Saving money and increasing profits is the only right way to go about building more nuclear capacity. Their safety records are already excellent, regardless of which metric you are using, be it death per gigawatt or release of carbon or any other polluting emissions per gigawatt.
Figuring out how to make nuclear energy more profitable and cheap is what we need in the long run.
No, the real outcasts of society are those, who are trying to hold economic and technological development of society back, from allowing that sort of development to help the society to become more wealthy and affluent by having more and cheaper and safer energy sources, and nuclear is that type of source.
I've never seen Chrome, but this looked very much like Opera here.
I like Opera as a browser, I don't like its UI though that much, I actually prefer the simplest possible UI of like Netscape 4 or something of that type, so to me this looks just counterintuitive as a computer program. That's why I am not fully on Opera, but I force myself to use it because it works better.
I know this is a troll, but I fear some people actually think that cold-turkey entitlement cutoff makes sense.
- AFAIC you are the troll, not the GP. But you are the troll with opinion that is supported.
The only solution to the economic disaster that USA is facing (and the rest of Western world) is to stop spending cold turkey. Really to stop all spending immediately, shut down all government programs, stop all wars and all SS and Medicare and all other programs, abolish all business regulations as well as all labor regulations, abolish income taxes, abolish IRS, Fed, FHA, FDIC, Freddie/Fannie, FDA, FAA, EPA, all departments, from energy and business, to education and agriculture. You name a department - that's the department that needs to be abolished and that's where spending must be cut by 99.9%.
1921 - Huge depression, on the order of current depression. Government spending cut by 70% by Harding. 1923 - near full employment. So cry me a river about crime rates and cry me a river about the retirees and SS beneficiaries. All of their problems from cutting spending will look like walk in a park compared to the problem of hyperinflationary depression and resulting double if not triple digit interest rates for any credit extended to US businesses.
Most economists are on government payroll and they never get outside of the party-line box. Some of them are the idiots who made assumptions, on which the last budget was based, and their assumptions are 10 years forward looking, while even their assumptions about the first quarter of 2011 are off by 300% (yes, they revised 1st quarter 2011 GDP down by 300%).
4th quarter of 2007 was revised down from 4.1% contraction to 5.1% contraction.
2008 was revised down from 0 to 0.3% contraction
2009 was revised down from shrinking 2.6% down to 3.5% contraction.
2010 was growing from 2.9% to 3.0% up.
2011 first quarter was revised down from 1.9% to 0.4% (that's being off by over 300%)
2011 second quarter expanded by 1.3% they are saying.
- Anyway, the GDP must also be adjusted based on inflation, and government is underestimating inflation by a FACTOR of about 5.
They can't make predictions for quarters ahead, how are they making assumptions based on 'predictions' for 10 years ahead? That's ridiculous.
Real economists understand that US economy is in recession, probably even depression based on real inflation numbers and that US economy is in dire need of ceasing of all government spending, not growing it.
I just thought that in fact even if the developer released the code under GPL thinking that company was behind it, if the copyright belongs to the company, some legal entity, neither the developer nor the manager in question can issue permissions for use of this code under any license that the legal entity that owns the code didn't release it under.
What I am saying is that it can be argued that the proper copyright holder never gave permission to issue the code under GPL, never mind what the developer or the manager thought, and then both of them can be taken to court as well for this and in this case the GPL license can definitely be revoked from those who are using the code already, because in reality the code was never GPLed.
You see, only copyright holder can release the code under whatever license he/she/it wishes, not somebody else.
There are always people in companies who do not follow company's policies, and I am actually against punishing the company for actions of such individuals.
However it's likely that you are right, and if the contact of this developer with the company was through one single manager, then maybe the developer was under impression that there was "full company's support" behind his decision.
This means nothing however, because if the company in question owns the copyright to the said code, then it can revoke the license at any time. Even if a court finds later that license for the code that is already released under GPL and is in use by some people cannot be revoked, the entity that owns copyright can absolutely singlehandedly stop issuing new licenses for this code and can release the code under a different license.
- it does not do the job. People are paying extraordinary chunk of their income in this tax, while people who entered the program earlier had a much smaller chunk taken out of their paychecks. Those people who got extraordinary smallish chunk out of their paychecks got an extraordinary return on that 'investment', while those, who are paying now will get nothing and if they get the nominal checks, the actual dollars on them will be worth nothing.
