If SCO tries to make this case at trial, they're gonna get reamed when IBM inquires into their patent clearance process.
Considering that SCO/Caldera undoubtedly practiced the same way, and considering that IBM usually files more patents than any other source on the planet - over 5,000 last year I believe - and that they do this just about every year, when IBM's patent attorneys get through with SCO, the company leadership could easily find themselves embarrassed.
claims rights to earlier code, infact code written before there was an SCO or Caldera to buy the original SCO out AFAIK. It is not SCO code, but SCO-owned System V code they are yapping about, and IBM code purportedly derived or extracted from it. This claim is the single most creative thing SCO has done in years, even if it dumber than a box of rocks.
I would just suggest starting the chicken out in hot oven at ca. 230C for about 20 minutes before reducing the temperature to 180C - for the rest of us Americans thats 450 degrees F for 20 minutes then 350 degrees F until done. The high initial heat sears the bird and seals in juices (works on turkey, beef and lamb too). DON'T poke it with a fork. Personally, I like basting it with a mix of olive oil, wine vinegar, garlic and italian herbs every half-hour until done.
Kosher chicken can be barely better than the "intensively-farmed" birds in any regular supermarket, even in Israel. Free range and organic birds are very different.
Language is often what starts wars, so for myself, I think it best to start them on purpose if I am going to participate in one.:-) Suggesting that wars are deliberately directed at civilians will set off just about anyone who has had experience in the military. I haven't, but I have relatives and friends who were. The US military in general seems to think that "collateral" casualties is an affront to their honor and proper practice of war. If you really wanted to kill civilians, nothing beats a nuke. It happens, but only bureaucrats and politicians really find civilian casualties "acceptable."
Terrorists in this light are dishonorable, right in there with politicians and bureaucrats. They DO target civilians. They don't "come out and fight like men." They are scary, but chickenshit.
If you look toward the current incumbent in the Whitehouse, you are left wondering if he isn't a little too prone to leaning on language like "belief" in his thinking. The same goes for the Secretary of Defense. "Belief" is fine in church and in twelve-step programs, but I really can't see the legitimacy of starting a war because they "believe" that Saddam had WMDs. If they actually knew, that would be a different kettle of clams. As it is neither the president nor the Secretary of Defense can confront the dead their "belief" has caused and appologize or otherwise make things right. They seem, like many fundamentalists of many faiths, to confuse belief with knowledge.
While I agree with your main point, his language is sloppy to the point you need waders to read it, your argument about wars sometimes not being about "terror" is a little weak. First, wars generally end when one side finds that it fears further losses, human or economic more than losing the war. Regardless of how a war is justified, shooting the "enemy" is done to induce fear - perhaps not in the soldiers themselves, but in their families and government. War is always about fear at some level. So is the use of armed police to enforce law. At a basic level, most governments adhere to Machiavelli's dicta concerning fear and love.
Second, you might want to examine the American Revolution from the view point of loyalists who were forced to flee to Canada or elsewhere, accepting exile in exchange for safety. There is sufficient record of burned houses, broken windows, lynchings, tar and feathering and similar behaviour to justify a conclusion that terrorism the modern sense was already a familiar tool of politics even with the founding fathers, and Jefferson's thoughts are very fearsome at some levels.
The issue is what constitutes "proof." There is a distinction between proof and evidence. Evidence can often be construed in multiple ways. In fact the more ways in which evidence can be construed the less strength it has. This is SCO's problem at present.
Eighty lines of code is evidence of something, but without additional information, there is no means of determining what it is evidence of. In order to be proof of SCO's claim, they first have to show that this code existed in code that they own and which is older than the comparable code in Linux. Second, they also need to show that the code was not introduced into the Linux codebase by Caldera themselves. Those eighy lines could just as easily be evidence of fraud on SCO's part, if they know that either it was introduced into the Linux code base by Caldera, or in fact was "borrowed" from the GPL Linux source BY Caldera or SCO. It could be a cynical attempt to raid IBM for income that SCO seems to be unable to generate for themselves. Right now there is STILL no "proof" of anything available and the use of NDA's and seriously OS challenged reviewers does not help the SCO case.
