Tech sites review plenty of flops.
Tech sites review plenty of flops.
Sure it is. You just have to add everything up and include all of the small bits that eventually add up to a level of TCO and performance that isn't terribly compelling.
My ISP has been stagnant for years while hard drives just keep getting bigger and bigger. This is especially true for uploads.
I think my ISP increased upload speeds once in ten years.
But it's combined by the user at runtime, not by canocal. The GPL allows an end users to do this.
This is a way that people kid themselves about the GPL. If the user were really porting ZFS on their own, combining the work and never distributing it, that would work. But the user isn't combining it. The Ubuntu developer is creating instructions which explicitly load the driver into the kernel. These instructions are either a link script that references the kernel, or a pre-linked dynamic module. Creating those instructions and distributing them to the user is tantamount to performing the act on the user's system, under your control rather than the user's.
To show this with an analogy, suppose you placed a bomb in the user's system which would go off when they loaded the ZFS module. But Judge, you might say, I am innocent because the victim is actually the person who set off the bomb. All I did was distribute a harmless unexploded bomb.
So, it's clear that you can perform actions that have effects later in time and at a different place that are your action rather than the user's. That is what building a dynamic module or linking scripts does.
There is also the problem that the pieces, Linux and ZFS, are probably distributed together. There is specific language in the GPL to catch that.
A lot of people don't realize what they get charged with when they violate the GPL (or any license). They don't get charged with violating the license terms. They are charged with copyright infringement, and their defense is that they have a license. So, the defense has to prove that they were in conformance with every license term.
This is another situation where I would have a pretty easy time making the programmer look bad when they are deposed.
Then find out who used it and punish the person using a frequency they should not use. How's this the fault of the maker of the software?
Behavior over time. Once discovered, they are terminated, put in chains and sent to an island with fellow monsters where they will hopefully eat each other alive.
The thing with bags is that you can replant a forest. You can't replant an oil well.
Plastic production and recycling isn't exactly "pollution free" either.
But would we recognize the intent? There was this number experiment by Cornelis de Jager who showed that with a handful of numbers and some creative application of math, you can prove that these numbers are "special" and that whoever used them has a profound understanding of math. He used some values derived from his bicycle to show that whoever made this must have superspecial knowledge of quantum physics because if you multiplied the pedal way with the square root of the bell's diameter and divided it by
This was done to debunk the number mysticism behind the Pyramids and other ancient buildings where some ancient alien loonies claimed that, since the length of the sides and the height and whatnot can calculate some physical constants down to some numbers behind the comma. de Jager showed that you can pull a handful numbers out of your ass and, putting them through some math, you can calculate any physical constant you want.
That also works for conspiracy theories, btw.
So when you show some alien that you know a constant, you also have to show them that you actually intend to show it to them.
And this is what sociopath does; concocts elaborate, vile and usually illegal schemes, convinces a bunch of underlings to execute them, and then, when caught, tries to throw them under the bus.
It's why sociopaths should be outlawed from all management positions of any kind, right down to crew shift chief at McDonald's.
No access point on this planet has the potential to actually cause any meaningful interference with anything by a simple change in its firmware. Either you have to tinker with the hardware, attach some serious antennas or otherwise boost its rather mediocre power, but nothing you could do to its software alone could possibly create the alleged interference causing device the FCC seems to fear.
Actually, to create such a thing, all I have to do is modifying the hardware. Something that locking down the software will not even remotely address.
So, spill it. What's the deal? You're lying, FCC. What's the real reason?
Please try. What keeps me from rolling my own?
The whole "problem" is so silly it boggles the mind.
So the only ones bothered by the insanity we call government are law abiding people?
No wonder politicians don't worry 'bout it too much.