become that old because she didn't die. As noble as it is, it's doubtful that they'll find any useful information as the people who lived to be 100+ years old are just the tail end of the distribution, there's as much luck involved as anything else.
My thought was that they shouldn't be using SAT, ACT or GRE scores as they're known to be more influenced by ones household income and motivation than intellect. Despite the complaints, the reality is that a properly designed and normed IQ test would be far more informative than any of those tests would be in this area.
As for the other qualifications, not going to be of any sort of meaningful help as there are tons of ways in which one can win them, they aren't likely to find any useful genes as a result.
That's socialist talk buddy. Next thing you're going to suggest that executives shouldn't get obscene bonuses for running their company into the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
Patent trolls don't generally have a competing product. The amount of money that Apple stands to gain by having a competitor locked out of the market is likely to be a lot more than what they can reasonably collect if they win a later patent case.
But more importantly, it keeps competitors out of the minds of possible consumers.
Indeed, I doubt very much that Linus wants to go through the hassle of relicensing to GPLv3. I'm sure there are developers that would like to do that, but reimplementing the code from developers that can't or won't relicense it under the GPLv3 is enough of a poison pill to keep it from happening.
I suppose they could change the requirements for new patches in, but I doubt that's worthwhile given that you'd have to find people to reimplement large swaths of the kernel. Granted I'm sure some of that ought to be done anyways as there's probably parts of the kernel that could use a rewrite at this stage, but still not going to happen.
Android can't be GPL v3 licensed without relicensing the kernel, which won't happen. That's the part where you'd have to change the license if you want to prevent that from happening and as it stands it's compatible with the language of the GPL v2 that the Linux kernel uses.
Not suggesting that I like the locked down phones or that it isn't injurious to the ecosystem, but that is how that is.
The GPL does however prevent people from distributing derivative works without the source and then there is the matter of the anti-tivoization language in the GPL v3.
Some might consider the ability to link in GPL code in otherwise non-GPL code and vice versa to be a fundamental freedom that open source is supposed to provide.
Easiest way to avoid that is to go to a small school or get those requirements out of the way at a community college.
If the professor is doing that, then the professor isn't very good at lecturing. Giving the same lecture over and over is indeed a waste of time. Some classes need more explanation on one point or a different emphasis on another. A good teacher will tell you that no two classes are alike, even if there are mostly the same students in both classes.
That's not to say that having prerecorded lectures is a waste of time, there are plenty of reasons to do it, and ultimately it's great to provide them to the students, just not as an alternative to class time. Which is my main concern when instructors provide those tapes.
This varies a great deal and unfortunately class size and the culture of the school greatly impact that. The schools I've been to were fairly small and were very focused on interactions between the students and the instructor and really between students. It's not typically something that just happens, it does have to be developed.
That being said, it does happen somewhat naturally although not typically in an organized and coordinated fashion, that part needs help. As the K-12 system ditches the banking model of education it should become more and more common for students to do that in college as well.
Q&A of that sort tends to be a waste of time. Sure there should be some time for that during class, but really that's what office hours are for. If you're going to convene a class, there's much better ways of using the time. For instance meaningful discussion and group work.
You're supposed to do the readings before class, and that's typically how instructors assign them so that you've got a basis for listening during the lecture.
I'm using the term lecture somewhat loosely as you're really not supposed to be talking for more than about 10 minutes tops without some form of student engagement. Lecturing longer than that tends to be counterproductive and make it hard to follow. Also it probably means that you haven't divided the material up into reasonable size bites.
Not if you got to a good school. I remember during my undergraduate days, most of the faculty was clearly and obviously engaged in the process of teaching. Every once in a while you'd end up with somebody that shouldn't be teaching, but for the most part it was clear that they wanted to be there.
Um, dude, 1984 was like 27 years ago. We're way past 1984.
Nobody trusted him since he left wikileaks. Openleaks was and will always be a joke due to the insistence on only dealing with leaks where they can track the ID. I can understand that, but by the same token anybody that's that unconcerned with being fingered is probably better off just dealing with a journalist anyways.