It is pointless to distribute equivocal evidence, except to muddy water and manipulate opinion. It would certainly not be pointless to distribute proof, if their concerns are honest and they want a misuse of their IP remedied, since the problem, if such it is, would be fixed swiftly. In short, presently it does not appear that SCO wants the code removed from the Linux code base.
Our expedition was lucky because Trimble is pretty supportive of science in general and archaeology in particular. So as far as I know, they helped us out for the kudos. I expect the actual cost is on the hypoxic side of 15K, but I really don't know.
The base station stands on a tripod and continuosuly recieves GPS signals. The position of the station is known. The mobile unit was a carbon fiber pole with reciever and data collector attached, rather like a smart stadia rod. The data was downloaded to a PC with Trimble software, pumped to ArcInfo, and then the archaeological data we collected was pulled in from an Access database. With the spatial analyst software for ArcView we could generate some really handy end-of-day data on the material recovered and its spatial relationships. You can do this with a plumb bob, and an EDM, but it takes longer (like about a month or so).
Only a mark one eyeball or a radar altimeter will protect you from an embarassing encounter with the ground in many parts of the world right now. Radar used close to the ground can fry innoncent bystanders. A standard aneroid altimeter has to be continuously recalibrated for changing weather conditions. Some airports use specialized instrumentation that tells a plane on approch where it is for instrument approaches. Have pilot explain this, I am not. Hikers don't need that kind of precision, true. That is why hand held units are cheap. The satellite system is already providing better data. I just want a cheaper hand held I can substitute for a theodolite.
Surveys have been made that carried an error of closure of 1.677 inches over 1,073 miles. Accuracy is critical cadastral survey. Our project's use of high precision GPS in Israel was simply a substitute for the use of a standard theodolite, but it allowed daily updates of the site GIS. Mind, I just managed the database end of things, but my data was pulled into the GIS through GPS locational data rather than from a theodolite or EDM.
military gps accuracy is within 2 cm's. this is real-time, and is not available to non-govt parties. I would hope any new european system would benefit by new technologies not available when the US system was designed.
You just don't know the right people then. We used it in Israel in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Trimble makes a subcentimeter unit that depends on a realtime correction at a base unit. It is spendy, but it isn't military. I can't recall for certain the resolution we employed in the Crimea, but it was certainly submeter as well. The basic issues involved in correcting military dithered GPS were worked out by engineers before the first satellites were orbited. Dithering was a nuisance without security benefit.
The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians. Doesn't that imply that you get more liberty under a dictatorship?
Possibly. Dictators are politicians, however, so minus one dictator is better than plus one don't you think?
As concerns those potential "them" that might help maintain a European - American solidarity. Islamic fundamentalism is as scary as biblical fundatmentalism for whatever that's worth. At the same time, Muslim nations are generally minimally diversified in their economies. They aren't expansionist and can't afford it. They have neither the infrastructure nor the unity.
Nor is China expansionist. A Tibetan might reasonably dispute this. However, the China - Tibet issue is of considerable historic depth and Tibet has some history regarding its Chinese neighbors that is now being settled. You can contrast this with how China has dealt with North Korea for instance, Mongolia, or Siberia. So I stand by my view. Right now, our administration is busily deconstructing years of diplomatic effort, social ties and goodwill earned with shed blood and death.
Superpower? They have a lot of internal divisions and disagreements to deal with before they get to that level.
Like the states here in the US?
I think the European GPS is a waste of money. Unless they anticipate a U.S. vs Europe war then I don't see this is the best use of limited resources.
It is not anything to look forward to. However, no European or US analyst is likely to ignore the fact that the "alliance" presently lacks an enemy to provide an external impetus for cohesion. France has not been happy with NATO for 40 years or more. Nor are are analysts likely to forget that we are competing for markets and resources. It is probably also best to remember that Rumsfeld sounded like a 19th century European colonialist at his condescending worst last fall and he was adressing the French and Germans. China is a less likely opponent than the EU now. They have no history of expansionism when compared with the west. Their territorial borders have been nearly stable for millenia. The Tibetans may disagree correctly here, but the conflict between Tibet and China itself goes back centuries amd the invasion can be considered a "resolution" of that conflict, though not a pretty one.
