Socialist concepts like a complete welfare net, universal healthcare, unlimited unemployment benefits, public housing and a proper minimum wage, will ease the emotional burdens and provide the outcomes sought.
And create an ever-growing welfare class with no incentive to work.
Disturbing that anybody would take the plot from the Matrix seriously. People need food grown from the sun. Machines could do a lot better getting their energy from alternative sources.
We've all seen the the domonstration of putting a bowling ball on a rubber sheet, and showing how a marble rolls around in curves, indicating that the presence of mass warps space and creating gravity. But I've never seen an explanation of WHY mass warps space. Can you explain that?
Easy. Gravity pulls the rubber sheet down.
(Yes, I'm kidding. I really hate the rubber sheet analogy.)
Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose?
It drives me nuts too, but this is the English language in evolution. The reason for the mistake is obvious. "lose" rhymes with "choose". I actually wish at this point that we could adopt "luce" as a spelling of loose (as in not tight) and give up on "lose".
So Cheetos and Mountain Dew? Granted, that won't pay for their health care costs once they get sick,, but there's always some kid out of college to replace them.
First, has anyone else here ever been quoted in a book or online publication and had it end up making you look like a douche when that's not at all what you meant? Especially when you spent like hours talking to your interviewer and they paraphrase it down into words you didn't actually say? Well, please don't hate until it's happened to you.
It's never happened to me personally, but I've seen and heard about several examples where this has happened. You're absolutely right, dealing with the press is a minefield.
So instead, we're like, "Okay, we should figure out a way to get all the talented people *outside* the Valley to join us, because we can't win the in-Valley echo-chamber local recruiting game."
What I've seen Google do is have their engineers actively recruit people who write tech blogs that sound like they know their shit. You can also scour forums like Stack Overflow or look at open source projects. Also, the whole idea that you need to actually be in Silicon Valley to work instead of telecommuting is silly in 2011.
If they're serious about this, all they have to do is adopt OpenID and not be dicks about it. Maybe things have changed, but last I checked big companies like Google and Facebook only accept OpenID from either themselves or other big companies. This insular, corporate attitude contrasts with the friendly Internet face they like to portray.
We don't have the technology to build hermetically sealed domed cities, so what's your point?
Unlike your interstellar spaceship, it doesn't have to be hermetically sealed. It just needs to be able to filter out enough of whatever prevents living at large. We also have the technology to build such cities. It's a matter of logistics and expense, but we're very good at building enclosed environments already. As opposed to cryogenics, which is fundamentally impossible at this point.
This is an idealized situation, realistically you would bring along equipment necessary for mining and refueling in case the voyage had to be prolonged along with the other supplies necessary if the planet was indeed habitable.
Assuming you'd be able to find a fuel source compatible with your equipment, and you'd be able to mine enough of it and actually get it to your ship.
The starship would still have a better chance as we can build 3 of them for every domed city while storing 6 times the number of people.
6 times the number in the form of "Meat Popsicles" on a journey of lightyears that's never been attempted before to planets of unknown suitability. It's stupid and irrational thinking driven by romanticism.
Once you arrive at your destination, if the planet isn't habitable all you've managed to do is transport a bunch of "Meat Popsicles", to use your terminology. I guess any unfrozen, surviving crew can use them for snacks.
You also have to take into account the complete lack of experience with interstellar travel. If something goes wrong on the trip you're fucked.
Funny that you're falling back to this argument now after having exhausted other angles. You made a claim that, "Oddly enough, many would argue that that's exactly the course we're on."
Which is absurd. Nothing we are doing now would make life so impossible on earth that we'd be able to build huge interstellar ships, but not be able to build dome cities instead.
The Linux kernel is an independent piece of code. I can show that it's independent in that GNU will run with a Linux kernel just as well as Android. It is specifically stated in many places that the Linux kernel is intended to be used this way and that anything you run on top of the kernel can be licensed any way you want.
The Linux kernel is released under the GPL and has many authors. No single author can dictate an alternative license.
The only people who have any standing in the matter are the copyright holders of the GPLed code
Legally, that's true. That doesn't mean I can't call them out for violating the GPL.
According to yours, it would seem that even using a GPL'd web service in a program would make that program a "derived work" of the service. I'm glad to say that it's not a particularly popular one, but you are of course entitled to it
No, I never said that. That's your strawman. What counts is what you distribute, which I directly quoted from the license: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License"
Android is distributed as a whole on the devices they ship on.