Arguably, it should take more, and give more generous benefits.
- in fact in order to keep paying the benefits, the income transfer tax must be increased by a factor of 2 right now and then by another factor of 2 only 10 years from now. But that assumes that US economy will exist in its current form in 10 years from now, and actually it won't exist in its current form even a single year from now.
And as any insurance scheme, some people get paid, some pay, and all get security.
- even this point you make is false. In SS everybody who entered early got extraordinary benefits. Some paid only TENS of DOLLARS into the program and got TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars back out of it. Those who are paying into it today, are paying tens of thousands into it and will get nothing in return.
If US continues on its path of economic and fiscal destruction: 1. Either there will be no jobs and nobody to pay the taxes in US. OR 2. There will be no purchasing power behind those dollars, regardless of the nominal value on the green paper.
SS has nothing to do with insurance, as any insurance program actually implies that there is a fund, an asset, something that keeps and hopefully invests value, something that increases the worth of the savings, some actual money in form of savings and/or capital investment. Something real.
SS has nothing like that at all. US bonds are junk today, never mind in the future. US debt will grow in cost and will become unsustainable, everybody knows this, USA is defaulting on the debt. US has defaulted on currency already (1971), now it's time to default on the debt, that's what all the QEs are about, currency swaps, etc.
It also can only work is everyone is forced to pay, otherwise, those with the most income would not enter into the deal until it were too late.
- yes, and they would be much better off on their own outside of this idiotic program, that was sold to people who actually did get enormous return on the dollars they put into it precisely because they backloaded the costs - transfered most of the costs to the future generations.
It's not going to be your children, who will not get SS benefits, it's going to be you - who is paying it today. You won't get anything out of it though you are paying into it. Your children will either not work at all or skip the country, and you will get either nothing or you will get worthless dollars.
Of course, I know you believe people should be left out to die, but we are not all sociopaths.
- I believe that sociopaths are people like you. Imagine that, from my perspective YOU are the sociopath, who wants to destroy the economy and thus hurt the society in extreme ways by destroying the economy.
YOU are the sociopath, who believes that any single individual must be forced to work for the collective, while it is increasingly clear that the collective is going off the cliff collectively.
I am NOT a sociopath, I believe that people who can save on their own can then apply their capital to restart the economy and that the economy will be destroyed by people like YOU and by the government you choose. From my perspective YOU are cancer of the economy, do you understand? Like bowl cancer.
Yeah, the 2nd and 3rd largest economies of the world have a lack of economics understanding.
- of-course you are wrong again on this point, that it is the ECONOMY that lacks economic understanding, where in fact the failure is with the governments of China and Japan (and others) who are subsidizing US consumer by inflating their own currencies in lockstep with US dollar inflation.
USD is worth nothing, US bond is junk and has been for a while. The economic inertia is catching up with these facts.
No. It does not require an exponential number of new entrants to sustain itself
- it does not have to be exponential not to be sustainable.
In fact, it can perfectly be balanced as long as it is adjusted for life expectancy.
- it can only be balanced by taking away more from some to give to others, there never can be a balance, in which everybody gets an equally good deal while putting in about the same as the other guy.
Of course, everyone could save for themselves, but a) humans are not good at long term planning
- so you are telling me that US gov't is doing a better job planning this (and why are they involved in planning economy in the first place), than an average American? OK, why is Warren Buffet forced to pay SS contributions, even one single penny, even one thousand's of a penny into this? It was sold as insurance, which it clearly is not, it's income transfer and not a fund.
it is desirable that the better off help the not-so-well-off.
- that's not how SS was sold to US public at all. It wasn't sold as a welfare program, it was sold as insurance program, that's why they called taxes 'premiums', to confuse people, to make it seem like it's insurance. That's why in 40s and 50s self employed individuals weren't forced into this program.
You are saying this is not a ponzi scam, which you infer I have no understand of. OK, let's look at these facts:
First column is the year, second is rate for both employer and employee portions of SS tax and third column is self-employed individual, or individual who received more than 3 times average salary (when Roosevelt introduced this program the self employed, and those who were getting at least 3 times the average salary were exempt from any payments, which was part of the ruse to make it look like an insurance program and not just another income tax and welfare, which SS is in fact.)