Actualy the weapons probably guided in on the signal itself rather than using GPS. The blocker would have caused the weapon to start hunting once it caem within range. I have used GPS in the Ukraine and run into Russian GPS blockers. The expedition we were with had permits from the US, Russia, and the Ukraine. Of course no one told us they wouldn't fiddle the signal. They degraded it to the point that even with post-processing the data wasn't accurate to within about +/- 200 meters. That's a potential 400 meter miss in the worst case.
Typical horizontal accuracy with a GPS is variable, generally it can be with 3 meters horizontal resolution with WAAS. However elevation is always more dubious with GPS and anything that improves it is a genuine advance. Not having the US militiary "dithering" it is no loss either. "Too accurate" is silly. Yeah, you care about where your antenna is, but an error of 15 meters in your vehicle could quite readily add up to increased insurance costs and hospital bills. An altitude error of 15 meters in an aircraft could mean the difference between an emergency manuever and a crater. Any navigational system can be programmed to account for antenna position and vehicle or vessel configuration. The accuracy of the system needs to be based on the greatest demand that can be placed on it. Right now that can be an accuracy requirement within a meter, or even within a cm. Survey grade GPS can require sub-centimeter accuracy that is only available with post-processing at present. There are a lot of us who would like to collect mapping data with a handheld or rod unit that didn't cost ten grand.
Monkeys are apes, just not great apes. From the report it sounds as if there was one author among the monkeys. The rest were apparently editorial types.
How do you reconcile these statements with a broad based study that concludes that the global climate was significantly warmer 1000 years ago? I reconcile them by concluding that statements like "this hasn't happened in the past" and "glaciers that must have been quite cold for millenia" are false.
Global climates are the product of complex processes. What we DO know is that enough dead carbon has been poured into the atmosphere from industrial sources that it has affected the accuracy of radiocarbon dates for events in the last two to three hundred years. This is know as the Suess Effect. This is superimposed on natural variation - the de Vries Effect - in radiocarbon production. During the Little Ice Age, radiocarbon production is depressed or sources of natural CO2 such as volcanism are diluting the atmospheric pool.
The short answer tp your question is that there is no single "cause" to global warming. Dithering around while we sort out the causes is simple minded at best. The demonstrable human interference with the carbon cycle should have us worried, because that is something for which the causes are known. The science that says that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases is sound as far as anyone knows. Prudence suggests that if we want to keep cities such as Amsterdam and other low-lying cites and agricultural land, we should at least look to minimizing our own contributions to the process. That will at least reduce rates of change.
Global temperature has been known to vary over geological spans for decades. The climate of Britain was warm enough during the Mediaeval "warm" period that they had a wine industry - though contemporary writers thought the beer was better. But because someone refers to a period as "warm" in one part of the planet does not make it a global climatic optimum. At the same time, populations in other parts of the world were experiencing serious climatic challenges like droughts. It might have been "warm" in Britain, but we have reason to believe that the human population in the Sierra Nevada of California declined catastrophically. We can also look at the end of the Pleistocene and the mass extinctions that accompanied it and consider that rates of change might be a serious factor in the ability of ecological systems to adapt successfully.
It has been fashionable to point to human hunting as the cause of Pleistocene extinctions, but several major predators also disappeared and there is no indication that humans and these predators had much - if any - direct contact. The best bet is that the rates of climatic change at the end of the Pleistocene were simply too rapid for the existing ecosystems to adapt to quickly. Whole plant associations vanished along with the fauna that lived on them. If our carbon output is contributing to (not "causing" but "contributing to") a comparable process now, puttng the brakes on is simply common sense. The entire discussion couched in terms of single "causes" is irrelevant.