It's rather silly indeed, which is why many people believe that FSF's interpretation of dynamic linking as a single "derived work" is flawed - precisely because it's not really any different from IPC.
As I already stated, I don't agree with the FSF's interpretation. I read the license and look at the law. What counts is distribution. It's well established, in US courts at least, that writing to an interface is allowed and does not break copyright. What does break copyright is when you distribute code you don't have rights to.
Heck, even Stallman himself had to admit that the logic is sound - his final argument in a dispute over whether GPL applies to CLisp because the latter links dynamically to libreadline was, basically, a panicky "I'm afraid that this workaround might work for you and set a precedent, and it's going to be real bad for us - can you please not do that?"
I read your link, and you are either lying, willfully ignorant, or did not read the whole thread. I don't even agree with his position, and yes, he did appeal to what was good for GPL, but in the end this is what he said:
"The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part.
I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer.
What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program, rather than how it is labeled."
Static linking is clearly covered, because there's a single artifact produced as an output, which contains machine code produced from both GPL'd and non-GPL'd source code intermixed together - it's hard to argue that it is a single, atomic work, and that said work is "derived" from the GPL'd code.
Now apply that same logic to Ice Cream Sandwich. They distribute a complete operate system. If they removed the GPL parts it wouldn't function the same. Now why does it matter that it's statically linked or not? The GPL doesn't limit itself to static linking.
Like I said, by your logic, any Linux distro would also be a single "functional operating system", and as such would have to be licensed entirely under GPL as a single work
Just because people ignore the GPL doesn't mean it isn't being violated.
FSF itself has long acknowledged that different program binaries (but not shared libraries) constitute different "works" for the purposes of GPL, so even if they are designed to work together (via pipes or sockets or whatever), one being GPL'd does not place any requirements on the other.
The FSF has some stances that are not explicitly stated in the GPL and that I don't agree with. What really matters is what the license says and what happens when you take it to court to enforce it. It's rather silly to presume that wrapping a library in sockets instead of linking to it all of a sudden makes something no longer a derivative work.
It's one thing to code to an interface and letting the user download non-GPL components (as Nvidia does with their Linux drivers), but it's quite another to ship all the components that implement the interface as a functional whole while claiming "mere aggregation".
We may know about planets near earth size, but that isn't going to give us a good indication of how habitable the planet is.
It's worthwhile to explore, but your scenario involved trashing the earth and forcing humanity into interstellar travel. In that scenario, your argument doesn't add up. Are you going to spend huge resources casting off into regions unknown, when you could do your best to fix the planet you currently live on? It's not a wise decision.
His vocabulary is extensive, but besides that, "big words" don't make something worth reading. In fact, it's just the opposite when authors go out of their way to use uncommon words. His stories are compelling, as are his characters. Snooty elitists look down on King just because he rights popular stories, and not "high art".
"mere aggregation" is bullshit. Ice Cream Sandwich is a name to describe the whole: a functioning operating system for smart phones and tablet computers. The parts operate together to provide the function of the whole. If it was just "mere aggregation" there wouldn't be any relation among the parts.
Because building an interstellar starship would take a whole lot more resources and would entail more risk. The ruined earth would still be a valuable source of resources. Even orbiting earth makes more sense than building an interstellar ship.
The only conceivable scenario where we could actually make use of such a propulsion system would be if we had so irreparably damaged the earth that there was no chance of human survival and we had also failed to advance any other propulsion technologies. Oddly enough, many would argue that that's exactly the course we're on.
Unless the sun was going supernova, I don't see why we'd want to build an interstellar ship in such a case. Even a ruined earth is likely to be more hospitable than some unvisited planet light years away. At the very least, we should be able to build dome cities that protect us from the worst -- which is probably what a future colony on another planet would look like anyways.
Can you explain how it isn't a "whole"? Can you explain why the developer I quoted used the words parts and whole himself? It seems obvious to me, and you haven't prevented any evidence to the contrary.
Slashdot Mirror
Socialist concepts like a complete welfare net, universal healthcare, unlimited unemployment benefits, public housing and a proper minimum wage, will ease the emotional burdens and provide the outcomes sought.