So with taxes, that are up by a factor of 6 now, from time it was established, with 50 million individuals receiving checks, with about 3 workers supporting each one beneficiary, with taxes that will go higher and 17Trillion dollars that are already transfered from the current and future payers to the past and current beneficiaries, the ONLY difference between a ponzi scam and SS is this:
In a private ponzi scam, the moment public figures out it's a scam, the public STOPS participating. Government makes it illegal for you not to pay into this, they force payments, that's why this ponzi scam will keep going even though it's clear to everybody it's a scam.
Finding SSNs by using facial recognition software is just one use of this, more importantly is that facial recognition can be used to search for people and find who they are. Sure, SSN is part of that data, but it looks like more important part here is connecting the face to the name and location.
As I said, the USD is worth nothing. The Japanese and Chinese at the peril of their own economies have been subsidizing US consumers, which doesn't speak highly of their economic understanding.
USA has defaulted on the promise to redeem US dollars in gold in 1971, ever since then the USD has been worth nothing. That reality is only catching up with the inertia of the economy now.
As I saidearlier, one manager's 'OK' does not imply "full company's support". It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that when hire up find out what you are doing they won't fire you. It doesn't mean you are allowed to contribute that code to public via GPL in the first place, as you are likely not the copyright holder. Etc. etc.
Because one manager above you does not represent the company and it's policy. You can have a project manager that gives you a go ahead on anything, and that project manager can be wrong and he/she may not be actually aware of what you are really asking. One manager does not give you 'full company support', it just means that manager said something.
The MOST important thing - that one manager is not the person who hired you, not the person who is paying you.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: -1, Troll
You can't get the SS money back. 17 Trillion was spent already that was never paid for by people who got into that ponzi scam earlier, so unless you can raise the dead and force everybody who got more out of the program than they put in return the cash, you can't do it.
The reason SS was ever legal under US Constitution, was because US gov't argued that SS taxes were general taxes and not earmarked for any SS payments, so there was never a fund. The entire idea that it's solvent, while it's paying out more than it's taking in, and that it has some surplus, when the SS taxes are not earmarked, so there is no such thing as SS fund, and SS obligations are paid by selling US debt, this idea is completely without merit.
Yes, SS must be stopped, as well as Medicare, as those are ponzi scams. No, money cannot be returned to anybody who is still paying, there is no money, it's gone, because it's appropriated under 'general taxation'. Yes, government has lied to US public, when it sold these programs as 'insurance', there were never insurance, there was never any fund, any asset behind those programs. What should be done is this: SS and Medicare must be abolished. The people who are on them must be means tested, and those who can't survive on their own must be put into general welfare, as that's what those programs are. Everybody else would be better served by saving and investing their own money and by having government stay out of taxing income and regulating businesses altogether (if you can accept that gov't should not be distorting the economy that way, and causing capital flight.)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
Re:Yet just to clarify (and speculate)
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
What do you mean if agreement 'would ever be reached'? Of-course it will, without a doubt. Politicians never stop spending, that's not what they do.
Even so called 'cuts' are no such thing, they don't reduce budget from this year to the next, they 'cut' amount by which they are going to increase, so in absolute terms the spending will go up regardless of whose plan they take.
Churchill was completely correct about USA when he said that eventually America does the right thing, after doing every single other thing that's wrong first.
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
Do not for a second think that Clinton actually reduced debt to GDP ratio, what he reduced was the cost of debt. That he and Rubin did do. He and Greenspan also set short term interest rate at 1%, which was then taken down to 0% by Bush and Bernanke, where it is now.
You can find in depth explanation here if you wish.
Yes, if the code is originally taken from somewhere else, and it's GPLed already, and then it's a derivative from that code, that means the original copyrights still belong to their original owners, who released the code under GPL, so the derivative is also GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Saving money and increasing profits is the only right way to go about building more nuclear capacity. Their safety records are already excellent, regardless of which metric you are using, be it death per gigawatt or release of carbon or any other polluting emissions per gigawatt.
Figuring out how to make nuclear energy more profitable and cheap is what we need in the long run.
