They keep the code separate because it's under a different license and by keeping it separate they aren't forced to change the license on all the rest of the code. If you look in the source tree, it's not just GPL code that's kept separately, there's an entire tree for contrib. The code in that module is still GPL code and the resulting binary is GPL when it's compiled in.
Care to cite a reference for where the BSD license permits people to change the license other than the people that own the rights to the code? I'm guessing you can't, because it doesn't exist. Yes, you are permitted to take the code and compile it without providing the source, but the code itself is still BSD licensed code, and nothing is going to change that.
Considering that it's the rabid GPL fanbois that seem to be of the opinion that forcing people to lie about using their code is such a great idea, I'm not sure how much credibility they have. The bottom line is that the code is going to be borrowed either way. At least with the permissive licensing it's likely that they'll post a notice that they're using the code and give back to the community.
The GPL seemed like a good idea at the time, but at this point, this kind of heavy handed licensing is neither necessary nor useful.
You can't relicense somebody else's code. You can use the code however you like, but you're required to use the code only with the license intact.
It gets a little bit odd when you mix GPL code into the mix. But, the GPL code is usually segregated to keep it from contaminating the rest of the code. So, when you compile it the resultant binaries would be GPL, but only the portion of the source code that was GPL is GPL. Or at least that's how it was under the GPLv2, not sure what GPLv3 really does there.
Using APIs and ABIs that are based upon GPL code does not require that the binaries be GPLed either. I'm not quite sure as to what the problem here is with the GPL, but it's a GPLv3 specific problem.
Right and it's a moot point if Compiler X is faster than both of them if the license requires that you be riding a unicycle while compiling.
I know a lot of the Linux zealots don't care to acknowledge it, but the reality is that the viral clauses are just a matter of cutting off your own nose to spite your face. There's a real incentive to contributing back patches in that it's expensive to maintain your own fork, just for a few patches.
It's not just about faster, compilers sometimes have stability and reliability problems when using higher levels of optimization. GCC wasn't able to handle much more than -O2, IIRC, and even at -O2, there were warnings about not bothering to report bugs without first trying it with lower levels of optimization.
If clang is able to handle -O3 in a production environment without the warnings, that's perfectly legitimate to compare with gcc with current default optimizations.
Do you have evidence to back that up? I think it's more likely that they're going to fail because of technological reasons than not trying. Plus, the reality here is that if this is a scam, that they'll be found out when they don't actually build anything. A project with that much attention is just not a viable method of scamming people.
You obviously haven't worked in areas where you can't build roads. The reality is that most of those areas aren't typically suitable for airships either. You've got steep hills and deep canyons. And something the shape and size of an airship is going to be a logistical nightmare to use in a situation like that. Even up north in the Arctic there are serious problems as well.
Yes, the maneuverability is better than in the past, but it's not that good. And most of the best mining ground in the world is in areas where ships like this just don't work. Even if they can convert into heavier than air for periods, trying to fly something with that much surface area in a place like the Andes is a logistical nightmare.
So, they might claim that this is reasonable, but between the limited cargo capacity per volume of ship and the terrain they're talking about, I wouldn't expect this to happen in the next few decades or ever. This sounds like city boy talk about how easy it's going to be for them to get into an area where the locals haven't been able to. And it rarely works out well, otherwise the locals would already have been doing it.
I disagree, I may not be the ultimate authority on all things mining, but I did used to work in the back country. And, this technology isn't going to be of any use in areas where you genuinely can't build roads. One summer, I was physically carrying gear up a steep mountain because there wasn't any way of getting a helicopter in, and the trail wasn't big enough for pack animals. The area itself used to be popular for copper mining and quite profitable back in the early 20th century.
What's more, when you're dealing with a mining operation that's large enough to even consider something like this, you're talking tons of materials going in and out over the course of a season. The dump trucks alone can be the size of a house, and weigh many tons.
In the arctic, you have plenty of room, but ultimately, the technology they're talking about is many years away from being able to handle that kind of weather, and you'd have to have a huge fleet of these ships to make that even plausible.
So, it's not undeniable, it's only undeniable if you don't know crap about mining or work in the back country. The bottom line here is that the claims in the article are overly sunny and largely designed to get people to invest in the project.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong, but it wasn't just technology that kept this from being a reality in the past, it was the fact that airships just are not appropriate for this type of use. There wasn't even a sense that it was a direction to go on in the past.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but there's a reason why this technology was never used for this purpose back in the '30s. What's more, it was never proposed for this purpose.