Melting permafrost was discussed in the 1999 Arctic Science sessions hosted by the AAAS.
http://www.cgc.uaf.edu/aaas/aaas_sessions.html There was also one or more articles published in Science about that time. There are also numerous references to the issue and articles about it in Nature. You can also search the NOAA site, since NOAA provided some of the original data.
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media and as a part of the software
program in whole or part. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC
without charge, but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the user.
I was overly general in my phrasing. And, of course, without context, my intended meaning is not clear in your citation. However, even so, the RPC is governed by a form of OS license. It still doesn't look like the RPC code would be governed by the rights claimed by SCO (Caldera) with respect to the UNIX codebase. In fact, given sufficient rewriting of the code, you would think it had become so dilute that it might be hard to demonstrate just what could be covered any longer. Also, Debian is not Redhat, and the reason SCO doesn't like Redhat isn't changed since license rights are irrelevant to that issue.
It is hard to imagine how they could be. SCO has hated Redhat since RH showed what incompetent asses the Caldera bunch were. This was well before IBM was involved Linux. Caldera's shining high point as a Linux distribution was making it possible to play Tetris while the installation was going on. Their release was always inadequate and behind the curve. They never took advantage of supporting OS as Redhat did. Now they are claiming that Linux is "from Unix." It isn't. The character mode interface and commands were emulated if you will (by GNU mostly), but nothing in Linux that anyone has ever identified derives from licensed code. Since Linux is infact OPEN SOURCE, it should be a simple matter for coders familiar with both sources to identify it. So, unless they can come out and show what code was introduced into the Linux base from licensed sources, it makes them worse than "bad." It makes them liars and frauds.
Another really interesting story was called "The Children's Hour." The action takes place probably right after WW II. The authors were Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore. The story cast a very different light on certain myths and suggested that some "human" adults are really still children in a much vaster scheme of things.
Slashdot Mirror
If SCO tries to make this case at trial, they're gonna get reamed when IBM inquires into their patent clearance process.
Considering that SCO/Caldera undoubtedly practiced the same way, and considering that IBM usually files more patents than any other source on the planet - over 5,000 last year I believe - and that they do this just about every year, when IBM's patent attorneys get through with SCO, the company leadership could easily find themselves embarrassed.
Take photograph of your least favorite center ready to hike. Morph to a monkey and shrink relative to football.
claims rights to earlier code, infact code written before there was an SCO or Caldera to buy the original SCO out AFAIK. It is not SCO code, but SCO-owned System V code they are yapping about, and IBM code purportedly derived or extracted from it. This claim is the single most creative thing SCO has done in years, even if it dumber than a box of rocks.
I would just suggest starting the chicken out in hot oven at ca. 230C for about 20 minutes before reducing the temperature to 180C - for the rest of us Americans thats 450 degrees F for 20 minutes then 350 degrees F until done. The high initial heat sears the bird and seals in juices (works on turkey, beef and lamb too). DON'T poke it with a fork. Personally, I like basting it with a mix of olive oil, wine vinegar, garlic and italian herbs every half-hour until done.
Kosher chicken can be barely better than the "intensively-farmed" birds in any regular supermarket, even in Israel. Free range and organic birds are very different.
...SCO's buisness model is failing because of Linux and Open Source...
And yet, IBM says they made back the billion dollar linux investment in a year. Maybe SCO doesn't really have a business model.
Language is often what starts wars, so for myself, I think it best to start them on purpose if I am going to participate in one.:-) Suggesting that wars are deliberately directed at civilians will set off just about anyone who has had experience in the military. I haven't, but I have relatives and friends who were. The US military in general seems to think that "collateral" casualties is an affront to their honor and proper practice of war. If you really wanted to kill civilians, nothing beats a nuke. It happens, but only bureaucrats and politicians really find civilian casualties "acceptable."
Terrorists in this light are dishonorable, right in there with politicians and bureaucrats. They DO target civilians. They don't "come out and fight like men." They are scary, but chickenshit.