No, the real outcasts of society are those, who are trying to hold economic and technological development of society back, from allowing that sort of development to help the society to become more wealthy and affluent by having more and cheaper and safer energy sources, and nuclear is that type of source.
I've never seen Chrome, but this looked very much like Opera here.
I like Opera as a browser, I don't like its UI though that much, I actually prefer the simplest possible UI of like Netscape 4 or something of that type, so to me this looks just counterintuitive as a computer program. That's why I am not fully on Opera, but I force myself to use it because it works better.
I agree with this guy. You are done.
I know this is a troll, but I fear some people actually think that cold-turkey entitlement cutoff makes sense.
- AFAIC you are the troll, not the GP. But you are the troll with opinion that is supported.
The only solution to the economic disaster that USA is facing (and the rest of Western world) is to stop spending cold turkey. Really to stop all spending immediately, shut down all government programs, stop all wars and all SS and Medicare and all other programs, abolish all business regulations as well as all labor regulations, abolish income taxes, abolish IRS, Fed, FHA, FDIC, Freddie/Fannie, FDA, FAA, EPA, all departments, from energy and business, to education and agriculture. You name a department - that's the department that needs to be abolished and that's where spending must be cut by 99.9%.
1921 - Huge depression, on the order of current depression. Government spending cut by 70% by Harding. 1923 - near full employment. So cry me a river about crime rates and cry me a river about the retirees and SS beneficiaries. All of their problems from cutting spending will look like walk in a park compared to the problem of hyperinflationary depression and resulting double if not triple digit interest rates for any credit extended to US businesses.
Most economists are on government payroll and they never get outside of the party-line box. Some of them are the idiots who made assumptions, on which the last budget was based, and their assumptions are 10 years forward looking, while even their assumptions about the first quarter of 2011 are off by 300% (yes, they revised 1st quarter 2011 GDP down by 300%).
4th quarter of 2007 was revised down from 4.1% contraction to 5.1% contraction.
2008 was revised down from 0 to 0.3% contraction
2009 was revised down from shrinking 2.6% down to 3.5% contraction.
2010 was growing from 2.9% to 3.0% up.
2011 first quarter was revised down from 1.9% to 0.4% (that's being off by over 300%)
2011 second quarter expanded by 1.3% they are saying.
-
Anyway, the GDP must also be adjusted based on inflation, and government is underestimating inflation by a FACTOR of about 5.
They can't make predictions for quarters ahead, how are they making assumptions based on 'predictions' for 10 years ahead? That's ridiculous.
Real economists understand that US economy is in recession, probably even depression based on real inflation numbers and that US economy is in dire need of ceasing of all government spending, not growing it.
I just thought that in fact even if the developer released the code under GPL thinking that company was behind it, if the copyright belongs to the company, some legal entity, neither the developer nor the manager in question can issue permissions for use of this code under any license that the legal entity that owns the code didn't release it under.
What I am saying is that it can be argued that the proper copyright holder never gave permission to issue the code under GPL, never mind what the developer or the manager thought, and then both of them can be taken to court as well for this and in this case the GPL license can definitely be revoked from those who are using the code already, because in reality the code was never GPLed.
You see, only copyright holder can release the code under whatever license he/she/it wishes, not somebody else.
There are always people in companies who do not follow company's policies, and I am actually against punishing the company for actions of such individuals.
However it's likely that you are right, and if the contact of this developer with the company was through one single manager, then maybe the developer was under impression that there was "full company's support" behind his decision.
This means nothing however, because if the company in question owns the copyright to the said code, then it can revoke the license at any time. Even if a court finds later that license for the code that is already released under GPL and is in use by some people cannot be revoked, the entity that owns copyright can absolutely singlehandedly stop issuing new licenses for this code and can release the code under a different license.
That is the purpose, and it does its job
- it does not do the job. People are paying extraordinary chunk of their income in this tax, while people who entered the program earlier had a much smaller chunk taken out of their paychecks. Those people who got extraordinary smallish chunk out of their paychecks got an extraordinary return on that 'investment', while those, who are paying now will get nothing and if they get the nominal checks, the actual dollars on them will be worth nothing.
Arguably, it should take more, and give more generous benefits.
