If there were it wouldn't be open source. Anything that would prevent this would prevent you from modifying and distributing your modified version. That is the core of open source and without that ability a license isn't open source.
No, there is no reason I know of that would prevent an open source license from preventing indiscriminate distribution. Primarily, it requires that all rights that you have be granted to anyone that you distribute them to.
If you can cite a requirement that an open source license must allow indiscriminate distribution, then I will willingly eat my words.
A bit of poking around indicates that the community edition is released under GPL v3 and the paid edition is released under this variation of the Mozilla PL. Someone want to dig through it and work it out?
*reads reads reads*
Section 2.1, and Section 2.2 pretty much say you can distribute the original code with or without modification indiscriminately.... So... yeah, one should be able to simply buy it once and then "fork" it from the original and provide it free.
How can a lawyer prove that I was the one the downloaded the songs beyond reasonable doubt?
Because reasonable doubt is not required for civil cases. In civil cases it is a preponderance of evidence. The lower standard of proof is because there is no jail time involved.
So, they only need show that you operate the wifi, and you're the person who primarily uses it. Thus, the most reasonable assumption is that it was your download.
Done and done.
Seriously, if you think you have some creative way to avoid the law, seriously... SERIOUSLY, talk to a lawyer about it, and they'll explain to you exactly how it would never work.
No, we know that one of the boys is male, but we don't know WHICH of the children is male, which is the reason why the question is so interesting.
That's the whole point to the Twin Boy problem. People fail to count properly.
I posted the freaking source code showing empirically that of all pairs where at least one is "m", the odds that the other is "m" as well is 1 in 3, because there are statistically twice as many "boy-girl" COMBINATIONS as "boy-boy" COMBINATIONS.
The reason why there are statistically twice as many "boy-girl" COMBINATIONS is because there are two PERMUTATIONS that result in a "boy-girl" COMBINATION.
The Two Boys problem has a valid and reasonable use.
Children SHOULD be exposed to it. Excluding all but "real-world problem solving" to children will brainwash them into your narrow viewpoint that only the real world is worth studying, and anything that deals with hypothetical situations is anathema.
I hate people like you, and you're a lot like my Dad. You come to a conclusion that something simply need not be talked about, because it's not important. You are not the great arbiter of import... and neither am I.
Your mistake is in thinking that these theoretical models do not have worth.
They do.
If you cannot understand the Twin Boys Problem, or the Monty Hall Problem, then your going to have problems understand issues where unstated assumptions ARE going to creep out of the woodwork.
In reality, there is no way to clearly and unambiguously state something that does not leave some area for ambiguous interpretation... even when you get into heavy legalese.
Even the simple English statement "two plus two is four" relies upon unstated assumptions that one is not working in a Modulo-3 (2+2=1) or Modulo-4 (2+2=0) math system.
Your complaints about the "ambiguity in the statement of the puzzle" is reviewed, and rejected.
It also makes them no fun. Who would care to wonder about how two men died in a locked cabin in the mountains, when they're told immediately upfront that it is an airplane cabin?
Woman here. Marriage doesn't always make sense, and is not an eventual and conclusive step in a relationship. Anyone who views it that way is highly likely to get burned in a marriage.
-- Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
So what? Are journalists forced to....
You know what? you're just wrong dude... just wrong, and it's not even really worth my effort to argue with you beyond a cursory "read the fucking shit again without imposing a sense of bias into the article".
1.) A parent seeking full custody of a child in a divorce is usually expected to be prepared and ready to take such responsibility.
2.) That most certainly does indicate "anger issues".
Mostly, your comment shows directly why people should think before they post. Even something that you think is entirely in jest or completely harmless can come back and bite them.
Lastly, SCO poured heaps of evidence all over the Novell v. SCO case, and still lost to Novell's more convincing evidence.