If you look toward the current incumbent in the Whitehouse, you are left wondering if he isn't a little too prone to leaning on language like "belief" in his thinking. The same goes for the Secretary of Defense. "Belief" is fine in church and in twelve-step programs, but I really can't see the legitimacy of starting a war because they "believe" that Saddam had WMDs. If they actually knew, that would be a different kettle of clams. As it is neither the president nor the Secretary of Defense can confront the dead their "belief" has caused and appologize or otherwise make things right. They seem, like many fundamentalists of many faiths, to confuse belief with knowledge.
While I agree with your main point, his language is sloppy to the point you need waders to read it, your argument about wars sometimes not being about "terror" is a little weak. First, wars generally end when one side finds that it fears further losses, human or economic more than losing the war. Regardless of how a war is justified, shooting the "enemy" is done to induce fear - perhaps not in the soldiers themselves, but in their families and government. War is always about fear at some level. So is the use of armed police to enforce law. At a basic level, most governments adhere to Machiavelli's dicta concerning fear and love.
Second, you might want to examine the American Revolution from the view point of loyalists who were forced to flee to Canada or elsewhere, accepting exile in exchange for safety. There is sufficient record of burned houses, broken windows, lynchings, tar and feathering and similar behaviour to justify a conclusion that terrorism the modern sense was already a familiar tool of politics even with the founding fathers, and Jefferson's thoughts are very fearsome at some levels.
The issue is what constitutes "proof." There is a distinction between proof and evidence. Evidence can often be construed in multiple ways. In fact the more ways in which evidence can be construed the less strength it has. This is SCO's problem at present.
Eighty lines of code is evidence of something, but without additional information, there is no means of determining what it is evidence of. In order to be proof of SCO's claim, they first have to show that this code existed in code that they own and which is older than the comparable code in Linux. Second, they also need to show that the code was not introduced into the Linux codebase by Caldera themselves. Those eighy lines could just as easily be evidence of fraud on SCO's part, if they know that either it was introduced into the Linux code base by Caldera, or in fact was "borrowed" from the GPL Linux source BY Caldera or SCO. It could be a cynical attempt to raid IBM for income that SCO seems to be unable to generate for themselves. Right now there is STILL no "proof" of anything available and the use of NDA's and seriously OS challenged reviewers does not help the SCO case.
It is pointless to distribute equivocal evidence, except to muddy water and manipulate opinion. It would certainly not be pointless to distribute proof, if their concerns are honest and they want a misuse of their IP remedied, since the problem, if such it is, would be fixed swiftly. In short, presently it does not appear that SCO wants the code removed from the Linux code base.
Actually, you won't know if it was really dead or alive until you push the reset button.
Our expedition was lucky because Trimble is pretty supportive of science in general and archaeology in particular. So as far as I know, they helped us out for the kudos. I expect the actual cost is on the hypoxic side of 15K, but I really don't know.
The base station stands on a tripod and continuosuly recieves GPS signals. The position of the station is known. The mobile unit was a carbon fiber pole with reciever and data collector attached, rather like a smart stadia rod. The data was downloaded to a PC with Trimble software, pumped to ArcInfo, and then the archaeological data we collected was pulled in from an Access database. With the spatial analyst software for ArcView we could generate some really handy end-of-day data on the material recovered and its spatial relationships. You can do this with a plumb bob, and an EDM, but it takes longer (like about a month or so).
Only a mark one eyeball or a radar altimeter will protect you from an embarassing encounter with the ground in many parts of the world right now. Radar used close to the ground can fry innoncent bystanders. A standard aneroid altimeter has to be continuously recalibrated for changing weather conditions. Some airports use specialized instrumentation that tells a plane on approch where it is for instrument approaches. Have pilot explain this, I am not. Hikers don't need that kind of precision, true. That is why hand held units are cheap. The satellite system is already providing better data. I just want a cheaper hand held I can substitute for a theodolite.
