By "the message isn't getting through", you mean, "actual nominees keep winning", which suggests that a majority disagrees with you. Actually, I would say that the message isn't getting out there (I'd never heard this argument before), isn't being understood (I have no idea what you mean) or isn't being accepted (to the extent that I do understand, I disagree).
Can you explain how, exactly, this is "pandering"? Who is being pandered to? How is dramatic presentation pandering, while best novel (for example) isn't? They both could be considered pandering to their respective industries, and, in fact, "Hugo Winner" is often proudly plastered on the cover of books, while the fact that a feature film has won the Hugo is something that only insiders will generally know. If you mean pandering to the public to try to increase voter participation, well, frankly, I think that's a good thing. Though I suspect it's a pretty minimal effect, since the movie audience is largely unaware that movies win Hugos.
I'm willing to listen to a more detailed explanation of the argument, but I have to say that my first reaction is to make sure I always vote "No Award" at the bottom of these categories in future, even when I think there are nominees that should be ranked below it, simply to offset the inappropriate biased voting of a misguided clique.
> WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me.
So your argument is that religion harms people by causing to act against their own self interest? Interesting, but much as I dislike most forms of religion, I don't think they're that bad. (At least not all the time.)
The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
> If you're a "leftist", you're not a libertarian.
False. Socialist Libertarianism is a political philosophy that dates back to the 1850s or so, and has many branches.
> Left-leaning people generally believe the state should force people to help one another
Utter and complete falsehood. Much of the left wants to get rid of the state entirely. You should really learn something about a topic before you pontificate, rather than merely regurgitating the propaganda spewed by the talking heads on your TV set.
> unless it is consistent with what I already know to be true
Absolutely. I keep trying to replace all their lies about quantum mechanics with my truth about the Electro-Flux Aether and Spiritual Gravitation, and I keep getting reverted.
> or have had time to verify against other sources
Ah, so you do understand how Wikipedia should be used. Good on yer, mate.:)
> too many zealots rule certain categories
Yeah, like those bastards who keep trying to insist that the Holocaust actually happened, that evolution is a scientific fact, and that the Earth goes around the Sun. I mean, have you ever heard anything so preposterous? I'd rather get my information from more reliable sources. Like Fox News and the New York Times. And Slashdot.:)
It's not about the company any more making money any more. Bankruptcy is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. However, the longer the company holds on, the longer the money it technically shouldn't have any more can be spent on executive salaries (and bonuses--Darl has earned all sorts of bonuses for his "creative" approach to company management).
> Just like Windows eventually caught up to Mac with Windows95
Hahaha! Yeah, right! I'm no fan of the Mac, and seriously disliked the pre-OS/X systems, which lived in a horrid little incompatible world of their own, but the one thing the old Macs did offer was some serious advantages in UI design that neither MS nor anyone else has come close to matching, ever. Apple took a step backwards in UI cleanliness when they moved to OS/X, but they more than made up for it (IMO) with the improvements in compatibility and the elegance of the underlying architecture. Since it was a mild step backwards at the UI level, you could claim that MS somewhat caught up at that point, but it would be a completely misleading characterization of the events, since it had nothing to do with MS's actions.
As for Vista, I haven't looked at it in any great depth yet, but what I have seen suggests that MS is falling into the same trap as a lot of Unix and Linux systems: thinking that surface gloss and "gee-whiz" eye-candy features are the same as actual user-interface improvements. MS is going to need some much more fundamental changes before they can be reasonably described as catching up with Apple in any meaningful sense.
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:-- "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
--Rudyard Kipling
Ok, I know I'm responding to a troll here, but that's just too funny for words. I can just picture the left-wing KKK Nazis (all six of them in the world) lined up to face the right-wing Hippie Commies (an equally large group), ready to fight it out for their perplexingly self-contradictory ideologies, while the rest of the world (or at least, that small portion that can be bothered to take notice of such a non-event) looks on in bemusement.
> the very existance (sp) of Wine is proof that Linux isn't able to exist without windows.
Uh-huh. Offering an option proves that everybody needs that option. (Just for the record, I haven't had Wine installed since '01, and haven't used Windows since '98.)
Does the very existence of Viper mode prove that Emacs isn't able to exist without vi? Makes about as much sense.
Actually, what the existence of Wine proves is that some FLOSS developers are willing to try to provide a smoother migration path to those who are interested in exploring their options, but don't want to make a blind leap into the unknown.
What dictionary are you using? M-W online gives me:
1. The art or study of formal debate; argumentation.
The 1913 PD Websters gives:
"Belonging to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate; used in legal proceedings, or in public discussions; argumentative; rhetorical; as, forensic eloquence or disputes."
One of the paper dictionaries I have here says: "1. belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate."
(Emphasis mine.)
By that, I think this became forensic the moment it was decided to post it to slashdot.:)
(And yes, I found the source of your quote, but you cleverly failed to mention that what you quoted was the second definition, not the complete nor even the primary definition.)
If you can verify that your vote was recorded correctly, then you can verify it to someone. Someone who can then make good on his promise to kill your kid if it turns out that you didn't vote the way he demanded--a demand he never would have bothered to make if he had no hope of verifying how you voted.
There may be ways around the problem, but none of them involve publishing the results on the web in any form.
> I PAID FOR the music, and they're STILL inserting advertisements?
Uh...bought any books, games, or movies lately? And by "lately", I mean, at any point in the last fifty years or so?
I just randomly checked four of the oldest paperbacks in my collection (sixties vintage), and half had ads. So it wasn't universal back then, but it was common. Today, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a mass-market book that didn't contain ads.
I have image animation turned off and use Flashblock, and haven't bothered to install Java[*]. To me, the WWW is a calm, quiet, peaceful place, full of ads, yes, but ads that are easy to ignore. Flashblock allows me to whitelist sites (like Homestarrunner, and I certainly don't mind the extra click for sites like Youtube. I'm with GP poster. I don't mind ads and find them easy to ignore.:)
[*] To be precise, I haven't informed by browser where the JRE is located. As a developer, I've got nothing against Java, but I have no interest in making it part of my browsing experience.
I'd rather hear a resounding "Doh!" from the idiot that wrote the article! And, no, gee, guess what, I don't care what the writer's history may be. It was a stupid article no matter who wrote it.:)
I suggest you take particular note of the sections labeled "Argumentum ad hominem", "Converse accident / Hasty generalization", "The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter", "Fallacy of division", and "Ignoratio elenchi". "Plurium interrogationum" and "The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy" may also be relevant.
Of course, no true slashdotter would bother to use logical arguments, so I guess you must be a true slashdotter!:)
Grandparent poster said: "This is because any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source even if they didn't get it directly from MySQL AB."
You replied: "And you, Sir, are not entirely correct. I cannot bend over MySQL AB by giving people binaries of MySQL."
But grandparent never claimed that you could "bend over" MySQL AB. He simply said that any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source. Which is true. If MySQL AB provided you with binaries and source, and you pass on the binaries, then they're off the hook, and you're on the hook, but that doesn't contradict anything that GP said. In fact, it was more or less his point. GP was entirely correct. And so were you, except where you claimed that he wasn't.:)
> Evolution favors a combination of aggressiveness and intelligence.
Then how do you explain cockroaches, phytoplankton and sponges? What, you think they're "less evolved" than we are? That's nonsense! They've been evolving for just as long (longer, depending on how you measure)--they are extremely evolved! The most populous multicellular creatures on this planet (by sheer volume, not just numerically) are ants and termites. And while some of their behavior may resemble what we call "intelligence", it is clearly hard-wired, not learned. And while ants are usually fairly aggressive, termites are not so much. For a more obvious example, a little closer to home, consider the field mouse, an immensely successful species, but neither intelligent (at least for a mammal) nor aggressive. In fact, aggression is most strongly associated with apex predators like that wolf you mentioned. And while apex predators are really cool animals in general, they also tend to be extremely fragile as species.
I might go so far as to say that the available evidence shows that Evolution (that famous anthropomorphic personification who lives in a house made of giant tortoise shells, decorated with finch feathers) disfavors aggressiveness, and seems to be fairly neutral about the whole notion of intelligence.
Of course, when it comes to intelligent, technological species, well....we're speculating based on a sample-size of one, which is not enough to form any sort of meaningful conclusions. I think it's fairly safe to say that evolution will favor intelligence when designing intelligent, technological species, but beyond that I hesitate to guess. I also think it will tend to favor hair when designing hairy species.:)
That obscure stuff often isn't in Britannica at all. And a lot of the articles about obscure stuff in Wikipedia are fine. I think the only sensible conclusion to draw from this and every other comparison that has been made between the two is that Wikipedia and Britannica each have their strengths and weaknesses, and neither one is indisputably better than the other. They're different. Wikipedia is most useful when you treat it as a source for references, rather than blindly trusting the words on the page. Of course, that kind of goes against human nature, but what can you do?:) ~~~~
STATEMENT TO MP3 SITE OPERATORS The Grateful Dead and our managing organizations have long encouraged the purely non-commercial exchange of music taped at our concerts and those of our individual members. That a new medium of distribution has arisen - digital audio files being traded over the Internet - does not change our policy in this regard. Our stipulations regarding digital distribution are merely extensions of those long-standing principles and they are as follow:
No commercial gain may be sought by websites offering digital files of our music, whether through advertising, exploiting databases compiled from their traffic, or any other means. All participants in such digital exchange acknowledge and respect the copyrights of the performers, writers and publishers of the music. This notice should be clearly posted on all sites engaged in this activity. We reserve the ability to withdraw our sanction of non-commercial digital music should circumstances arise that compromise our ability to protect and steward the integrity of our work.
(Emphasis mine.)
If these companies are injecting ads into sites containing the Grateful Dead's non-commercial material, then they are illegally profiting from the Grateful Dead's copyrighted works, and both the Grateful Dead organization and various site owners who are suddenly at risk (such as the Internet Archive ) may have the basis for a lawsuit. (The Archive is non-profit, but fairly well funded.)
> "What, no distinction between round moons and non-round moons?"
Round moons are planets; non-round moons aren't. That was implicit, and no other distinction is needed. I basically agree with grandparent poster, and think that any system of categorization which claims that Mercury is more like Jupiter than it is Ceres is...utterly brain-dead.
when you're potentially violating copyright
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
The point where the GPL kicks in is the point where you could be sued for violating copyright law if you had no license at all. And you are distributing software if a court says you are. It's really that simple (and, depending on copyright law in your jurisdiction, that complex).
The GPL basically exists to provide you with a limited defense against copyright suits--as long as you comply with its terms. Like "fair use", the GPL is simply a defense. You don't get sued for violating the GPL; you ask for a suit to be dismissed because, even though what you did is normally forbidden by law, you have this license which allows you to do what you did. For any behavior that is not normally forbidden by law, the GPL is pretty much irrelevant, since you don't need a special license for such behavior. And if you're not sure where the line is, then maybe you should stick to the terms of the license just to be safe, eh?:)
Michael Moore? I think you give the man too much credit! What about William Randolph Hearst, whose scaremongering successfully helped start a war, and for whom the term "Yellow Journalism" was coined? I agree that it's a significant problem, but it's hardly a new or recent phenomenon. (Though I suppose an argument can be made for a primarily American origin, which makes it sad to see the BBC succumbing.)
Microsoft has proven, time and time again, that they will engage in all sort of nefarious, underhanded behavior, including lying, cheating, stealing and extortion, in order to maintain and extend their monopolies. They showed no hesitation about lying and evidence-tampering in front of a federal judge, for example. While they do occasionally do the right thing for the right reasons, their history is such that no sane, educated person can observe their actions, especially with respect to competitors, without wondering about their motives.
What you're seeing here is speculation, but it's speculation based on knowledge of the subject. This is not like seeing Jesse Jackson walk across a Great Lake. This is more like seeing John Gotti walk across a Great Lake. I think it's reasonable to speculate that it might not be the second coming.
I remember a time when an up-and-coming author named Terry Pratchett would frequently respond to posts on alt.fan.pratchett, and even posted his email address there. (I believe I had a question about the speed of light on Discworld.) But that was before "the September that never ended", as well as before repeated major international bestsellers. Nowadays, even with the post-spam/post-web reduction in Usenet's popularity, I doubt if Pterry even tries to keep up with that newsgroup, and I suspect that his personal email address is only shared with close friends. Not to take anything away from this songwriter-I've-never-heard-of, but this is, I think, an old and oft-repeated story, and one that could probably be told about thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people that have come to celebrity in the last couple of decades.
Slashdot Mirror
By "the message isn't getting through", you mean, "actual nominees keep winning", which suggests that a majority disagrees with you. Actually, I would say that the message isn't getting out there (I'd never heard this argument before), isn't being understood (I have no idea what you mean) or isn't being accepted (to the extent that I do understand, I disagree).
Can you explain how, exactly, this is "pandering"? Who is being pandered to? How is dramatic presentation pandering, while best novel (for example) isn't? They both could be considered pandering to their respective industries, and, in fact, "Hugo Winner" is often proudly plastered on the cover of books, while the fact that a feature film has won the Hugo is something that only insiders will generally know. If you mean pandering to the public to try to increase voter participation, well, frankly, I think that's a good thing. Though I suspect it's a pretty minimal effect, since the movie audience is largely unaware that movies win Hugos.
I'm willing to listen to a more detailed explanation of the argument, but I have to say that my first reaction is to make sure I always vote "No Award" at the bottom of these categories in future, even when I think there are nominees that should be ranked below it, simply to offset the inappropriate biased voting of a misguided clique.
> WTF does common sense have to do with morality? In fact, common sense tells me that if I steal something, I have acquired it without expending my own resources, which seems a net benefit to me.
So your argument is that religion harms people by causing to act against their own self interest? Interesting, but much as I dislike most forms of religion, I don't think they're that bad. (At least not all the time.)
The thing is that anyone who is older than five (at least, mentally) realizes if you go around stealing stuff all the time, it's going to encourage others to steal from you, and that's no fun. The Golden Rule (or something like it) is found in just about every human society that has ever existed. It's not a matter of religion; it's just common sense.
Beyond that, there's a bunch of crazy bastards out there (and these days, they tend to be armed with AK47s) who will happily put a bullet through your kneecap just to see the expression on your face. Your only hope of defending yourself against these hordes of psychos is to band together with other people who are, shall we say, a little more sane. But these people aren't going to want to band together with you if you steal from them. And thus, we have the entire basis for civilization, without resorting to invoking the invisible Wahoo in the sky.
Beyond that, the fact is that cooperation is an effective evolutionary strategy, and games theory confirms it. The species that have evolved the capacity (most notably, ants, termites, and, well, us) do outstandingly well. We have empathy circuits in our brain, and those evolved for a reason. Morality is more than just common sense--it's a biological imperative. We're social creatures; we enjoy cooperating. We don't need to make up an invisible Wahoo in the sky to explain that.
> If you're a "leftist", you're not a libertarian.
False. Socialist Libertarianism is a political philosophy that dates back to the 1850s or so, and has many branches.
> Left-leaning people generally believe the state should force people to help one another
Utter and complete falsehood. Much of the left wants to get rid of the state entirely. You should really learn something about a topic before you pontificate, rather than merely regurgitating the propaganda spewed by the talking heads on your TV set.
> unless it is consistent with what I already know to be true
:)
:)
Absolutely. I keep trying to replace all their lies about quantum mechanics with my truth about the Electro-Flux Aether and Spiritual Gravitation, and I keep getting reverted.
> or have had time to verify against other sources
Ah, so you do understand how Wikipedia should be used. Good on yer, mate.
> too many zealots rule certain categories
Yeah, like those bastards who keep trying to insist that the Holocaust actually happened, that evolution is a scientific fact, and that the Earth goes around the Sun. I mean, have you ever heard anything so preposterous? I'd rather get my information from more reliable sources. Like Fox News and the New York Times. And Slashdot.
It's not about the company any more making money any more. Bankruptcy is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. However, the longer the company holds on, the longer the money it technically shouldn't have any more can be spent on executive salaries (and bonuses--Darl has earned all sorts of bonuses for his "creative" approach to company management).
> Just like Windows eventually caught up to Mac with Windows95
Hahaha! Yeah, right! I'm no fan of the Mac, and seriously disliked the pre-OS/X systems, which lived in a horrid little incompatible world of their own, but the one thing the old Macs did offer was some serious advantages in UI design that neither MS nor anyone else has come close to matching, ever. Apple took a step backwards in UI cleanliness when they moved to OS/X, but they more than made up for it (IMO) with the improvements in compatibility and the elegance of the underlying architecture. Since it was a mild step backwards at the UI level, you could claim that MS somewhat caught up at that point, but it would be a completely misleading characterization of the events, since it had nothing to do with MS's actions.
As for Vista, I haven't looked at it in any great depth yet, but what I have seen suggests that MS is falling into the same trap as a lot of Unix and Linux systems: thinking that surface gloss and "gee-whiz" eye-candy features are the same as actual user-interface improvements. MS is going to need some much more fundamental changes before they can be reasonably described as catching up with Apple in any meaningful sense.
Heh, ok, sorry. Hadn't heard that one before; it's definitely pretty funny. :)
cheers
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:--
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
--Rudyard Kipling
> hotbed of the left-wing KKK Nazis!
Ok, I know I'm responding to a troll here, but that's just too funny for words. I can just picture the left-wing KKK Nazis (all six of them in the world) lined up to face the right-wing Hippie Commies (an equally large group), ready to fight it out for their perplexingly self-contradictory ideologies, while the rest of the world (or at least, that small portion that can be bothered to take notice of such a non-event) looks on in bemusement.
> the very existance (sp) of Wine is proof that Linux isn't able to exist without windows.
Uh-huh. Offering an option proves that everybody needs that option. (Just for the record, I haven't had Wine installed since '01, and haven't used Windows since '98.)
Does the very existence of Viper mode prove that Emacs isn't able to exist without vi? Makes about as much sense.
Actually, what the existence of Wine proves is that some FLOSS developers are willing to try to provide a smoother migration path to those who are interested in exploring their options, but don't want to make a blind leap into the unknown.
What dictionary are you using? M-W online gives me:
:)
1. The art or study of formal debate; argumentation.
The 1913 PD Websters gives:
"Belonging to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate; used in legal proceedings, or in public discussions; argumentative; rhetorical; as, forensic eloquence or disputes."
One of the paper dictionaries I have here says: "1. belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate."
(Emphasis mine.)
By that, I think this became forensic the moment it was decided to post it to slashdot.
(And yes, I found the source of your quote, but you cleverly failed to mention that what you quoted was the second definition, not the complete nor even the primary definition.)
If you can verify that your vote was recorded correctly, then you can verify it to someone. Someone who can then make good on his promise to kill your kid if it turns out that you didn't vote the way he demanded--a demand he never would have bothered to make if he had no hope of verifying how you voted.
There may be ways around the problem, but none of them involve publishing the results on the web in any form.
> I PAID FOR the music, and they're STILL inserting advertisements?
Uh...bought any books, games, or movies lately? And by "lately", I mean, at any point in the last fifty years or so?
I just randomly checked four of the oldest paperbacks in my collection (sixties vintage), and half had ads. So it wasn't universal back then, but it was common. Today, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a mass-market book that didn't contain ads.
I have image animation turned off and use Flashblock, and haven't bothered to install Java[*]. To me, the WWW is a calm, quiet, peaceful place, full of ads, yes, but ads that are easy to ignore. Flashblock allows me to whitelist sites (like Homestarrunner, and I certainly don't mind the extra click for sites like Youtube. I'm with GP poster. I don't mind ads and find them easy to ignore. :)
[*] To be precise, I haven't informed by browser where the JRE is located. As a developer, I've got nothing against Java, but I have no interest in making it part of my browsing experience.
I'd rather hear a resounding "Doh!" from the idiot that wrote the article! And, no, gee, guess what, I don't care what the writer's history may be. It was a stupid article no matter who wrote it. :)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logi c.html
:)
I suggest you take particular note of the sections labeled "Argumentum ad hominem", "Converse accident / Hasty generalization", "The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter", "Fallacy of division", and "Ignoratio elenchi". "Plurium interrogationum" and "The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy" may also be relevant.
Of course, no true slashdotter would bother to use logical arguments, so I guess you must be a true slashdotter!
Grandparent poster said: "This is because any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source even if they didn't get it directly from MySQL AB."
:)
You replied: "And you, Sir, are not entirely correct. I cannot bend over MySQL AB by giving people binaries of MySQL."
But grandparent never claimed that you could "bend over" MySQL AB. He simply said that any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source. Which is true. If MySQL AB provided you with binaries and source, and you pass on the binaries, then they're off the hook, and you're on the hook, but that doesn't contradict anything that GP said. In fact, it was more or less his point. GP was entirely correct. And so were you, except where you claimed that he wasn't.
> Evolution favors a combination of aggressiveness and intelligence.
:)
Then how do you explain cockroaches, phytoplankton and sponges? What, you think they're "less evolved" than we are? That's nonsense! They've been evolving for just as long (longer, depending on how you measure)--they are extremely evolved! The most populous multicellular creatures on this planet (by sheer volume, not just numerically) are ants and termites. And while some of their behavior may resemble what we call "intelligence", it is clearly hard-wired, not learned. And while ants are usually fairly aggressive, termites are not so much. For a more obvious example, a little closer to home, consider the field mouse, an immensely successful species, but neither intelligent (at least for a mammal) nor aggressive. In fact, aggression is most strongly associated with apex predators like that wolf you mentioned. And while apex predators are really cool animals in general, they also tend to be extremely fragile as species.
I might go so far as to say that the available evidence shows that Evolution (that famous anthropomorphic personification who lives in a house made of giant tortoise shells, decorated with finch feathers) disfavors aggressiveness, and seems to be fairly neutral about the whole notion of intelligence.
Of course, when it comes to intelligent, technological species, well....we're speculating based on a sample-size of one, which is not enough to form any sort of meaningful conclusions. I think it's fairly safe to say that evolution will favor intelligence when designing intelligent, technological species, but beyond that I hesitate to guess. I also think it will tend to favor hair when designing hairy species.
That obscure stuff often isn't in Britannica at all. And a lot of the articles about obscure stuff in Wikipedia are fine. I think the only sensible conclusion to draw from this and every other comparison that has been made between the two is that Wikipedia and Britannica each have their strengths and weaknesses, and neither one is indisputably better than the other. They're different. Wikipedia is most useful when you treat it as a source for references, rather than blindly trusting the words on the page. Of course, that kind of goes against human nature, but what can you do? :) ~~~~
If these companies are injecting ads into sites containing the Grateful Dead's non-commercial material, then they are illegally profiting from the Grateful Dead's copyrighted works, and both the Grateful Dead organization and various site owners who are suddenly at risk (such as the Internet Archive ) may have the basis for a lawsuit. (The Archive is non-profit, but fairly well funded.)
> "What, no distinction between round moons and non-round moons?"
Round moons are planets; non-round moons aren't. That was implicit, and no other distinction is needed. I basically agree with grandparent poster, and think that any system of categorization which claims that Mercury is more like Jupiter than it is Ceres is...utterly brain-dead.
The point where the GPL kicks in is the point where you could be sued for violating copyright law if you had no license at all. And you are distributing software if a court says you are. It's really that simple (and, depending on copyright law in your jurisdiction, that complex).
:)
The GPL basically exists to provide you with a limited defense against copyright suits--as long as you comply with its terms. Like "fair use", the GPL is simply a defense. You don't get sued for violating the GPL; you ask for a suit to be dismissed because, even though what you did is normally forbidden by law, you have this license which allows you to do what you did. For any behavior that is not normally forbidden by law, the GPL is pretty much irrelevant, since you don't need a special license for such behavior. And if you're not sure where the line is, then maybe you should stick to the terms of the license just to be safe, eh?
Michael Moore? I think you give the man too much credit! What about William Randolph Hearst, whose scaremongering successfully helped start a war, and for whom the term "Yellow Journalism" was coined? I agree that it's a significant problem, but it's hardly a new or recent phenomenon. (Though I suppose an argument can be made for a primarily American origin, which makes it sad to see the BBC succumbing.)
Microsoft has proven, time and time again, that they will engage in all sort of nefarious, underhanded behavior, including lying, cheating, stealing and extortion, in order to maintain and extend their monopolies. They showed no hesitation about lying and evidence-tampering in front of a federal judge, for example. While they do occasionally do the right thing for the right reasons, their history is such that no sane, educated person can observe their actions, especially with respect to competitors, without wondering about their motives.
What you're seeing here is speculation, but it's speculation based on knowledge of the subject. This is not like seeing Jesse Jackson walk across a Great Lake. This is more like seeing John Gotti walk across a Great Lake. I think it's reasonable to speculate that it might not be the second coming.
I remember a time when an up-and-coming author named Terry Pratchett would frequently respond to posts on alt.fan.pratchett, and even posted his email address there. (I believe I had a question about the speed of light on Discworld.) But that was before "the September that never ended", as well as before repeated major international bestsellers. Nowadays, even with the post-spam/post-web reduction in Usenet's popularity, I doubt if Pterry even tries to keep up with that newsgroup, and I suspect that his personal email address is only shared with close friends. Not to take anything away from this songwriter-I've-never-heard-of, but this is, I think, an old and oft-repeated story, and one that could probably be told about thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people that have come to celebrity in the last couple of decades.