- in fact in order to keep paying the benefits, the income transfer tax must be increased by a factor of 2 right now and then by another factor of 2 only 10 years from now. But that assumes that US economy will exist in its current form in 10 years from now, and actually it won't exist in its current form even a single year from now.
And as any insurance scheme, some people get paid, some pay, and all get security.
- even this point you make is false. In SS everybody who entered early got extraordinary benefits. Some paid only TENS of DOLLARS into the program and got TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars back out of it. Those who are paying into it today, are paying tens of thousands into it and will get nothing in return.
If US continues on its path of economic and fiscal destruction:
1. Either there will be no jobs and nobody to pay the taxes in US.
OR
2. There will be no purchasing power behind those dollars, regardless of the nominal value on the green paper.
SS has nothing to do with insurance, as any insurance program actually implies that there is a fund, an asset, something that keeps and hopefully invests value, something that increases the worth of the savings, some actual money in form of savings and/or capital investment. Something real.
SS has nothing like that at all. US bonds are junk today, never mind in the future. US debt will grow in cost and will become unsustainable, everybody knows this, USA is defaulting on the debt. US has defaulted on currency already (1971), now it's time to default on the debt, that's what all the QEs are about, currency swaps, etc.
It also can only work is everyone is forced to pay, otherwise, those with the most income would not enter into the deal until it were too late.
- yes, and they would be much better off on their own outside of this idiotic program, that was sold to people who actually did get enormous return on the dollars they put into it precisely because they backloaded the costs - transfered most of the costs to the future generations.
It's not going to be your children, who will not get SS benefits, it's going to be you - who is paying it today. You won't get anything out of it though you are paying into it. Your children will either not work at all or skip the country, and you will get either nothing or you will get worthless dollars.
Of course, I know you believe people should be left out to die, but we are not all sociopaths.
- I believe that sociopaths are people like you. Imagine that, from my perspective YOU are the sociopath, who wants to destroy the economy and thus hurt the society in extreme ways by destroying the economy.
YOU are the sociopath, who believes that any single individual must be forced to work for the collective, while it is increasingly clear that the collective is going off the cliff collectively.
I am NOT a sociopath, I believe that people who can save on their own can then apply their capital to restart the economy and that the economy will be destroyed by people like YOU and by the government you choose. From my perspective YOU are cancer of the economy, do you understand? Like bowl cancer.
Yeah, the 2nd and 3rd largest economies of the world have a lack of economics understanding.
- of-course you are wrong again on this point, that it is the ECONOMY that lacks economic understanding, where in fact the failure is with the governments of China and Japan (and others) who are subsidizing US consumer by inflating their own currencies in lockstep with US dollar inflation.
USD is worth nothing, US bond is junk and has been for a while. The economic inertia is catching up with these facts.
No. It does not require an exponential number of new entrants to sustain itself
- it does not have to be exponential not to be sustainable.
In fact, it can perfectly be balanced as long as it is adjusted for life expectancy.
- it can only be balanced by taking away more from some to give to others, there never can be a balance, in which everybody gets an equally good deal while putting in about the same as the other guy.
Of course, everyone could save for themselves, but a) humans are not good at long term planning
- so you are telling me that US gov't is doing a better job planning this (and why are they involved in planning economy in the first place), than an average American? OK, why is Warren Buffet forced to pay SS contributions, even one single penny, even one thousand's of a penny into this? It was sold as insurance, which it clearly is not, it's income transfer and not a fund.
it is desirable that the better off help the not-so-well-off.
- that's not how SS was sold to US public at all. It wasn't sold as a welfare program, it was sold as insurance program, that's why they called taxes 'premiums', to confuse people, to make it seem like it's insurance. That's why in 40s and 50s self employed individuals weren't forced into this program.
You are saying this is not a ponzi scam, which you infer I have no understand of. OK, let's look at these facts:
First column is the year, second is rate for both employer and employee portions of SS tax and third column is self-employed individual, or individual who received more than 3 times average salary (when Roosevelt introduced this program the self employed, and those who were getting at least 3 times the average salary were exempt from any payments, which was part of the ruse to make it look like an insurance program and not just another income tax and welfare, which SS is in fact.)