*shuffles through some court documents* Ah, here it is:
42. Defendant did on the 14th day of March, 2010, place the herein described interface on the router described in claim 15 on a mode indicating promiscuity (Exhibit A, attached, "System Log of Family Router"), thus violated Paragraph 23 of the prenuptial agreement forbidding inter alia that the Defendant "refrain completely and entirely from any and all forms of promiscuity for and during the entire effective duration of the marriage."
As a matter of fact, even the traditional christian marriage vow does not contain faithfulness. Look it up.
Let's see....something in Genesis if I recall pertained exactly to this. Something about adultery....I think it was one of ten ideas, or laws, or fuzzy warm feelings, or something like that. Maybe commandments? Who knows, the Bible isn't really worth anything really to a Christian marriage....
Semantic drift. "Adultry" at the time it was written only referred to sex outside of wedlock. It did not mean that one could not have multiple wives. It also applied to premarital sex.
Because us mathematicians come up with these really simple problems, and when we tell you that your naive answer is wrong, you grab your ball, shove reality in our face, and run home...
I generated a bunch of SQL records, into a table with two relevant fields, both binary. (Male was indicated by false, female was indicated by true).
Then I counted how many SQL records were returned WHERE gender1 = male OR gender2 = male Then I counted how many SQL records were returned WHERE gender1 = male AND gender2 = male.
The results? Out of a population of 100,000 records: 24940 male-male, 74893 at least one male. Yielding 1/3 to the third decimal place.
The mistake you made (and it is a mistake, because you claim your experiment would show a result that it empirically does not) is that you failed to count properly. There will always be approximately twice as many records with one boy as there are two boy records.
It's not the BIRTH ORDER that turns this problem into something interesting.
As a side note, in the future, actually run your experiments if it is actually feasible to do so.
The problem stated in the article is: "Suppose that Mr. Smith has two children, at least one of whom is a son. What is the probability both children are boys?" This is a different scenario than what is stated in the summary: "I have two children, one of whom is a boy. What's the probability that my other child is a boy?" In the first scenario, the probabilities are dependent on each other because it is not stated whether the first or the second child is the boy. In the second problem, it is given that the FIRST child is a boy. But that does not affect the odds of the second child which should therefore be 0.5.
No, the two statements are generally equivalent.
The phrase "at least one of" simply more accurately reduces ambiguity that is available in the second. The extra ambiguity is added into the second version is that it could potentially mean "I have two children, only one is a boy."
I recall hearing that some research found that we can notice a single pixel change in an image at 6 feet, even with a ridiculously high resolution.
If that's for example lighting up a single pixel in a dark area, it's not terribly surprising. If it's swapping two neighboring pixels (even across a sharp full-bright area vs full-dark area boundary), then yeah it's a bit more impressive.
I recall it was a full picture, not upon a full light/dark field. Somewhere between random and detailed.
Slashdot Mirror
You deny Section 1, but claim Section 3.
Section 3 only requires the right to distribution to be granted when there is a modification or derivative work.
Section 3 cannot be used to justify simply copying the source code and sending it out to anyone.
If there were it wouldn't be open source. Anything that would prevent this would prevent you from modifying and distributing your modified version. That is the core of open source and without that ability a license isn't open source.
No, there is no reason I know of that would prevent an open source license from preventing indiscriminate distribution. Primarily, it requires that all rights that you have be granted to anyone that you distribute them to.
If you can cite a requirement that an open source license must allow indiscriminate distribution, then I will willingly eat my words.
A bit of poking around indicates that the community edition is released under GPL v3 and the paid edition is released under this variation of the Mozilla PL. Someone want to dig through it and work it out?
*reads reads reads*
Section 2.1, and Section 2.2 pretty much say you can distribute the original code with or without modification indiscriminately. ... So... yeah, one should be able to simply buy it once and then "fork" it from the original and provide it free.
Not directly.
But (AFAIK) if you pay for an open source (as OSI defines it) product, you are allowed to copy and give it away at no cost.
That depends upon the license used. With the GPL and BSD, then you're absolutely right.
