Like we did for all Honeycomb release, this is NOT the full source tree for IceCreamSandwich, these are only the GPL parts that are in the SDK (along with a few associated files), and they're not enough to build the whole IceCreamSandwich for a device.
One of the fundamental principles behind the GPL is that if you used GPL parts to make a whole work, then the whole work must also be GPL:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. 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, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
It's quite obvious that "IceCreamSandwich" is a whole work, and that it contains GPL parts.
Also, fuck the government. If I'm only being paid in Bitcoin, I don't pay taxes on that. I can tell the government that I've not got an income.
Not legally. If you were "only" paid in gold, or "only" paid in stocks, or anything else of value, you still need to pay taxes on the dollar value of what you were paid in.
The main thrust of the "movement" is: 1. Tax the rich more - to make income and wealth distribution a little more equitable 2. Re-install Glass-Steagal and regulate the financial industry properly 3. Eliminate corporate personhood and institute campaign finance reform to make our democracy more healthy
That's the most coherent message I've seen out of Occupy Wall Street, though I suspect those are mostly your ideas or somebody else's, and not a consensus.
There's no problem to solve. Watch whatever you want. There's so much choice nowadays that I think people just like to bitch when others watch something they don't like.
I think pretty much every practicing scientist makes use of "personal prejudice", whether they are consciously aware of it or not. Bayesian probability just makes it explicit.
Take, for example, the recent faster than light neutrino experiment. Scientists demand a very low probability that the measurement is due to a chance error.
It doesn't match everyday experience and has a history of charlatans. The people investing it have been prone to being fooled and running badly designed experiments. There isn't strong evidence that can be reliably repeated that it exists.
Is it more or less extraordinary than: time dilation, matter-energy equivalence, the atomic bomb, quantum tunneling, the Internet?
Time dilation is extraordinary, but it has been proven conclusively and is backed by a solid theory. The same thing for your other physics concepts. The Internet is a great thing, but there's nothing mysterious or doubtful about its existence.
Actually, extraordinary claims require the same proof as any other type of claim.
Actually, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That's why scientists are extremely skeptical of ESP claims. There's a fundamental principle at play here that's described by Bayesian probability.
You never played Gauntlet back in the arcade days, did you?
I remember being a poor boy going to the video arcade, and watching this guy plunk down like $10 worth of quarters on the machine and start playing. I was so jealous.
If the founder in question here was making huge numbers off TPB a few years ago (2008, maybe), it didn't show in his wardrobe, hairstyle or choice of place to crash or his mode of transportation.
Maybe he was just playing it smart by not flaunting his money. Either that, or he was dumb and got screwed out of the money somebody else was making. There's no way Pirate Bay wasn't raking in the cash given all their views.
That being said, I started C & UNIX at Bell Labs over thirty years ago & always loved the simplicity of it all.
For a language that is supposed to be simple, it's rather complicated in some areas. The declaration syntax is horrid. The confusion between arrays and pointers, including context-dependent syntax that is inconsistent and misleading. All the weird, undefined cases.
C is deceptively simple. At first glance, it seems like a language with only a few concepts, but the devil is in the details.
"The MCP was a leader in many areas, including: the first operating system to manage multiple processors, the first commercial implementation of virtual memory, and the first OS written exclusively in a high-level language."
The pitch zones use multiple cameras and track the ball in 3 dimensions.
Many pitchers use "back door" breaking balls/sliders to try and hit the very back side of the strike zone. In the "pitch zone" these would look like a ball, when in fact it crossed the plate in the zone.
The problem is that the computers are good at catching these, and umpires are not.
Also, the strike zone changes height for each batter as defined in the rules as the batter waits for the pitch. These "pitch zone" displays never do.
In many spectator sports, hating the ref is a big part of the fun
The inconsistency of umpires is one of the reasons I stopped watching baseball. It isn't fun at all. It takes away from the competitiveness of the game.
If you can read my post, I clearly stated that Chromium was open source.
Which just demonstrates your confusion between Chrome vs. Chromium, because in the post you replied to I said: "Chrome was marketed as an open source browser, yet from the very first release they added in proprietary bits without source code."