I'm familiar with how the vessel operates, it's just questionable if it's going to have any practical application like this. The amount of supplies that mining crews need is huge, take a look at the vehicles they're using. They're both immensely heavy, as well as huge. The dumptrucks that the larger mines are using are literally larger than a house.
The reality here is that these vehicles have limited use as they're both light on their cargo capacity in terms of mass as well as in terms of volume. And yes, they do maneuver better than the ones in the past, but they're still not going to be useful in the way that the GGP was talking about.
Yes, because at this point they're still hoping to actually do this. So, somebody needed to review the applications. Sure, they might have made some profit on this, but it's not like they're getting to keep all that money. Which even if they did, the $7m or so would be a drop in the pool of funding needed to even try this.
I don't think you understand how lighter than air crafts work. Yes, they can use the engines for a bit of lift, but no, they can't be used as you describe. These craft have severely limited capacity for cargo, ever seen a photo of one of those things? The size of the compartment is tiny compared with the rest of the craft.
What's more, you'd be far, far better off just getting a Chinook, as those are much smaller and are designed to handle a substantial amount of cargo.
But, even a Chinook is going to be more expensive than just trucking it. Anybody with a mine doing substantial volume is going to have to have roads anyways, as miners do need to eat, and there's a tone of other supplies involved as well.
I like airships, the problem is that they're not practical these days. Back in the '30s, I'm sure they were great, but the parts of the world that can afford lighter than air travel, also have decent railroads and highway systems that can make the trip with more efficiency.
I suppose this might replace ships for passengers, but even there, I can't imagine it being practical.
Yes, but compared with what solid stat drives can do, it's a bad idea. Microdrives have been out for years, but outside of studio work, they were never very popular amongst photographers.
That's an "interesting" way of looking at it. My Lai was bad, but they did investigate that.
In the case of Abu Ghraib, they still haven't done an appropriate investigation. Some General should have been shitcanned over that one, the idea that it was just a few low level personnel is just laughable.
During the Vietnam Era, none of the Presidents involved were willing to come out and admit to ordering the kinds of crimes against humanity that the Bush Administration openly admitted to ordering at GITMO.
Yes, there are camera phones, but that's not the same thing as accountability. The US has declared sovereign immunity in many cases, and the people that need to be prosecuted, as in the brass, aren't the ones that are caught on tape.
Refusing to turn over sources is criminal in many cases, but the fifth doesn't really apply as it's known that they aren't handing over their sources. There's no need for them to testify against themselves as a refusal to name the sources is self evident.
The reason why is that the party accused is the only one that truly knows all of the facts. Forcing them to testify against themselves is unique in that there's an advantage to them perjuring themselves wherever possible. And as a result, even if these people were forced to testify, very little of what they said could be taken seriously anyways as the penalty for perjury is often less than the penalty for the crime for which they're being tried.
Whereas people who do not qualify for 5th amendment protections have substantially less incentive to lie under oath.
What's more, the 5th amendment protects defendants from being forced to interpret evidence that might not normally lead directly to them.
I suppose you could make the argument that a journalist would be committing a crime in terms of obstruction of justice and perjury, but most of the time when a judge gets upset by them refusing to name their sources, that's done under contempt of court. And that's not subject to judicial overview.
That was back when the government mostly cared about the law. These days, the military brass don't seem to be particularly interested in investigating up the chain of command. Back in my Dad's day, the top brass running Abu Ghraib would have been prosecuted and thrown in prison for failing to make sure the law was being respected on their watch.
Not to mention that all the people working at GITMO would have been prosecuted in the past, regardless of whether or not they were under orders to do so.
It's a shame because such abuses of power and incompetence represent a very real threat to national security.
It happens, but if you think it's hard being a women that's been raped, imagine how hard it is to get taken seriously if you're a man that's been raped.
Bottom line is that until the women's movement grows up and starts focusing on the problem, rather than on men, there's going to be little change or progress.
I'm not derailing anything, it's completely relevant. The ill effects that come from men's unhealthy self image are huge, and yet there's basically no attention paid to it.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that they're equally sized problems, but the attention paid to the objectification of men is practically zilch. It's OK to portray men as cannon fodder, but somehow suggest that women are sexy and somehow that's crossing the line.
The point is that he's not being given access to the whole season, just the first 8 episodes with no provision for getting the rest of the season. And being charged basically the same price as if he bought the shows individually. Which tends to reduce the point of buying a season pass as there's usually an episode or two that you don't really want in a season.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, I think the guys in the band without a rockstar make a lot less money.
Sure it's true. And that's why for years MS Windows had that BSD advertisement clause included in the software.
That applies in all cases. Even with public domain software. You cannot add a license unless you own the copyright to it.