Indeed, DDB is scum and probably working for an intelligence service, but vigilantism isn't going to make things any better.
Hemp cloth isn't banned nor has it ever been banned. I know this because I can go to the local mall and buy items that are made with hemp without having to use code words and the package itself says that it's made from hemp.
Now, if you're talking about cultivation, that's a completely different matter. Either way, you shouldn't be spreading that sort of misinformation.
Genetic engineering isn't the issue. The issue is that they do their test plots without any precautions against contaminating neighboring plants and it's been documented that the genes do end up in other fields and in some cases in weeds.
As for repealing prohibition, it's never a good idea to repeal things like this because there's a hardcore group that doesn't give a damn what the consequences to their actions are. Sure, that's ultimately the path that's going to be taken, but it's really not conducive to democracy to have allow a bunch of self centered brats undermine the system by refusing to obey the law.
This isn't like the boycotts and sit ins of the 50s and 60s for civil rights, this is because a bunch of babies doesn't feel like changing the law the right way.
I take it you've got a medical degree, otherwise complaining about folks spreading their ignorance would be rich with irony.
If it really is as you say, then provide some sort of citation. The US is hardly the entire world, and if that's really the case then surely there's studies out of Europe that show that you're not full of it.
Consoles, assuming they were engineered properly, are much more efficient with their RAM than computers are. I'm not current on such things, but typically in the past you'd be dealing with units of bits and as such you wouldn't be wasting as much as you'd end up wasting with a typical computer. Traditionally the same goes with storage space as well.
Thanks for proving my point for me. This is precisely what I was talking about. Einstein didn't only hang out with 8 year olds, he also hung out with some of the most intellectually advanced individuals of his generation a group which one would have a really hard time typically meeting.
It's not that they can't make friends, it's that sometimes it's nice to spend time with folks that are actually interested in carrying on an intelligent conversation. And for somebody that is apparently anti-intellectual, I'm sure it would surprise you to learn that being the apex of the world around you intellectually is frequently a source of confidence problems as you never know when you're full of it because nobody is capable of calling you on it.
BTW, thanks again for proving my point for me.
Indeed it is, they ought to pay me for listening to that crap.
Probably because it was arrogant and ignorant. 99 cents in 1970 comes out to a lot more than 99 cents does today. Plus that was before most of the income redistribution occurred, when folks had a pension waiting for them at retirement.
I take it your score wasn't high enough to gain entrance.
Believe it or not, sometimes it's nice to have people available that are cognitively strong enough that they represent some challenge. It's astonishingly annoying to argue with people that lack the education and cognitive faculties to put up a decent argument.
Creationism is a completely unscientific belief, and yes the teacher should be fired for bringing known pseudoscience into a science classroom. Science is confusing enough with the constant churn of new ideas without introducing ones that water it down.
Now, if he or she wants to cover it in a more suitable subject like philosophy, then that's fine, but just because you can find a small number of nutters that believe it does not mean that it's a scientifically valid hypothesis.
This is also the reason why the burden of proof lies on the party making the positive claim in most cases. One can never prove that something doesn't exist conclusively. But, without any evidence at all to support the notion that God exists, and even less to support the belief in creationism, I think it's pretty safe to suggest that for all intents and purposes that it's not even close.
That's easy, she lived to become that old because she didn't die. As noble as it is, it's doubtful that they'll find any useful information as the people who lived to be 100+ years old are just the tail end of the distribution, there's as much luck involved as anything else.
My thought was that they shouldn't be using SAT, ACT or GRE scores as they're known to be more influenced by ones household income and motivation than intellect. Despite the complaints, the reality is that a properly designed and normed IQ test would be far more informative than any of those tests would be in this area.
As for the other qualifications, not going to be of any sort of meaningful help as there are tons of ways in which one can win them, they aren't likely to find any useful genes as a result.
That's socialist talk buddy. Next thing you're going to suggest that executives shouldn't get obscene bonuses for running their company into the ground.