I never stated Chrome was open source.
But you said Google didn't say it either, but they did.
Google promised an open source browser and they delivered.
Google promised Chrome would be a "fully open source" browser. They even added in the qualifier "fully".
(BTW, cute comic but I don't take that seriously as "Google Policy"... comics are simple presentation for simple people.)
That comic was the announcement laying out was Chrome was all about. Besides being cute, it was 38 pages full of technical information in addition to the strong features and policy statements made in the beginning.
Giving Google a free pass after the fact because a) you're losing the argument, and b) it's a comic, doesn't hold water. A lie is a lie, and a broken promise is a broken promise.
Besides Chrome, you haven't even touched upon Android Honeycomb, which was the other half of my argument. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Is it really so hard?
I think we are both clear that Chromium (the browser base) is open source and Chrome (Google's binary distribution) contains some proprietary bits.
Yes, after I explained it to you.
Where is the evil you are afraid of...?
Once again you are shifting the argument. I made it clear what my objection was in the original post -- that Google didn't follow through on their open source promises. You disputed my claims, twice, and have been answered both times. If you had some integrity you'd admit my original argument was based in reality and stop moving the goalposts.
Now you're shifting the argument. First you confused Chrome with Chromium, not realizing that there was a difference. At least acknowledge that.
Second, they said Chrome would be open source. It was a huge part of their marketing. If you remember, Chrome was announced via a comic. It said right on page 2, "Finally, Google Chrome is a fully open source browser."
The distinctions between proprietary Chrome and open source Chromium didn't come until later.
I just checked the chromium.org web site and it seems you can download all of the source code and build it yourself without adding in any proprietary bits.
"Chrome" is the official Google product and what you get when you download it from Google. It's a binary only release. "Chromium" is the open source version of Chrome without the proprietary bits.
Do you have a link which describes the proprietary bits?
Here's an official link from the early days, after people starting figuring out that Chrome was not fully open source:
"Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome."
"9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing."
So any bits not open source are explicitly declared proprietary here.
I don't buy it. There's too much that can go wrong, and there's too much competition now that you'd want to piss off your existing customers. It's not hard to change at all when it comes to video rental services, unlike moving away from a site like Facebook.
What Netflix has going for it is brand awareness and customer loyalty. They're eroding that with all these false starts.
The difference is that Google have pretty much a clean track record when it comes to open source software.
I don't think so. Chrome was marketed as an open source browser, yet from the very first release they added in proprietary bits without source code. It's nice that it is almost open source, and that Chromium exists, but it's important to note they compromised on open source principles.
This continues now with Android, with Google releasing Honeycomb for their partners without releasing the corresponding source code. I don't care what excuses Google gave for that, no source code is no source code.
Google cannot be trusted. They are a big corporation looking out for their own interests. Sure, they play nice for the most part, but many times they don't.
You know what my daughter said when told about Steve Jobs death? "Who is Steve Jobs?".
And your daughter represents mainstream cultural awareness for all things? In case you haven't noticed, iPods, iPhones, and iPad made a huge splash around the world, propelling Apple above Microsoft in market capital. Lots of people knew about Jobs, just like people associated Bill Gates with Windows.
But most people don't know and don't care who he was or what he did./. is not really a typical slice of the general public in this regard.
This was reported all over mainstream news. In fact, Slashdot's coverage has actually been downright tame in comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
Like we did for all Honeycomb release, this is NOT the full source tree for IceCreamSandwich, these are only the GPL parts that are in the SDK (along with a few associated files), and they're not enough to build the whole IceCreamSandwich for a device.
One of the fundamental principles behind the GPL is that if you used GPL parts to make a whole work, then the whole work must also be GPL:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. 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, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "
It's quite obvious that "IceCreamSandwich" is a whole work, and that it contains GPL parts.
Also, fuck the government. If I'm only being paid in Bitcoin, I don't pay taxes on that. I can tell the government that I've not got an income.
Not legally. If you were "only" paid in gold, or "only" paid in stocks, or anything else of value, you still need to pay taxes on the dollar value of what you were paid in.
The main thrust of the "movement" is: 1. Tax the rich more - to make income and wealth distribution a little more equitable 2. Re-install Glass-Steagal and regulate the financial industry properly 3. Eliminate corporate personhood and institute campaign finance reform to make our democracy more healthy
That's the most coherent message I've seen out of Occupy Wall Street, though I suspect those are mostly your ideas or somebody else's, and not a consensus.
Ah, so that's what happened to the cache results. That sucks.
There's no problem to solve. Watch whatever you want. There's so much choice nowadays that I think people just like to bitch when others watch something they don't like.
I think pretty much every practicing scientist makes use of "personal prejudice", whether they are consciously aware of it or not. Bayesian probability just makes it explicit.
Take, for example, the recent faster than light neutrino experiment. Scientists demand a very low probability that the measurement is due to a chance error.
If you were to actually read TFA by the NYT
It was behind a login wall for me. Fuck that. Slashdotters barely bother reading articles, nevermind putting up with stupid barriers.
What about ESP is "extraordinary" to you?
It doesn't match everyday experience and has a history of charlatans. The people investing it have been prone to being fooled and running badly designed experiments. There isn't strong evidence that can be reliably repeated that it exists.
Is it more or less extraordinary than: time dilation, matter-energy equivalence, the atomic bomb, quantum tunneling, the Internet?
Time dilation is extraordinary, but it has been proven conclusively and is backed by a solid theory. The same thing for your other physics concepts. The Internet is a great thing, but there's nothing mysterious or doubtful about its existence.
Actually, extraordinary claims require the same proof as any other type of claim.
Actually, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That's why scientists are extremely skeptical of ESP claims. There's a fundamental principle at play here that's described by Bayesian probability.
You never played Gauntlet back in the arcade days, did you?
I remember being a poor boy going to the video arcade, and watching this guy plunk down like $10 worth of quarters on the machine and start playing. I was so jealous.
ps: "Remember, don't shoot food!"
If the founder in question here was making huge numbers off TPB a few years ago (2008, maybe), it didn't show in his wardrobe, hairstyle or choice of place to crash or his mode of transportation.
Maybe he was just playing it smart by not flaunting his money. Either that, or he was dumb and got screwed out of the money somebody else was making. There's no way Pirate Bay wasn't raking in the cash given all their views.
That being said, I started C & UNIX at Bell Labs over thirty years ago & always loved the simplicity of it all.
For a language that is supposed to be simple, it's rather complicated in some areas. The declaration syntax is horrid. The confusion between arrays and pointers, including context-dependent syntax that is inconsistent and misleading. All the weird, undefined cases.
C is deceptively simple. At first glance, it seems like a language with only a few concepts, but the devil is in the details.
Up to that point (and I'm sure someone will have a counter example to this, but I'll say it anyway) O/S's were written largely in assembler.
Right you are:
"The MCP was a leader in many areas, including: the first operating system to manage multiple processors, the first commercial implementation of virtual memory, and the first OS written exclusively in a high-level language."
Your post is completely wrong.
they are 2 dimensional
The pitch zones use multiple cameras and track the ball in 3 dimensions.
Many pitchers use "back door" breaking balls/sliders to try and hit the very back side of the strike zone. In the "pitch zone" these would look like a ball, when in fact it crossed the plate in the zone.
The problem is that the computers are good at catching these, and umpires are not.
Also, the strike zone changes height for each batter as defined in the rules as the batter waits for the pitch. These "pitch zone" displays never do.
This is taken into account also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuesTec
In many spectator sports, hating the ref is a big part of the fun
The inconsistency of umpires is one of the reasons I stopped watching baseball. It isn't fun at all. It takes away from the competitiveness of the game.
Of course, lawyers are known to be lying from time to time...
Or just plain wrong. Nobody's perfect.
If you can read my post, I clearly stated that Chromium was open source.
Which just demonstrates your confusion between Chrome vs. Chromium, because in the post you replied to I said: "Chrome was marketed as an open source browser, yet from the very first release they added in proprietary bits without source code."