What are you blathering on about?
They keep the code separate because it's under a different license and by keeping it separate they aren't forced to change the license on all the rest of the code. If you look in the source tree, it's not just GPL code that's kept separately, there's an entire tree for contrib. The code in that module is still GPL code and the resulting binary is GPL when it's compiled in.
Care to cite a reference for where the BSD license permits people to change the license other than the people that own the rights to the code? I'm guessing you can't, because it doesn't exist. Yes, you are permitted to take the code and compile it without providing the source, but the code itself is still BSD licensed code, and nothing is going to change that.
Considering that it's the rabid GPL fanbois that seem to be of the opinion that forcing people to lie about using their code is such a great idea, I'm not sure how much credibility they have. The bottom line is that the code is going to be borrowed either way. At least with the permissive licensing it's likely that they'll post a notice that they're using the code and give back to the community.
The GPL seemed like a good idea at the time, but at this point, this kind of heavy handed licensing is neither necessary nor useful.
You can't relicense somebody else's code. You can use the code however you like, but you're required to use the code only with the license intact.
It gets a little bit odd when you mix GPL code into the mix. But, the GPL code is usually segregated to keep it from contaminating the rest of the code. So, when you compile it the resultant binaries would be GPL, but only the portion of the source code that was GPL is GPL. Or at least that's how it was under the GPLv2, not sure what GPLv3 really does there.
Using APIs and ABIs that are based upon GPL code does not require that the binaries be GPLed either. I'm not quite sure as to what the problem here is with the GPL, but it's a GPLv3 specific problem.
Right and it's a moot point if Compiler X is faster than both of them if the license requires that you be riding a unicycle while compiling.
I know a lot of the Linux zealots don't care to acknowledge it, but the reality is that the viral clauses are just a matter of cutting off your own nose to spite your face. There's a real incentive to contributing back patches in that it's expensive to maintain your own fork, just for a few patches.
It's not just about faster, compilers sometimes have stability and reliability problems when using higher levels of optimization. GCC wasn't able to handle much more than -O2, IIRC, and even at -O2, there were warnings about not bothering to report bugs without first trying it with lower levels of optimization.
If clang is able to handle -O3 in a production environment without the warnings, that's perfectly legitimate to compare with gcc with current default optimizations.
Do you have evidence to back that up? I think it's more likely that they're going to fail because of technological reasons than not trying. Plus, the reality here is that if this is a scam, that they'll be found out when they don't actually build anything. A project with that much attention is just not a viable method of scamming people.
You obviously haven't worked in areas where you can't build roads. The reality is that most of those areas aren't typically suitable for airships either. You've got steep hills and deep canyons. And something the shape and size of an airship is going to be a logistical nightmare to use in a situation like that. Even up north in the Arctic there are serious problems as well.
Yes, the maneuverability is better than in the past, but it's not that good. And most of the best mining ground in the world is in areas where ships like this just don't work. Even if they can convert into heavier than air for periods, trying to fly something with that much surface area in a place like the Andes is a logistical nightmare.
So, they might claim that this is reasonable, but between the limited cargo capacity per volume of ship and the terrain they're talking about, I wouldn't expect this to happen in the next few decades or ever. This sounds like city boy talk about how easy it's going to be for them to get into an area where the locals haven't been able to. And it rarely works out well, otherwise the locals would already have been doing it.
I disagree, I may not be the ultimate authority on all things mining, but I did used to work in the back country. And, this technology isn't going to be of any use in areas where you genuinely can't build roads. One summer, I was physically carrying gear up a steep mountain because there wasn't any way of getting a helicopter in, and the trail wasn't big enough for pack animals. The area itself used to be popular for copper mining and quite profitable back in the early 20th century.
What's more, when you're dealing with a mining operation that's large enough to even consider something like this, you're talking tons of materials going in and out over the course of a season. The dump trucks alone can be the size of a house, and weigh many tons.
In the arctic, you have plenty of room, but ultimately, the technology they're talking about is many years away from being able to handle that kind of weather, and you'd have to have a huge fleet of these ships to make that even plausible.
So, it's not undeniable, it's only undeniable if you don't know crap about mining or work in the back country. The bottom line here is that the claims in the article are overly sunny and largely designed to get people to invest in the project.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong, but it wasn't just technology that kept this from being a reality in the past, it was the fact that airships just are not appropriate for this type of use. There wasn't even a sense that it was a direction to go on in the past.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but there's a reason why this technology was never used for this purpose back in the '30s. What's more, it was never proposed for this purpose.