Surveys have been made that carried an error of closure of 1.677 inches over 1,073 miles. Accuracy is critical cadastral survey. Our project's use of high precision GPS in Israel was simply a substitute for the use of a standard theodolite, but it allowed daily updates of the site GIS. Mind, I just managed the database end of things, but my data was pulled into the GIS through GPS locational data rather than from a theodolite or EDM.
military gps accuracy is within 2 cm's. this is real-time, and is not available to non-govt parties. I would hope any new european system would benefit by new technologies not available when the US system was designed.
You just don't know the right people then. We used it in Israel in 1998, 1999 and 2000. Trimble makes a subcentimeter unit that depends on a realtime correction at a base unit. It is spendy, but it isn't military. I can't recall for certain the resolution we employed in the Crimea, but it was certainly submeter as well. The basic issues involved in correcting military dithered GPS were worked out by engineers before the first satellites were orbited. Dithering was a nuisance without security benefit.
The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Doesn't that imply that you get more liberty under a dictatorship?
Possibly. Dictators are politicians, however, so minus one dictator is better than plus one don't you think?
As concerns those potential "them" that might help maintain a European - American solidarity. Islamic fundamentalism is as scary as biblical fundatmentalism for whatever that's worth. At the same time, Muslim nations are generally minimally diversified in their economies. They aren't expansionist and can't afford it. They have neither the infrastructure nor the unity.
Nor is China expansionist. A Tibetan might reasonably dispute this. However, the China - Tibet issue is of considerable historic depth and Tibet has some history regarding its Chinese neighbors that is now being settled. You can contrast this with how China has dealt with North Korea for instance, Mongolia, or Siberia. So I stand by my view. Right now, our administration is busily deconstructing years of diplomatic effort, social ties and goodwill earned with shed blood and death.
"... Pottus Risus "
Superpower? They have a lot of internal divisions and disagreements to deal with before they get to that level.
Like the states here in the US?
I think the European GPS is a waste of money. Unless they anticipate a U.S. vs Europe war then I don't see this is the best use of limited resources.
It is not anything to look forward to. However, no European or US analyst is likely to ignore the fact that the "alliance" presently lacks an enemy to provide an external impetus for cohesion. France has not been happy with NATO for 40 years or more. Nor are are analysts likely to forget that we are competing for markets and resources. It is probably also best to remember that Rumsfeld sounded like a 19th century European colonialist at his condescending worst last fall and he was adressing the French and Germans. China is a less likely opponent than the EU now. They have no history of expansionism when compared with the west. Their territorial borders have been nearly stable for millenia. The Tibetans may disagree correctly here, but the conflict between Tibet and China itself goes back centuries amd the invasion can be considered a "resolution" of that conflict, though not a pretty one.
Actualy the weapons probably guided in on the signal itself rather than using GPS. The blocker would have caused the weapon to start hunting once it caem within range. I have used GPS in the Ukraine and run into Russian GPS blockers. The expedition we were with had permits from the US, Russia, and the Ukraine. Of course no one told us they wouldn't fiddle the signal. They degraded it to the point that even with post-processing the data wasn't accurate to within about +/- 200 meters. That's a potential 400 meter miss in the worst case.
Typical horizontal accuracy with a GPS is variable, generally it can be with 3 meters horizontal resolution with WAAS. However elevation is always more dubious with GPS and anything that improves it is a genuine advance. Not having the US militiary "dithering" it is no loss either. "Too accurate" is silly. Yeah, you care about where your antenna is, but an error of 15 meters in your vehicle could quite readily add up to increased insurance costs and hospital bills. An altitude error of 15 meters in an aircraft could mean the difference between an emergency manuever and a crater. Any navigational system can be programmed to account for antenna position and vehicle or vessel configuration. The accuracy of the system needs to be based on the greatest demand that can be placed on it. Right now that can be an accuracy requirement within a meter, or even within a cm. Survey grade GPS can require sub-centimeter accuracy that is only available with post-processing at present. There are a lot of us who would like to collect mapping data with a handheld or rod unit that didn't cost ten grand.
Monkeys are apes, just not great apes. From the report it sounds as if there was one author among the monkeys. The rest were apparently editorial types.