I never stated Chrome was open source.
But you said Google didn't say it either, but they did.
Google promised an open source browser and they delivered.
Google promised Chrome would be a "fully open source" browser. They even added in the qualifier "fully".
(BTW, cute comic but I don't take that seriously as "Google Policy"... comics are simple presentation for simple people.)
That comic was the announcement laying out was Chrome was all about. Besides being cute, it was 38 pages full of technical information in addition to the strong features and policy statements made in the beginning.
Giving Google a free pass after the fact because a) you're losing the argument, and b) it's a comic, doesn't hold water. A lie is a lie, and a broken promise is a broken promise.
Besides Chrome, you haven't even touched upon Android Honeycomb, which was the other half of my argument. Just admit you were wrong and move on. Is it really so hard?
I think we are both clear that Chromium (the browser base) is open source and Chrome (Google's binary distribution) contains some proprietary bits.
Yes, after I explained it to you.
Where is the evil you are afraid of...?
Once again you are shifting the argument. I made it clear what my objection was in the original post -- that Google didn't follow through on their open source promises. You disputed my claims, twice, and have been answered both times. If you had some integrity you'd admit my original argument was based in reality and stop moving the goalposts.
Just because they aren't acting like a patent troll doesn't excuse them for not following through on open source promises.
Now you're shifting the argument. First you confused Chrome with Chromium, not realizing that there was a difference. At least acknowledge that.
Second, they said Chrome would be open source. It was a huge part of their marketing. If you remember, Chrome was announced via a comic. It said right on page 2, "Finally, Google Chrome is a fully open source browser."
The distinctions between proprietary Chrome and open source Chromium didn't come until later.
I just checked the chromium.org web site and it seems you can download all of the source code and build it yourself without adding in any proprietary bits.
"Chrome" is the official Google product and what you get when you download it from Google. It's a binary only release. "Chromium" is the open source version of Chrome without the proprietary bits.
Do you have a link which describes the proprietary bits?
Here's an official link from the early days, after people starting figuring out that Chrome was not fully open source:
http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/google-chrome-chromium-and-google.html
"Chromium is the name we have given to the open source project and the browser source code that we released and maintain at www.chromium.org. One can compile this source code to get a fully working browser. Google takes this source code, and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, and RLZ (described later in this post), and calls this Google Chrome."
Here's a more up-to-date wiki. I don't know how accurate it is:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome
But I do know that Chrome contain's Adobe's proprietary Flash plugin at the minimum.
You can also read the EULA for Chrome: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html , which includes the following:
"9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing."
So any bits not open source are explicitly declared proprietary here.
You've got some faulty assumptions. One of the reasons Oracle is suing Google is over the Dalvik implementation and patents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_(software)#Licensing_and_patents
I don't buy it. There's too much that can go wrong, and there's too much competition now that you'd want to piss off your existing customers. It's not hard to change at all when it comes to video rental services, unlike moving away from a site like Facebook.
What Netflix has going for it is brand awareness and customer loyalty. They're eroding that with all these false starts.
The difference is that Google have pretty much a clean track record when it comes to open source software.
I don't think so. Chrome was marketed as an open source browser, yet from the very first release they added in proprietary bits without source code. It's nice that it is almost open source, and that Chromium exists, but it's important to note they compromised on open source principles.
This continues now with Android, with Google releasing Honeycomb for their partners without releasing the corresponding source code. I don't care what excuses Google gave for that, no source code is no source code.
Google cannot be trusted. They are a big corporation looking out for their own interests. Sure, they play nice for the most part, but many times they don't.
You know what my daughter said when told about Steve Jobs death? "Who is Steve Jobs?".
And your daughter represents mainstream cultural awareness for all things? In case you haven't noticed, iPods, iPhones, and iPad made a huge splash around the world, propelling Apple above Microsoft in market capital. Lots of people knew about Jobs, just like people associated Bill Gates with Windows.
But most people don't know and don't care who he was or what he did. /. is not really a typical slice of the general public in this regard.
This was reported all over mainstream news. In fact, Slashdot's coverage has actually been downright tame in comparison.