And create an ever-growing welfare class with no incentive to work.
I really could care less
How much less could you care?
"See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil."
Disturbing that anybody would take the plot from the Matrix seriously. People need food grown from the sun. Machines could do a lot better getting their energy from alternative sources.
We've all seen the the domonstration of putting a bowling ball on a rubber sheet, and showing how a marble rolls around in curves, indicating that the presence of mass warps space and creating gravity. But I've never seen an explanation of WHY mass warps space. Can you explain that?
Easy. Gravity pulls the rubber sheet down.
(Yes, I'm kidding. I really hate the rubber sheet analogy.)
Also, I hate to be that guy but why do I see SO many people that don't know how to use loose vs lose?
It drives me nuts too, but this is the English language in evolution. The reason for the mistake is obvious. "lose" rhymes with "choose". I actually wish at this point that we could adopt "luce" as a spelling of loose (as in not tight) and give up on "lose".
Programmers gotta eat, too.
So Cheetos and Mountain Dew? Granted, that won't pay for their health care costs once they get sick,, but there's always some kid out of college to replace them.
No offense, but I wish you and those who also believe this were dead.
No offense, but I wish you were dead.
.
.
.
Well, actually, I don't. I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous your comment was.
First, has anyone else here ever been quoted in a book or online publication and had it end up making you look like a douche when that's not at all what you meant? Especially when you spent like hours talking to your interviewer and they paraphrase it down into words you didn't actually say? Well, please don't hate until it's happened to you.
It's never happened to me personally, but I've seen and heard about several examples where this has happened. You're absolutely right, dealing with the press is a minefield.
So instead, we're like, "Okay, we should figure out a way to get all the talented people *outside* the Valley to join us, because we can't win the in-Valley echo-chamber local recruiting game."
What I've seen Google do is have their engineers actively recruit people who write tech blogs that sound like they know their shit. You can also scour forums like Stack Overflow or look at open source projects. Also, the whole idea that you need to actually be in Silicon Valley to work instead of telecommuting is silly in 2011.
If they're serious about this, all they have to do is adopt OpenID and not be dicks about it. Maybe things have changed, but last I checked big companies like Google and Facebook only accept OpenID from either themselves or other big companies. This insular, corporate attitude contrasts with the friendly Internet face they like to portray.
We don't have the technology to build hermetically sealed domed cities, so what's your point?
Unlike your interstellar spaceship, it doesn't have to be hermetically sealed. It just needs to be able to filter out enough of whatever prevents living at large. We also have the technology to build such cities. It's a matter of logistics and expense, but we're very good at building enclosed environments already. As opposed to cryogenics, which is fundamentally impossible at this point.
This is an idealized situation, realistically you would bring along equipment necessary for mining and refueling in case the voyage had to be prolonged along with the other supplies necessary if the planet was indeed habitable.
Assuming you'd be able to find a fuel source compatible with your equipment, and you'd be able to mine enough of it and actually get it to your ship.
The starship would still have a better chance as we can build 3 of them for every domed city while storing 6 times the number of people.
6 times the number in the form of "Meat Popsicles" on a journey of lightyears that's never been attempted before to planets of unknown suitability. It's stupid and irrational thinking driven by romanticism.
But but but a butterfly flapped it's wings and that affected interstate commerce.
Clearly we need to wipe out this butterfly menace.
You left out:
You also have to take into account the complete lack of experience with interstellar travel. If something goes wrong on the trip you're fucked.
Funny that you're falling back to this argument now after having exhausted other angles. You made a claim that, "Oddly enough, many would argue that that's exactly the course we're on."
Which is absurd. Nothing we are doing now would make life so impossible on earth that we'd be able to build huge interstellar ships, but not be able to build dome cities instead.
The Linux kernel is an independent piece of code. I can show that it's independent in that GNU will run with a Linux kernel just as well as Android. It is specifically stated in many places that the Linux kernel is intended to be used this way and that anything you run on top of the kernel can be licensed any way you want.
The Linux kernel is released under the GPL and has many authors. No single author can dictate an alternative license.
The only people who have any standing in the matter are the copyright holders of the GPLed code
Legally, that's true. That doesn't mean I can't call them out for violating the GPL.
According to yours, it would seem that even using a GPL'd web service in a program would make that program a "derived work" of the service. I'm glad to say that it's not a particularly popular one, but you are of course entitled to it
No, I never said that. That's your strawman. What counts is what you distribute, which I directly quoted from the license: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License"
Android is distributed as a whole on the devices they ship on.
It's rather silly indeed, which is why many people believe that FSF's interpretation of dynamic linking as a single "derived work" is flawed - precisely because it's not really any different from IPC.
As I already stated, I don't agree with the FSF's interpretation. I read the license and look at the law. What counts is distribution. It's well established, in US courts at least, that writing to an interface is allowed and does not break copyright. What does break copyright is when you distribute code you don't have rights to.
Heck, even Stallman himself had to admit that the logic is sound - his final argument in a dispute over whether GPL applies to CLisp because the latter links dynamically to libreadline was, basically, a panicky "I'm afraid that this workaround might work for you and set a precedent, and it's going to be real bad for us - can you please not do that?"
I read your link, and you are either lying, willfully ignorant, or did not read the whole thread. I don't even agree with his position, and yes, he did appeal to what was good for GPL, but in the end this is what he said:
"The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part.
I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer.
What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program, rather than how it is labeled."
Static linking is clearly covered, because there's a single artifact produced as an output, which contains machine code produced from both GPL'd and non-GPL'd source code intermixed together - it's hard to argue that it is a single, atomic work, and that said work is "derived" from the GPL'd code.
Now apply that same logic to Ice Cream Sandwich. They distribute a complete operate system. If they removed the GPL parts it wouldn't function the same. Now why does it matter that it's statically linked or not? The GPL doesn't limit itself to static linking.
Like I said, by your logic, any Linux distro would also be a single "functional operating system", and as such would have to be licensed entirely under GPL as a single work
Just because people ignore the GPL doesn't mean it isn't being violated.
FSF itself has long acknowledged that different program binaries (but not shared libraries) constitute different "works" for the purposes of GPL, so even if they are designed to work together (via pipes or sockets or whatever), one being GPL'd does not place any requirements on the other.
The FSF has some stances that are not explicitly stated in the GPL and that I don't agree with. What really matters is what the license says and what happens when you take it to court to enforce it. It's rather silly to presume that wrapping a library in sockets instead of linking to it all of a sudden makes something no longer a derivative work.
It's one thing to code to an interface and letting the user download non-GPL components (as Nvidia does with their Linux drivers), but it's quite another to ship all the components that implement the interface as a functional whole while claiming "mere aggregation".
We may know about planets near earth size, but that isn't going to give us a good indication of how habitable the planet is.
It's worthwhile to explore, but your scenario involved trashing the earth and forcing humanity into interstellar travel. In that scenario, your argument doesn't add up. Are you going to spend huge resources casting off into regions unknown, when you could do your best to fix the planet you currently live on? It's not a wise decision.
His vocabulary is extensive, but besides that, "big words" don't make something worth reading. In fact, it's just the opposite when authors go out of their way to use uncommon words. His stories are compelling, as are his characters. Snooty elitists look down on King just because he rights popular stories, and not "high art".
"mere aggregation" is bullshit. Ice Cream Sandwich is a name to describe the whole: a functioning operating system for smart phones and tablet computers. The parts operate together to provide the function of the whole. If it was just "mere aggregation" there wouldn't be any relation among the parts.
Because building an interstellar starship would take a whole lot more resources and would entail more risk. The ruined earth would still be a valuable source of resources. Even orbiting earth makes more sense than building an interstellar ship.
Stephen King is popular because he knows how to tell a good yarn. It doesn't matter if it is "Literature" in the snooty, elitist sense.
The only conceivable scenario where we could actually make use of such a propulsion system would be if we had so irreparably damaged the earth that there was no chance of human survival and we had also failed to advance any other propulsion technologies. Oddly enough, many would argue that that's exactly the course we're on.
Unless the sun was going supernova, I don't see why we'd want to build an interstellar ship in such a case. Even a ruined earth is likely to be more hospitable than some unvisited planet light years away. At the very least, we should be able to build dome cities that protect us from the worst -- which is probably what a future colony on another planet would look like anyways.
Stephan King
Yup, you're quite the literary genius.
Can you explain how it isn't a "whole"? Can you explain why the developer I quoted used the words parts and whole himself? It seems obvious to me, and you haven't prevented any evidence to the contrary.