I'm familiar with how the vessel operates, it's just questionable if it's going to have any practical application like this. The amount of supplies that mining crews need is huge, take a look at the vehicles they're using. They're both immensely heavy, as well as huge. The dumptrucks that the larger mines are using are literally larger than a house.
The reality here is that these vehicles have limited use as they're both light on their cargo capacity in terms of mass as well as in terms of volume. And yes, they do maneuver better than the ones in the past, but they're still not going to be useful in the way that the GGP was talking about.
Yes, because at this point they're still hoping to actually do this. So, somebody needed to review the applications. Sure, they might have made some profit on this, but it's not like they're getting to keep all that money. Which even if they did, the $7m or so would be a drop in the pool of funding needed to even try this.
I don't think you understand how lighter than air crafts work. Yes, they can use the engines for a bit of lift, but no, they can't be used as you describe. These craft have severely limited capacity for cargo, ever seen a photo of one of those things? The size of the compartment is tiny compared with the rest of the craft.
What's more, you'd be far, far better off just getting a Chinook, as those are much smaller and are designed to handle a substantial amount of cargo.
But, even a Chinook is going to be more expensive than just trucking it. Anybody with a mine doing substantial volume is going to have to have roads anyways, as miners do need to eat, and there's a tone of other supplies involved as well.
I like airships, the problem is that they're not practical these days. Back in the '30s, I'm sure they were great, but the parts of the world that can afford lighter than air travel, also have decent railroads and highway systems that can make the trip with more efficiency.
I suppose this might replace ships for passengers, but even there, I can't imagine it being practical.
I doubt they turned a profit on that. $35 probably barely covered the cost of reviewing the application.
Yes and for the privilege of having less storage space, you get to pay hundreds more and put up with the fugly design.
Yes, but compared with what solid stat drives can do, it's a bad idea. Microdrives have been out for years, but outside of studio work, they were never very popular amongst photographers.
That's an "interesting" way of looking at it. My Lai was bad, but they did investigate that.
In the case of Abu Ghraib, they still haven't done an appropriate investigation. Some General should have been shitcanned over that one, the idea that it was just a few low level personnel is just laughable.
During the Vietnam Era, none of the Presidents involved were willing to come out and admit to ordering the kinds of crimes against humanity that the Bush Administration openly admitted to ordering at GITMO.
Yes, there are camera phones, but that's not the same thing as accountability. The US has declared sovereign immunity in many cases, and the people that need to be prosecuted, as in the brass, aren't the ones that are caught on tape.
Refusing to turn over sources is criminal in many cases, but the fifth doesn't really apply as it's known that they aren't handing over their sources. There's no need for them to testify against themselves as a refusal to name the sources is self evident.
The reason why is that the party accused is the only one that truly knows all of the facts. Forcing them to testify against themselves is unique in that there's an advantage to them perjuring themselves wherever possible. And as a result, even if these people were forced to testify, very little of what they said could be taken seriously anyways as the penalty for perjury is often less than the penalty for the crime for which they're being tried.
Whereas people who do not qualify for 5th amendment protections have substantially less incentive to lie under oath.
What's more, the 5th amendment protects defendants from being forced to interpret evidence that might not normally lead directly to them.
I suppose you could make the argument that a journalist would be committing a crime in terms of obstruction of justice and perjury, but most of the time when a judge gets upset by them refusing to name their sources, that's done under contempt of court. And that's not subject to judicial overview.
That was back when the government mostly cared about the law. These days, the military brass don't seem to be particularly interested in investigating up the chain of command. Back in my Dad's day, the top brass running Abu Ghraib would have been prosecuted and thrown in prison for failing to make sure the law was being respected on their watch.
Not to mention that all the people working at GITMO would have been prosecuted in the past, regardless of whether or not they were under orders to do so.
It's a shame because such abuses of power and incompetence represent a very real threat to national security.
It happens, but if you think it's hard being a women that's been raped, imagine how hard it is to get taken seriously if you're a man that's been raped.
Bottom line is that until the women's movement grows up and starts focusing on the problem, rather than on men, there's going to be little change or progress.
I'm not derailing anything, it's completely relevant. The ill effects that come from men's unhealthy self image are huge, and yet there's basically no attention paid to it.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that they're equally sized problems, but the attention paid to the objectification of men is practically zilch. It's OK to portray men as cannon fodder, but somehow suggest that women are sexy and somehow that's crossing the line.
The point is that he's not being given access to the whole season, just the first 8 episodes with no provision for getting the rest of the season. And being charged basically the same price as if he bought the shows individually. Which tends to reduce the point of buying a season pass as there's usually an episode or two that you don't really want in a season.