So with taxes, that are up by a factor of 6 now, from time it was established, with 50 million individuals receiving checks, with about 3 workers supporting each one beneficiary, with taxes that will go higher and 17Trillion dollars that are already transfered from the current and future payers to the past and current beneficiaries, the ONLY difference between a ponzi scam and SS is this:
In a private ponzi scam, the moment public figures out it's a scam, the public STOPS participating. Government makes it illegal for you not to pay into this, they force payments, that's why this ponzi scam will keep going even though it's clear to everybody it's a scam.
Finding SSNs by using facial recognition software is just one use of this, more importantly is that facial recognition can be used to search for people and find who they are. Sure, SSN is part of that data, but it looks like more important part here is connecting the face to the name and location.
As I said, the USD is worth nothing. The Japanese and Chinese at the peril of their own economies have been subsidizing US consumers, which doesn't speak highly of their economic understanding.
the US never defaulted, that's why
of-course that's a false statement.
USA has defaulted on the promise to redeem US dollars in gold in 1971, ever since then the USD has been worth nothing. That reality is only catching up with the inertia of the economy now.
So does it have enough data to answer the last question meaningfully yet?
As I said earlier, one manager's 'OK' does not imply "full company's support". It doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that when hire up find out what you are doing they won't fire you. It doesn't mean you are allowed to contribute that code to public via GPL in the first place, as you are likely not the copyright holder. Etc. etc.
Based on your comment now, I am also assuming that you are the guy in question.
Because one manager above you does not represent the company and it's policy. You can have a project manager that gives you a go ahead on anything, and that project manager can be wrong and he/she may not be actually aware of what you are really asking. One manager does not give you 'full company support', it just means that manager said something.
The MOST important thing - that one manager is not the person who hired you, not the person who is paying you.
You can't get the SS money back. 17 Trillion was spent already that was never paid for by people who got into that ponzi scam earlier, so unless you can raise the dead and force everybody who got more out of the program than they put in return the cash, you can't do it.
The reason SS was ever legal under US Constitution, was because US gov't argued that SS taxes were general taxes and not earmarked for any SS payments, so there was never a fund. The entire idea that it's solvent, while it's paying out more than it's taking in, and that it has some surplus, when the SS taxes are not earmarked, so there is no such thing as SS fund, and SS obligations are paid by selling US debt, this idea is completely without merit.
Yes, SS must be stopped, as well as Medicare, as those are ponzi scams. No, money cannot be returned to anybody who is still paying, there is no money, it's gone, because it's appropriated under 'general taxation'. Yes, government has lied to US public, when it sold these programs as 'insurance', there were never insurance, there was never any fund, any asset behind those programs. What should be done is this: SS and Medicare must be abolished. The people who are on them must be means tested, and those who can't survive on their own must be put into general welfare, as that's what those programs are. Everybody else would be better served by saving and investing their own money and by having government stay out of taxing income and regulating businesses altogether (if you can accept that gov't should not be distorting the economy that way, and causing capital flight.)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers.
What do you mean if agreement 'would ever be reached'? Of-course it will, without a doubt. Politicians never stop spending, that's not what they do.
Even so called 'cuts' are no such thing, they don't reduce budget from this year to the next, they 'cut' amount by which they are going to increase, so in absolute terms the spending will go up regardless of whose plan they take.
Churchill was completely correct about USA when he said that eventually America does the right thing, after doing every single other thing that's wrong first.
Anyway, it's all theatrics
Do not for a second think that Clinton actually reduced debt to GDP ratio, what he reduced was the cost of debt. That he and Rubin did do. He and Greenspan also set short term interest rate at 1%, which was then taken down to 0% by Bush and Bernanke, where it is now.
You can find in depth explanation here if you wish.
It is a Ponzi scheme.
US economy is in recession and never was out of it of-course as the latest government revisions of GDP are showing.
[Retry] [Fail] [Halt] [Abort] [Run] [Execute] [Cancel] [Deny] [Allow] [Quit] [Help] [Error]
Yes, if the code is originally taken from somewhere else, and it's GPLed already, and then it's a derivative from that code, that means the original copyrights still belong to their original owners, who released the code under GPL, so the derivative is also GPL.
That's not what the story says at all though.