However, there could be an open source license that doesn't allow this. Find a counter-example is left as a problem for the reader.
How can a lawyer prove that I was the one the downloaded the songs beyond reasonable doubt?
Because reasonable doubt is not required for civil cases. In civil cases it is a preponderance of evidence. The lower standard of proof is because there is no jail time involved.
So, they only need show that you operate the wifi, and you're the person who primarily uses it. Thus, the most reasonable assumption is that it was your download.
Done and done.
Seriously, if you think you have some creative way to avoid the law, seriously... SERIOUSLY, talk to a lawyer about it, and they'll explain to you exactly how it would never work.
At this point, he's trying to stop from using taxpayer money to pay for and run the cable boxes. Hence the point of the submission.
Wait... a government employee trying to save his taxpayers money?
This guy needs to be either fired, or sent to congress...
I would likely argue from Comcast that the converter box is sufficient to satisfy the franchise agreement.
Of course, I don't know how I would be able to argue out providing the boxes at a cost.
That's soluble. Puns don't work well that way!
Puns DO work that way. It just has to sound close enough that your brain expects the one, but hears the other.
No, we know that one of the boys is male, but we don't know WHICH of the children is male, which is the reason why the question is so interesting.
That's the whole point to the Twin Boy problem. People fail to count properly.
I posted the freaking source code showing empirically that of all pairs where at least one is "m", the odds that the other is "m" as well is 1 in 3, because there are statistically twice as many "boy-girl" COMBINATIONS as "boy-boy" COMBINATIONS.
The reason why there are statistically twice as many "boy-girl" COMBINATIONS is because there are two PERMUTATIONS that result in a "boy-girl" COMBINATION.
The Two Boys problem has a valid and reasonable use.
Children SHOULD be exposed to it. Excluding all but "real-world problem solving" to children will brainwash them into your narrow viewpoint that only the real world is worth studying, and anything that deals with hypothetical situations is anathema.
I hate people like you, and you're a lot like my Dad. You come to a conclusion that something simply need not be talked about, because it's not important. You are not the great arbiter of import... and neither am I.
Each person should choose for themselves.
If you're complaining that people can't live up to all the rules that are out there, then you're absolutely right.
It's part of the reason why you should NEVER talk to the police.
Your mistake is in thinking that these theoretical models do not have worth.
They do.
If you cannot understand the Twin Boys Problem, or the Monty Hall Problem, then your going to have problems understand issues where unstated assumptions ARE going to creep out of the woodwork.
In reality, there is no way to clearly and unambiguously state something that does not leave some area for ambiguous interpretation... even when you get into heavy legalese.
Even the simple English statement "two plus two is four" relies upon unstated assumptions that one is not working in a Modulo-3 (2+2=1) or Modulo-4 (2+2=0) math system.
Your complaints about the "ambiguity in the statement of the puzzle" is reviewed, and rejected.
It also makes them no fun. Who would care to wonder about how two men died in a locked cabin in the mountains, when they're told immediately upfront that it is an airplane cabin?
Snowgirl shall choose her binary values by her own prerogative.
Where's your Tuesday?
Why do you invalidate his experiment with an experiment that is not the one he is talking about.
As a side note, in the future, actually understand what "invalidate" means before invalidating.
P.S. I am not saying he was right, just that your invalidation is wrong.
Actually read the problem that he presents, and not the summary he purports at the beginning.
They vary.
Woman here. Marriage doesn't always make sense, and is not an eventual and conclusive step in a relationship. Anyone who views it that way is highly likely to get burned in a marriage.
-- Mom denies in court that she smokes marijuana but posts partying, pot-smoking photos of herself on Facebook.
So what? Are journalists forced to ....
You know what? you're just wrong dude... just wrong, and it's not even really worth my effort to argue with you beyond a cursory "read the fucking shit again without imposing a sense of bias into the article".
1.) A parent seeking full custody of a child in a divorce is usually expected to be prepared and ready to take such responsibility.