How do you reconcile these statements with a broad based study that concludes that the global climate was significantly warmer 1000 years ago? I reconcile them by concluding that statements like "this hasn't happened in the past" and "glaciers that must have been quite cold for millenia" are false.
Global climates are the product of complex processes. What we DO know is that enough dead carbon has been poured into the atmosphere from industrial sources that it has affected the accuracy of radiocarbon dates for events in the last two to three hundred years. This is know as the Suess Effect. This is superimposed on natural variation - the de Vries Effect - in radiocarbon production. During the Little Ice Age, radiocarbon production is depressed or sources of natural CO2 such as volcanism are diluting the atmospheric pool.
The short answer tp your question is that there is no single "cause" to global warming. Dithering around while we sort out the causes is simple minded at best. The demonstrable human interference with the carbon cycle should have us worried, because that is something for which the causes are known. The science that says that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases is sound as far as anyone knows. Prudence suggests that if we want to keep cities such as Amsterdam and other low-lying cites and agricultural land, we should at least look to minimizing our own contributions to the process. That will at least reduce rates of change.
Global temperature has been known to vary over geological spans for decades. The climate of Britain was warm enough during the Mediaeval "warm" period that they had a wine industry - though contemporary writers thought the beer was better. But because someone refers to a period as "warm" in one part of the planet does not make it a global climatic optimum. At the same time, populations in other parts of the world were experiencing serious climatic challenges like droughts. It might have been "warm" in Britain, but we have reason to believe that the human population in the Sierra Nevada of California declined catastrophically. We can also look at the end of the Pleistocene and the mass extinctions that accompanied it and consider that rates of change might be a serious factor in the ability of ecological systems to adapt successfully.
It has been fashionable to point to human hunting as the cause of Pleistocene extinctions, but several major predators also disappeared and there is no indication that humans and these predators had much - if any - direct contact. The best bet is that the rates of climatic change at the end of the Pleistocene were simply too rapid for the existing ecosystems to adapt to quickly. Whole plant associations vanished along with the fauna that lived on them. If our carbon output is contributing to (not "causing" but "contributing to") a comparable process now, puttng the brakes on is simply common sense. The entire discussion couched in terms of single "causes" is irrelevant.
Melting permafrost was discussed in the 1999 Arctic Science sessions hosted by the AAAS.
http://www.cgc.uaf.edu/aaas/aaas_sessions.html
There was also one or more articles published in Science about that time. There are also numerous references to the issue and articles about it in Nature. You can also search the NOAA site, since NOAA provided some of the original data.
Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is
provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is
included on all tape media and as a part of the software
program in whole or part. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC
without charge, but are not authorized to license or
distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or
program developed by the user.
I was overly general in my phrasing. And, of course, without context, my intended meaning is not clear in your citation. However, even so, the RPC is governed by a form of OS license. It still doesn't look like the RPC code would be governed by the rights claimed by SCO (Caldera) with respect to the UNIX codebase. In fact, given sufficient rewriting of the code, you would think it had become so dilute that it might be hard to demonstrate just what could be covered any longer. Also, Debian is not Redhat, and the reason SCO doesn't like Redhat isn't changed since license rights are irrelevant to that issue.
It is hard to imagine how they could be. SCO has hated Redhat since RH showed what incompetent asses the Caldera bunch were. This was well before IBM was involved Linux. Caldera's shining high point as a Linux distribution was making it possible to play Tetris while the installation was going on. Their release was always inadequate and behind the curve. They never took advantage of supporting OS as Redhat did. Now they are claiming that Linux is "from Unix." It isn't. The character mode interface and commands were emulated if you will (by GNU mostly), but nothing in Linux that anyone has ever identified derives from licensed code. Since Linux is infact OPEN SOURCE, it should be a simple matter for coders familiar with both sources to identify it. So, unless they can come out and show what code was introduced into the Linux base from licensed sources, it makes them worse than "bad." It makes them liars and frauds.
Another really interesting story was called "The Children's Hour." The action takes place probably right after WW II. The authors were Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore. The story cast a very different light on certain myths and suggested that some "human" adults are really still children in a much vaster scheme of things.