If you licensed your DNA so carefully, then how did it end up at the crime scene? and on the toilet? and on the barbershop floor?
Obvious cases of copyright infringement, damn those pirates!
"That's almost completely wrong"
No, that is only slightly wrong. The parallax helps our brain create an illusion of three dimensions.
"Binocular vision is only useful for depth perception within about a foot or two of your face, beyond that and the difference between what your eyes see is too small to matter."
Yes, depth perception due to binocular vision is limited. But the useful limit is far greater than a foot or two. It is more like 10-20 foot, which makes it plenty useful for lots of everyday human actions.
Of course not, everyone knows it is a series of tubes...
Well, actually fascist economies didn't do so bad
But of course you might not want to live in one.
It is a reference to Monty Python's Life of Brian
This only applies to the protocol part of the packet. The payload part of the packet may contain anything.
But converting between endian systems is both quick and easy so it is not a real problem. The real reason is that the console vendors put strict rules on how online gaming must be implemented and you do not get your game published without their permission, period.
Just to nitpick a bit.
The correct number should be 97% or 94% if you limit yourself to the "Internet population" and not the global population.
You might find it interesting that about 70% of Internet users would not have understood the article in English either.
Must be something wrong with my reading comprehension today. I now see you start your post with suggesting a written offer in the user manual. Which would be more than good enough to stay GPL compliant.
Sorry for the noise.
Maybe TFA has been changed?
But if you read the link 'follow the case here' it clearly states which part of the linux kernel he is claiming copyright on.
He also ask for other copyright holders to join him.
Not exactly correct
You only need to provide source code when ASKED for it. There is no requirement in the GPL to pro-actively distribute the source code along with the binaries nor that they must be available for download on the Internet. The good old CD in the mail system is fine. You might even charge for CD and postage.
However, if you do not include source code in the distribution then you need to provide a written offer valid for at least three years to provide anyone who possesses the object code a copy of the corresponding source code.
The reason most compliant companies chose to either include the source or just put it on their corporate web page is because this is easier in the first place than to handle potentially thousands of letters asking for the source later.
If they really need 6 weeks to deliver the server how do you expect them to be able to replace any part of it within one hour at a later time?
That does not make much sense.
The GPL is about providing everyone who wants the possibillity to contribute to the project, fork the project or do whatever they want by making sure the source code is always available.
It is not about coercing people to contribute whether they make money on the project or not.
There is nothing wrong with charging for GPLed software as long as you provide the source code for free to anyone who asks.
The GPL is about keeping the source code available or to put it another way: Free speech, not necessarily free beer!
From wikipedia:
Mount Everest is the highest mountain on Earth, as measured by the height above sea level of its summit, 8,848 metres (29,029 ft).
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.