2.) That most certainly does indicate "anger issues".
Mostly, your comment shows directly why people should think before they post. Even something that you think is entirely in jest or completely harmless can come back and bite them.
Lastly, SCO poured heaps of evidence all over the Novell v. SCO case, and still lost to Novell's more convincing evidence.
*shuffles through some court documents* Ah, here it is:
42. Defendant did on the 14th day of March, 2010, place the herein described interface on the router described in claim 15 on a mode indicating promiscuity (Exhibit A, attached, "System Log of Family Router"), thus violated Paragraph 23 of the prenuptial agreement forbidding inter alia that the Defendant "refrain completely and entirely from any and all forms of promiscuity for and during the entire effective duration of the marriage."
As a matter of fact, even the traditional christian marriage vow does not contain faithfulness. Look it up.
Let's see....something in Genesis if I recall pertained exactly to this. Something about adultery....I think it was one of ten ideas, or laws, or fuzzy warm feelings, or something like that. Maybe commandments? Who knows, the Bible isn't really worth anything really to a Christian marriage....
Semantic drift. "Adultry" at the time it was written only referred to sex outside of wedlock. It did not mean that one could not have multiple wives. It also applied to premarital sex.
I've been through it twice. Both times it cost less than $200. Both times took less than a week. Divorce is only as messy as the two parties make it.
Well, actually one party can decide nearly unilaterally to make it a big deal.
Because us mathematicians come up with these really simple problems, and when we tell you that your naive answer is wrong, you grab your ball, shove reality in our face, and run home...
#!/usr/bin/perl
my @set;
for my $gen (1 .. 100000) {
my $sex1 = rand > 0.5 ? "m" : "f";
my $sex2 = rand > 0.5 ? "m" : "f";
push @set, [$sex1, $sex2];
}
my $count = 0;
my $total = 0;
foreach my $pair (@set) {
next if ($$pair[0] ne "m" and $$pair[1] ne "m");
$total++;
$count++ if ($$pair[0] eq $$pair[1]);
}
print "$count / $total\n";
No joke, you break out the SQL.
I did so.
I generated a bunch of SQL records, into a table with two relevant fields, both binary. (Male was indicated by false, female was indicated by true).
Then I counted how many SQL records were returned WHERE gender1 = male OR gender2 = male
Then I counted how many SQL records were returned WHERE gender1 = male AND gender2 = male.
The results? Out of a population of 100,000 records: 24940 male-male, 74893 at least one male. Yielding 1/3 to the third decimal place.
The mistake you made (and it is a mistake, because you claim your experiment would show a result that it empirically does not) is that you failed to count properly. There will always be approximately twice as many records with one boy as there are two boy records.
It's not the BIRTH ORDER that turns this problem into something interesting.
As a side note, in the future, actually run your experiments if it is actually feasible to do so.
The problem stated in the article is: "Suppose that Mr. Smith has two children, at least one of whom is a son. What is the probability both children are boys?" This is a different scenario than what is stated in the summary: "I have two children, one of whom is a boy. What's the probability that my other child is a boy?" In the first scenario, the probabilities are dependent on each other because it is not stated whether the first or the second child is the boy. In the second problem, it is given that the FIRST child is a boy. But that does not affect the odds of the second child which should therefore be 0.5.
No, the two statements are generally equivalent.
The phrase "at least one of" simply more accurately reduces ambiguity that is available in the second. The extra ambiguity is added into the second version is that it could potentially mean "I have two children, only one is a boy."
I recall hearing that some research found that we can notice a single pixel change in an image at 6 feet, even with a ridiculously high resolution.
If that's for example lighting up a single pixel in a dark area, it's not terribly surprising. If it's swapping two neighboring pixels (even across a sharp full-bright area vs full-dark area boundary), then yeah it's a bit more impressive.
I recall it was a full picture, not upon a full light/dark field. Somewhere between random and detailed.