Older r1q2 builds up to at least b6756 used to work like the id Software 3.20 client, in terms of strafing into a moving current of water. With these clients, you can easily strafe up/against the current in the waterways on cool1, and the waterfall on fusion.
However, between b6756 and b7431 of r1q2, this strafing ability became broken somehow.
Here's a demo showing a waterclimb and a strafe into the waterfall on fusion, to get the quad, recorded with an earlier build of r1q2 (b6756 probably)
I'm not trying to Write The Book on open source licenses here, but recently there appears to have been some confusion and/or disagreement as to the nature or ramifications of the GNU Public License (GPL).
Certainly everyone is probably familiar with the concept of proprietary closed-source software (most commercial software falls into this category), so I thought it might be useful to look at the other end of the spectrum--extremely unrestricted open source software.
I think the NetBSD license is a good example of the latter category. The license itself consists of four simple clauses (followed by the obligatory ALL CAPS DISCLAIMER): * Copyright (c) 2005 The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the NetBSD * Foundation, Inc. and its contributors. * 4. Neither the name of The NetBSD Foundation nor the names of its * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE NETBSD FOUNDATION, INC. AND CONTRIBUTORS * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED * TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE FOUNDATION OR CONTRIBUTORS * BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
Compared to many open source licenses, the above is remarkably simple. What may be interesting is how the NetBSD folks describe their open source license in constrast with the GPL, in their own words: [1]
Quote
Why the NetBSD Project uses a Berkeley-style license
The people working on the NetBSD Project want to provide a high-quality system that anyone can use for whatever they want. We are not in it for the money (we are volunteers!), so we have no desire to keep people from distributing our work. However, for various reasons, we would like credit for the work that we do, and so neither do we want to place our work into the public domain, and thereby give up our claim to even having our names on the software we wrote! Berkeley-style licenses are a happy medium: they allow people to copy and modify the software, so long as we get name recognition and our names aren't used without our permissions.
One thing that some people don't realize about Berkeley-style licenses is that they allow licensees (the users of the licensed work) to sell the code, in any form, with or without modification, and that they make no requirement that licensees give away the source code, even if they're selling binaries. This provides a striking contrast to the license terms granted by the GNU General Public License, because the GPL requires that, if you're distributing binaries, you must be willing to give away the sources to build those binaries.
Those of us working on the NetBSD Project are aware of this distinction, and some even value it. As stated above, we want anyone to be able to use the NetBSD operating system for whatever they want, just as long as they follow the few restrictions made by our license terms. Additionally, we don't think it's right to require people who add to our work and want to distribute the results (for profit or otherwise) to give away the source to their additions; they made the additions, and they should be free to do with them as they wish.
In summary, the people involved in the NetBSD Project use a Berkeley-style license where possible because it closely matches our goal of allowing users to do whatever they'd like with our software, while making sure that we get credit for the work we have done. We are pragmatic, however, and will include software with different license terms in the NetBSD operating system if it significantly improves the quality of the system.
As one can see, this is a fairly maximally unrestrictive license. (The italics in, "we want anyone to be able to use the NetBSD operating system for whatever they want", were their own, not added by me.)
So how does the maximally unrestrictive NetBSD license contrast with the GPL?
In short, they have a slightly different focus. NetBSD aims to give people the freedom to do whatever they like with the code (provided proper credit is given.) This includes the freedom to close the source and keep modifications proprietary. GPL aims to ensure all GPL code remains free (as in freedom, not as in beer) and thus imposes more restrictions than NetBSD. GPL says, if you modify this code and distribute binaries, then you must also make the modified source code available. You can charge whatever you want for the binaries, but the source code must be available for a nominal fee (no more than the cost of physically duplicating the source code.)
And so, the chief similarities between the NetBSD and GPL licenses may be that in both cases the code is initially freely distributed, and that in both cases anyone may charge whatever they want for binaries based on the original code, or modifications of the code. The chief difference being that NetBSD allows modified source to become proprietary, where GPL requires that modified source remain free (as in freedom, not as in beer.)
Well -- that's my first stab at contrasting the differences... Did I miss anything?
(Edit: I have purposefully avoided delving into the so-called 'viral' nature of the GPL, for simplicity' sake, in this initial post.)
On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage
Since the invention of the microprocessor, the cost of moving a byte of information around has fallen on the order of 10-million-fold. Never before in the human history has any product or service gotten 10 million times cheaper-much less in the course of a couple decades. That's as if a 747 plane, once at $150 million a piece, could now be bought for about the price of a large pizza. -- Michael Rothschild
Another type of backup storage uses a number of large, thin discs (about three feet in diameter), with magnetic coating on the surfaces. -- Douglas Engelbart in 1962
If you torture data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything. -- Fred Menger
The plural of anecdote is not data. -- Frank Kotsonis
In the world of systems design, programs and data are the scissor blades working together to form the broader class -- software. Lacking either blade, computers couldn't cut through problems -- yet for many people, software is synonymous with programs. -- Tom Gilb
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. -- Andrew Tannenbaum
Here are some additional observations (culled from posts on the ruby-talk mailing list)...
---
First testcase: "your banana my banana" should give " banana"
(notice the leading space is part of the repetition!)
---
"Repeated substrings may not overlap."
> > "aaaaaa" should give "aaa" > > > > Right? > > It should, otherwise "banana" would give "ana" rather than "an".
...
> > My question is (I'm not familiar with RubyQuiz too much ): episode > > focus on algorithm (speed) or source code (readable)? > > Hopefully both.
...
Anyway... this seems like a fun problem in any language... it's pretty simple to write a correct but slow version (I think) ... but making it faster probably requires some cleverness.
I was watching a 1968 British documentary entitled, "The Shrinking World of L. Ron Hubbard". It was the first time I'd ever heard the dude's voice. Mike Myers must have seen this footage. The similarities would just be too uncanny otherwise...
Saw a review of this bass in a recent bass guitar magazine. This company makes a Quake bass (no relation to the game that I know of) which is extra long scale, to the point where it can be tuned a full octave below a normal bass! Also, you can tune it the same as a regular bass but use lighter gauge strings (because of the extra long scale) and get a richer tone than with thicker gauge strings:
I haven't played much guitar in recent years, but I picked it up again the other day and started noodling around. I strung a few riffs and licks together as an exersise... I can't quite play it yet without making a few mistakes, but what the hell, it's fun.
Show Posts
:lollerskates:
