"It is recognized" by whom, and what evidence do they offer to back their assertion?
Centuries of jurisprudence. Please do me the favor of researching the matter yourself before further argument.
Because to me it seems that if not enforcing a law or enforcing it in only some circumstances is in public interests, it would be even more advantageous to that public to either strike out that law or at least narrow it to only cover those cases.
That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure by what mechanism this would work. It seems like that's the purpose of jury nullification, but I suspect that you intended something else.
Just because someone has executive power to declare something classified (no matter the classification, e.g. secret, top secret) doesn't mean they get to IGNORE that classification.
I did not argue this. I do not have a horse in this race. Do not put words into my mouth. I'm not trying to second-guess the DoJ, and I don't particularly care what happens to Hillary. Saying that the summary is biased is not equivalent to condoning the actions of the persons described.
There are certainly many problems with the justice system. I'm sure we could spend many happy hours describing and delineating them — you have a good list going already. However, I'm far more interested in your proposal to fix this situation. It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest, which is why at all stages we assign wide discretion to persons safeguarding the interest of the State. Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good. We agree that corruption in all its forms is antithetical to a democracy. I would like to believe that a solution is possible; perhaps you can do me the favor of articulating one.
I thought we need to air out these opinions, and have these discussions? Well that's what was said during the last SJW post, which was, what, a couple of hours ago? Suddenly we need to shut up.
While I understand you have some sort of rant going, I fail to see how it applies to anything I said. Are you arguing that there are not different levels of classification and different classification authorities?
What if Ted Cruz had set up his own email server and received any material at all, not even classified?
Is this a serious argument, or parody?
There are one set of standards for us and another for your kind.
I'm not really sure who you're arguing against. I don't particularly care whether or not she's indicted, or convicted. Perhaps you can send the DoJ a strongly-worded letter.
Prosecutorial discretion is a legal principle that predates the Constitution, and exists for many good reasons, not least of which is preventing the needless use of state resources. Similarly, we give discretion to police in their exercise of power, and we give discretion to juries in deciding whether to convict. It may be convenient for your current political agenda to have things be otherwise, but you should probably understand that if there were to be language in the Constitution regarding this subject, it would far more likely preserve this principle than dispose of it. I honestly don't have any idea how this will play out, personally; I'm just here for the show.
The last line of the summary is opinion, probably false, and flamebait. That may be what Fox or Rush Limbaugh are saying, but reasonable people need not repeat it, and it certainly doesn't belong on Slashdot.
A large part of prior discussions on the topic here was that SecState does actually have the power to unilaterally declare some material classified or not -- I believe this applies to material originating in the State Department. So, most people here should already know that there are degrees and nuances to classification, and the details of that matter considerably. I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.
No, they are refusing to forward extortion notices because they have no legal requirement to. Whether or not the entity issuing the takedown request is the rightsholder or is authorized to act on the their part is covered by the DMCA request. The issuer has to affirm under penalty of perjury that they have the right to issue the notice, and it's no skin off the IPS's nose if it's not true -- all things being equal, they would prefer invalid claims.
The reason that they don't want to forward claims is because [a] it costs money, [b] people who infringe often tend to be more willing to pay for faster connections (or even better, excess bandwidth charges), and [c] they are legally obligated to terminate the services of repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i)(1)(A), see also[pdf]). Currently, there is no actual legal definition of what constitutes a 'repeat infringer', nor what kind of disconnection policy meets the DMCA guidelines. As noted in TFA, the media industry has been pushing heavily for "three strikes" laws and policies: this is a direct response. It's something of a game of chicken, the ISPs are saying that if the media companies want to play hardball, the ISPs will stop forwarding notices, and then presumably cross their fingers and hope that Congress doesn't want to 'clarify' the law. It should be interesting to see how it plays out: I suspect whoever bought the best Congresscritters will win.
Great plan. Love the attention to detail there. "It should be cheaper!" Because why? Cops and immigration officials are free? Because civil liberties are not worth paying attention to, especially for brown people? And what sort of figure would make that acceptable? How many billion dollars of new taxes are you okay with?
The first estimate I saw on Google for the cost to deport someone was about $28k. There are eleven million illegal immigrants in the US. That's slightly less than the population of Ohio, the seventh largest state. What's your plan to deal with that?
Conservatives are generally not fond of increasing taxes, increased government intrusion, or "big government", so your plan should probably avoid any of those things. I'm personally not a huge fan of having lots of police around whose job is to hassle anyone with the wrong skin color, and definitely not so enamored of the idea that I want a lot more of it.
The problem with Trump's "position" is that it's just posturing. You can't even argue with his position because even he doesn't know what he's saying. He's just playing upon the sympathies of racists, and not letting himself get trapped into making any campaign promises which he won't be able to keep. The Republican party also knows that this is a lost cause, which is why their platform makes no mention of deportation, and never will. Eventually some form of amnesty will be necessary, and fortunately for both parties, none of this nonsense will apply to the second generation. Personally I'm hoping that the citizens of this country will one day stop being racist jerks, but it seems deeply embedded into our culture -- more's the pity.
When people say "rights" they tend to mean one of two things: the abstract concept or the empirical one. With the former, whether or not property rights endure past the end of your life is a matter of philosophy and debate. With the latter concept of "rights", they mostly pertain to what can be enforced, either by you or on your behalf. Your ability to enforce rights on your behalf certainly ends with death, and whether or not others are willing to do so is an open question.
However, you will note that there is a difference between "opt-out" and "mandatory". Perhaps you'd like to revise your argument to take that into account.
However, you're then claiming that the Universe works according to your beliefs.
I'm sort of surprised that you would have read everything in this sub-thread and got that impression. Either that or you have a differing definition of belief than I do. As far as I am aware, all attempts at reconciling FTL with GR use wormholes, negative mass, or both. As there is no observational evidence for those phenomena, they cannot be considered to be empirically true, even if there were solid mathematical reasons for them to exist. The universe does not care much for my feelings, but it also does not care much for mathematical trickery: inventing exotic matter to get the result you want out of your model does not oblige it to exist.
Science, broadly speaking, tends not to assign truth values to unproven statements, and on my milder and perhaps more consistent days I too subscribe to agnosticism. However, most of the time, I feel no need to maintain any open mindedness about Invisible Pink Unicorns, extraterrestrial abductions, religion, or FTL. Philosophically there is just as much validity in regarding the unproven as false. Thus, there is no particular need to distinguish between "impossible" and "not-quite-completely proved impossible", but if you insist, I can revise my earlier statement: until and unless empirical evidence suggests that FTL is possible, it cannot be considered to be a feature of this universe.
Preferring a universe in which one can travel quickly to one that is possible to reason about is not particularly sensible, in my opinion.
We entirely disagree that FTL is anything more than a mathematical loophole in GR. You're saying, "Hey, if I reverse the sign on one of these mass terms, GR breaks in a hypothetically useful way!", which is all very well and good, but in doing so you have crossed the line from science to science fiction. Incidentally, since no one is claiming that "bedrock is solid," error being inherent to observation, it's hardly arrogant to measure something with a given precision. No, arrogance is suggesting that the laws of physics adhere to your beliefs simply because you want them to. Until and unless there is evidence of exotic matter with negative mass, it is entirely correct to say that FTL is impossible.
You copied that without reading it, and criticized the math without working through it.
That equation also serves as a general proof that the velocity addition formulae never result in a speed w > c when u, v [lte] c
Since you're assuming u > c, that objection is inapplicable. Also, read the other article, and after that take a look at page 3,4 of this article[pdf] which has a nice graph of how causality breaks down. Again, for the purposes of causality violation, there is no practical difference between a superluminal signal and a superluminal spacecraft.
Causality means events precede their causes, by definition. Under special relativity the simultaneity or ordering of events is dependent on the observer. Thus SR modifies the definition of causality to mean that all causes precede their effects in all reference frames. Violation of causality would not mean that cause A would always be preceded by effect B, it would mean that cause and effect would vary depending on the observer (assuming that you preserve SR). And again, assuming both SR and FTL, if you travel faster than light, your destination will observe your journey in reverse order.
Causality is assumed to be true, but it's also fundamental to our understanding of the universe, and our being able to understand the universe. If you are willing to dispense with it, I don't think you've thought about the matter enough. Either way you've got a job to do figuring out a way to describe the universe.
You could not travel somewhere and return before you left, therefore there is no time travel.
No, you are incorrect. See the first answer here, or a more thorough explanation here. When reading the latter, keep in mind that "FTL signal" and "FTL spacecraft" are equivalent for these purposes.
Causality doesn't say that it was time travel to appear to leave after you arrived at a location.
Special Relativity equates FTL to time travel, but that would be a violation of causality in any case. Causality means that all causes must precede their effects. Special relativity says that the ordering of events is dependent on the observer. The combination of the two means that in order to preserve causality, all causes must be observed to precede their effects in all reference frames. Since the destination in your example would observe the travel of the ship in reverse order, that would violate causality. Visiting your own past is also possible under SR, but I'll defer to the linked explanations there.
This is an excellent answer showing that you have no idea what you're talking about. There are certainly some funny things going on in the large-scale universe, but theories modifying Relativity have failed spectacularly. Either you have an infinity of ad-hoc corrections, or you must accept that some form of Dark Matter exists. Frankly, this is one of the least surprising consequences of GR.
Obviously any replacement theory would have to be consistent with observations, just as Relativity had to be consistent with Newtonian gravity. It's an improvement over what came before, but there is absolutely no reason to assume it's the ultimate endpoint.
You refute your point, and then repeat your original idea after the "but". You argue for GR when it suits your theory, and against it when it does not.
Besides we've really only tested Relativity at the smallest and most mundane scales and energies...
Arguing that SR is not well-tested is ridiculous. The only more precisely tested theory is QED. I don't even think you understand what constitutes a test of SR; all of modern physics is based on it. GR is trickier, but there is still no contrary evidence. FTL, especially on a human scale, would be a direct refutation of Einstein; as I said, it would be like discovering down was actually up.
But we lack the technology to actually see sufficient detail to tell if our explanation is even remotely correct.
This idea that "we don't know everything, therefore my pet theory is true" is exactly the same bad argument used by AGW deniers and religious zealots. That everything is not known does not mean nothing is known, and if your concept of reality directly contradicts empirical evidence, you are wrong. If your concept of reality has no evidence for it, it may not be wrong per se, but until there is evidence it gets to hang out with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel's Teapot. Of course, if empiricism isn't your strong suit then you can believe whatever you wish, but that does kinda invalidate your opinions on physics.
Relativity describes the geometry of the universe. Its particular description has a surprising number of consequences, nearly all of which have been verified experimentally with great precision. There is nothing even hinting at any human-scale violations. Also, any new theory would still have to explain any past observations. Down will not suddenly become up with new physics or new particles, and Einstein's theories will still be valid over the domain which they have been verified in. If there is an end-run around Relativity, it is liable to be a quantum effect only.
So on the one side we have overwhelming contrary evidence, and on the other side we have a mathematical loophole and blind optimism. FTL has not been proven impossible yet, and if that's sufficient for you to take it seriously then I submit that you are far too credulous.
Interstellar warfare is unlikely to be feasible, full stop. What resource, if it existed outside this solar system, would be economically viable to go fetch? What would be worth the additional cost of warfare?
There is nothing suggesting FTL travel is reconcilable with the laws of physics, and it is certainly not reconcilable with causality. Also, if FTL exists, then aliens can travel into our past, which would probably make the whole concept of warfare moot.
I don't know if you've looked at what it takes to set up a developer environment for Chromium, but that, to me, seems like a hell of a lot of time investment. It might be worth it if you really wanted something done, but for me that's crossing the line into "I want to be paid for that kind of work," and verging on, "You couldn't pay me to work on that." I don't have a lot of comparative experience with complex build environments, and it does seem to be well documented, but still...it seems quite the ordeal.
And if I copy an "Ã", I don't want it to be translated to unicode.
What else do you have on your system? And why? And which clipboard does it right? I'm interested in looking up the code. It sounds like it might be a complicated issue. Not getting the font as well sounds a little strange, too, what if it's wingdings?
Upstart never had the contributors it needed. The Debian discussion/wiki I linked has a number of critiques. It solved little or no problems of sysvinit, introduced many of its own, and wasn't portable to other systems. Upstart had a head start on the other init replacements, and while social/political concerns may have contributed to its demise, its technical issues were what stood in the way of its success, and ultimately doomed it.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is recognized" by whom, and what evidence do they offer to back their assertion?
Centuries of jurisprudence. Please do me the favor of researching the matter yourself before further argument.
Because to me it seems that if not enforcing a law or enforcing it in only some circumstances is in public interests, it would be even more advantageous to that public to either strike out that law or at least narrow it to only cover those cases.
That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure by what mechanism this would work. It seems like that's the purpose of jury nullification, but I suspect that you intended something else.
Just because someone has executive power to declare something classified (no matter the classification, e.g. secret, top secret) doesn't mean they get to IGNORE that classification.
I did not argue this. I do not have a horse in this race. Do not put words into my mouth. I'm not trying to second-guess the DoJ, and I don't particularly care what happens to Hillary. Saying that the summary is biased is not equivalent to condoning the actions of the persons described.
There are certainly many problems with the justice system. I'm sure we could spend many happy hours describing and delineating them — you have a good list going already. However, I'm far more interested in your proposal to fix this situation. It is recognized that prosecuting all crimes to the fullest extent is neither feasible nor in the public interest, which is why at all stages we assign wide discretion to persons safeguarding the interest of the State. Attempts to reduce this discretion, for example mandatory minimum sentencing, are widely considered to have done more harm than good. We agree that corruption in all its forms is antithetical to a democracy. I would like to believe that a solution is possible; perhaps you can do me the favor of articulating one.
I thought we need to air out these opinions, and have these discussions? Well that's what was said during the last SJW post, which was, what, a couple of hours ago? Suddenly we need to shut up.
While I understand you have some sort of rant going, I fail to see how it applies to anything I said. Are you arguing that there are not different levels of classification and different classification authorities?
What if Ted Cruz had set up his own email server and received any material at all, not even classified?
Is this a serious argument, or parody?
There are one set of standards for us and another for your kind.
I'm not really sure who you're arguing against. I don't particularly care whether or not she's indicted, or convicted. Perhaps you can send the DoJ a strongly-worded letter.
Prosecutorial discretion is a legal principle that predates the Constitution, and exists for many good reasons, not least of which is preventing the needless use of state resources. Similarly, we give discretion to police in their exercise of power, and we give discretion to juries in deciding whether to convict. It may be convenient for your current political agenda to have things be otherwise, but you should probably understand that if there were to be language in the Constitution regarding this subject, it would far more likely preserve this principle than dispose of it. I honestly don't have any idea how this will play out, personally; I'm just here for the show.
The last line of the summary is opinion, probably false, and flamebait. That may be what Fox or Rush Limbaugh are saying, but reasonable people need not repeat it, and it certainly doesn't belong on Slashdot.
A large part of prior discussions on the topic here was that SecState does actually have the power to unilaterally declare some material classified or not -- I believe this applies to material originating in the State Department. So, most people here should already know that there are degrees and nuances to classification, and the details of that matter considerably. I'm not suggesting that Clinton should or should not be indicted or tried, but for all its demonizing of Obama for trying to promote a narrative, this article is as bad or worse.
No, they are refusing to forward extortion notices because they have no legal requirement to. Whether or not the entity issuing the takedown request is the rightsholder or is authorized to act on the their part is covered by the DMCA request. The issuer has to affirm under penalty of perjury that they have the right to issue the notice, and it's no skin off the IPS's nose if it's not true -- all things being equal, they would prefer invalid claims.
The reason that they don't want to forward claims is because [a] it costs money, [b] people who infringe often tend to be more willing to pay for faster connections (or even better, excess bandwidth charges), and [c] they are legally obligated to terminate the services of repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i)(1)(A), see also[pdf]). Currently, there is no actual legal definition of what constitutes a 'repeat infringer', nor what kind of disconnection policy meets the DMCA guidelines. As noted in TFA, the media industry has been pushing heavily for "three strikes" laws and policies: this is a direct response. It's something of a game of chicken, the ISPs are saying that if the media companies want to play hardball, the ISPs will stop forwarding notices, and then presumably cross their fingers and hope that Congress doesn't want to 'clarify' the law. It should be interesting to see how it plays out: I suspect whoever bought the best Congresscritters will win.
Great plan. Love the attention to detail there. "It should be cheaper!" Because why? Cops and immigration officials are free? Because civil liberties are not worth paying attention to, especially for brown people? And what sort of figure would make that acceptable? How many billion dollars of new taxes are you okay with?
The first estimate I saw on Google for the cost to deport someone was about $28k. There are eleven million illegal immigrants in the US. That's slightly less than the population of Ohio, the seventh largest state. What's your plan to deal with that?
Conservatives are generally not fond of increasing taxes, increased government intrusion, or "big government", so your plan should probably avoid any of those things. I'm personally not a huge fan of having lots of police around whose job is to hassle anyone with the wrong skin color, and definitely not so enamored of the idea that I want a lot more of it.
The problem with Trump's "position" is that it's just posturing. You can't even argue with his position because even he doesn't know what he's saying. He's just playing upon the sympathies of racists, and not letting himself get trapped into making any campaign promises which he won't be able to keep. The Republican party also knows that this is a lost cause, which is why their platform makes no mention of deportation, and never will. Eventually some form of amnesty will be necessary, and fortunately for both parties, none of this nonsense will apply to the second generation. Personally I'm hoping that the citizens of this country will one day stop being racist jerks, but it seems deeply embedded into our culture -- more's the pity.
When people say "rights" they tend to mean one of two things: the abstract concept or the empirical one. With the former, whether or not property rights endure past the end of your life is a matter of philosophy and debate. With the latter concept of "rights", they mostly pertain to what can be enforced, either by you or on your behalf. Your ability to enforce rights on your behalf certainly ends with death, and whether or not others are willing to do so is an open question.
However, you will note that there is a difference between "opt-out" and "mandatory". Perhaps you'd like to revise your argument to take that into account.
However, you're then claiming that the Universe works according to your beliefs.
I'm sort of surprised that you would have read everything in this sub-thread and got that impression. Either that or you have a differing definition of belief than I do. As far as I am aware, all attempts at reconciling FTL with GR use wormholes, negative mass, or both. As there is no observational evidence for those phenomena, they cannot be considered to be empirically true, even if there were solid mathematical reasons for them to exist. The universe does not care much for my feelings, but it also does not care much for mathematical trickery: inventing exotic matter to get the result you want out of your model does not oblige it to exist.
Science, broadly speaking, tends not to assign truth values to unproven statements, and on my milder and perhaps more consistent days I too subscribe to agnosticism. However, most of the time, I feel no need to maintain any open mindedness about Invisible Pink Unicorns, extraterrestrial abductions, religion, or FTL. Philosophically there is just as much validity in regarding the unproven as false. Thus, there is no particular need to distinguish between "impossible" and "not-quite-completely proved impossible", but if you insist, I can revise my earlier statement: until and unless empirical evidence suggests that FTL is possible, it cannot be considered to be a feature of this universe.
Preferring a universe in which one can travel quickly to one that is possible to reason about is not particularly sensible, in my opinion.
We entirely disagree that FTL is anything more than a mathematical loophole in GR. You're saying, "Hey, if I reverse the sign on one of these mass terms, GR breaks in a hypothetically useful way!", which is all very well and good, but in doing so you have crossed the line from science to science fiction. Incidentally, since no one is claiming that "bedrock is solid," error being inherent to observation, it's hardly arrogant to measure something with a given precision. No, arrogance is suggesting that the laws of physics adhere to your beliefs simply because you want them to. Until and unless there is evidence of exotic matter with negative mass, it is entirely correct to say that FTL is impossible.
You copied that without reading it, and criticized the math without working through it.
That equation also serves as a general proof that the velocity addition formulae never result in a speed w > c when u, v [lte] c
Since you're assuming u > c, that objection is inapplicable. Also, read the other article, and after that take a look at page 3,4 of this article[pdf] which has a nice graph of how causality breaks down. Again, for the purposes of causality violation, there is no practical difference between a superluminal signal and a superluminal spacecraft.
Causality means events precede their causes, by definition. Under special relativity the simultaneity or ordering of events is dependent on the observer. Thus SR modifies the definition of causality to mean that all causes precede their effects in all reference frames. Violation of causality would not mean that cause A would always be preceded by effect B, it would mean that cause and effect would vary depending on the observer (assuming that you preserve SR). And again, assuming both SR and FTL, if you travel faster than light, your destination will observe your journey in reverse order.
Causality is assumed to be true, but it's also fundamental to our understanding of the universe, and our being able to understand the universe. If you are willing to dispense with it, I don't think you've thought about the matter enough. Either way you've got a job to do figuring out a way to describe the universe.
You could not travel somewhere and return before you left, therefore there is no time travel.
No, you are incorrect. See the first answer here, or a more thorough explanation here. When reading the latter, keep in mind that "FTL signal" and "FTL spacecraft" are equivalent for these purposes.
Causality doesn't say that it was time travel to appear to leave after you arrived at a location.
Special Relativity equates FTL to time travel, but that would be a violation of causality in any case. Causality means that all causes must precede their effects. Special relativity says that the ordering of events is dependent on the observer. The combination of the two means that in order to preserve causality, all causes must be observed to precede their effects in all reference frames. Since the destination in your example would observe the travel of the ship in reverse order, that would violate causality. Visiting your own past is also possible under SR, but I'll defer to the linked explanations there.
This is an excellent answer showing that you have no idea what you're talking about. There are certainly some funny things going on in the large-scale universe, but theories modifying Relativity have failed spectacularly. Either you have an infinity of ad-hoc corrections, or you must accept that some form of Dark Matter exists. Frankly, this is one of the least surprising consequences of GR.
Obviously any replacement theory would have to be consistent with observations, just as Relativity had to be consistent with Newtonian gravity. It's an improvement over what came before, but there is absolutely no reason to assume it's the ultimate endpoint.
You refute your point, and then repeat your original idea after the "but". You argue for GR when it suits your theory, and against it when it does not.
Besides we've really only tested Relativity at the smallest and most mundane scales and energies...
Arguing that SR is not well-tested is ridiculous. The only more precisely tested theory is QED. I don't even think you understand what constitutes a test of SR; all of modern physics is based on it. GR is trickier, but there is still no contrary evidence. FTL, especially on a human scale, would be a direct refutation of Einstein; as I said, it would be like discovering down was actually up.
But we lack the technology to actually see sufficient detail to tell if our explanation is even remotely correct.
This idea that "we don't know everything, therefore my pet theory is true" is exactly the same bad argument used by AGW deniers and religious zealots. That everything is not known does not mean nothing is known, and if your concept of reality directly contradicts empirical evidence, you are wrong. If your concept of reality has no evidence for it, it may not be wrong per se, but until there is evidence it gets to hang out with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel's Teapot. Of course, if empiricism isn't your strong suit then you can believe whatever you wish, but that does kinda invalidate your opinions on physics.
Relativity describes the geometry of the universe. Its particular description has a surprising number of consequences, nearly all of which have been verified experimentally with great precision. There is nothing even hinting at any human-scale violations. Also, any new theory would still have to explain any past observations. Down will not suddenly become up with new physics or new particles, and Einstein's theories will still be valid over the domain which they have been verified in. If there is an end-run around Relativity, it is liable to be a quantum effect only.
So on the one side we have overwhelming contrary evidence, and on the other side we have a mathematical loophole and blind optimism. FTL has not been proven impossible yet, and if that's sufficient for you to take it seriously then I submit that you are far too credulous.
Interstellar warfare is unlikely to be feasible, full stop. What resource, if it existed outside this solar system, would be economically viable to go fetch? What would be worth the additional cost of warfare?
There is nothing suggesting FTL travel is reconcilable with the laws of physics, and it is certainly not reconcilable with causality. Also, if FTL exists, then aliens can travel into our past, which would probably make the whole concept of warfare moot.
Skype was already switching away from P2P when they were acquired. This was fairly widely reported. Their P2P algorithm sucked, and was responsible for at least a couple global service outages. It just didn't scale as well as dedicated hardware.
Reading up on this, apparently the issue isn't with the binary, but the source. CDDL does not permit you to relicense the source, and GPL insists that for any combined work, the source code must be able to be licensed as GPL (only). Theoretically a FUSE module would be acceptable, but probably not worth it. However, there is nothing preventing end-users from installing ZFS as long as it's not distributed.
Also, in my considered opinion, CDDL is a seriously fucked-up license.
No, nothing prevents distribution with GPL software. You cannot relicense software that you do not own the rights to (i.e. that you did not write).
I do not know why this needs to be explained, on Slashdot of all places...
How does that constitute a major failing? By virtue of its excellence in other respects?
I've never run into this issue, and if I did, my take would be that I was spending too much time at bars...
I don't know if you've looked at what it takes to set up a developer environment for Chromium, but that, to me, seems like a hell of a lot of time investment. It might be worth it if you really wanted something done, but for me that's crossing the line into "I want to be paid for that kind of work," and verging on, "You couldn't pay me to work on that." I don't have a lot of comparative experience with complex build environments, and it does seem to be well documented, but still...it seems quite the ordeal.
And if I copy an "Ã", I don't want it to be translated to unicode.
What else do you have on your system? And why? And which clipboard does it right? I'm interested in looking up the code. It sounds like it might be a complicated issue. Not getting the font as well sounds a little strange, too, what if it's wingdings?
Upstart never had the contributors it needed. The Debian discussion/wiki I linked has a number of critiques. It solved little or no problems of sysvinit, introduced many of its own, and wasn't portable to other systems. Upstart had a head start on the other init replacements, and while social/political concerns may have contributed to its demise, its technical issues were what stood in the way of its success, and ultimately doomed it.