You don't award damages on stuff that is being released for free, but copyright infringement is still against the law, and there can be punative damages, payable to the state, for ignoring it. Willfull disregard of copyright has exponentially higher fines associated with it. The only damages I would expect that could be claimed by the copyright holder in such a case are their legal fees involved with them bringing the case before the court in the first place (which would, of course, have to be entirely proved), and any other amount of money they can provably show they are out of as a result of the infringement.
... the GPL cannot compel you to realease your own source code for free, no matter what you do.
It can, however, make you guilty of copyright infringement if you don't comply (since permission to copy the work does not exist if you don't agree to the terms of the GPL), and this can result in a legally sustainable C&D against the distribution of any and all products by the company which utilize the GPL code in a noncompliant fashion until either all of the GPL code is removed, the code is released, or else alternative licensing arrangements can be made. Exact damages awarded to the copyright holder, if any, would probably be at the discretion of the court, but even if there were none, the company that infringed on the copyright would still have a fine for violating copyright law, payable to the state, and the amount applicable would escalate quickly if or when any willful infringement can be shown. so it's really not in anyone's best interests to go around ignoring it.
Why? "Windows" got trademarked. True, the trademark is only applicable with regards to naming of software, but it's still arguably extremely descriptive of its functionality. How would "Lift" be any different?
That report is inapplicable to the exact contents of the tailing pond at the time of the breach. It is probably a good indication of the types of contents to expect, but the concentration levels may be less or more than what was reported last year. By all indications, based on tests that are currently being conducted and their turnaround, we will probably know for sure what was in the pond by as early as late this afternoon or tomorrow.
Obviously some effort should be taken to ensure that problems happen as infrequently as possible, but beyond a certain point there will be diminishing returns, because *EVERY* solution will have its share of potential problems when the completely unexpected happens, and the costs associated with such a situation are going to be there regardless of what you do. The important thing, therefore, is to have a system where the situation can be mitigated with the least cost.
The cost of changing a password is virtually nothing. The cost of changing biometrics can easily be infeasible.
Because accidents happen. No matter how improbable... no matter what kind of artificial barriers we might try and design to prevent them, over time even the unthinkable can and often will happen.
And when it does, some kind of mitigatory system needs to be in place, or else once the system has been compromised, nobody will ever want to use it again. In the case of biometrics, if a database of people's biometric "passwords" has been compromised, potentially allowing somebody to access whatever that database might be linked to, that mitigatory system is going to end up being the password until a different biometric system can be put in place.
Biometrics can make sense as an alternative to passwords in some contexts... such as on an internal and private network, where certain people who work there need regular access to particular information, while they do not want just anyone using the computers, and biometrics can measured by a computer much more quickly than a password can be entered, so it serves as a convenient shortcut. They don't, however, make sense as a general replacement for passwords. Honestly, I can't help but feel that the people who keep suggesting this are terminally lazy and don't want to have to remember passwords in the first place.
Uhmm.... I'm not sure what you're reading, possibly results of samplings taken in 2013, but I've been trying staying on top of this news myself, being a resident of BC, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody still has any idea what, exactly, was in the tailings pond yet. Incompetence writ large.
All the tests so far mean is that the any of the toxicity that is in the sludge that got dumped from the tailings pond isn't leeching into the water itself, because the pH balance is good enough. The silt itself, however, is still actually *IN* the water, and its presence may pose a longer-term threat to human life and wildlife in the region if it can't be cleaned up.
Only if you count per TWH of energy produced, and that would only be because the actual number of solar installs is so much higher than the number of nuclear power plants worldwide where, all other things being equal, the number of accidents happening during installation would be larger anyways (which is when most accidents for things like solar or wind occur, because their installation generally requires working at a height, such as on a roof, and although most professional roofers do take precautions to avoid falling, most fatalities in those industries are still caused by falls, which in all fairness, could happen even if the work had nothing whatsoever to do with trying to get power from wind or solar), and because almost all solar installs are for private energy consumption rather than for public energy use, the total amount of power being produced by solar overall is so much less than nuclear that the denominator of the expression is very tiny, resulting in a misleading large number.
Domestic dogs and cats often live long enough to develop cognitive dysfunction. Although little data has been collected on older animals in the wild, if they were to develop dementia-like symptoms, they wouldnâ(TM)t survive very long after.
Simply put, such dementia would leave the animal without essential survival skills, and unless they are being cared for by people, they would die. Rabies causes irrational behavior, but does not deprive the animal of the ability of the cognitive skills necessary for survival. Certain other forms of dementia, such as Alzheimer's, which is also what this slashdot story is about, does.
Cancer doesn't impose the same kind of survivability impact that dementia does. An animal in the wild with cancer may not live much longer, but can continue to fend for itself for relatively quite a long time often almost right up until the time the disease kills them. An animal with dementia cannot even fend for itself in the wild and would die *VERY* quickly, even though the disease may not otherwise be damaging to their physical health.
No, mice don't get alzheimer's disease in the wild. They don't live long enough to. A domesticated mouse can sometimes develop dementia entirely on its own as it ages, however. Any mouse, or any creature for that matter, which happened to live long enough in the wild to develop such conditions would not survive for long without human intervention.
Even if you only counted incidents where there was a loss of one or more human lives, there have been over twice as many as that which happened on USA soil alone. And actual fatalities caused is far and away the only useful metric in measuring how problematic something actually is. I'd suggest that the costs of cleanup would play a large part in it as well.
If you measure its negative impact only by lives lost... what about if you also include how much it actually ended up costing to clean up after an accident? The Three Mile Island incident didn't kill anyone, afaik, for instance, but remains on record as the worst one in US history (exceeded worldwide only by the Chernobyl meltdown, afaik).
The comparison would have more merit if wind or solar had even the slightest chance of a meltdown, as nuclear reactors seem to do so often when something sufficiently unexpected happens.
Although we do really use most of our brain over a prolonged period, only a very small amount of it is used at any one time for cognitive activities. 10% may be a bit of a low estimate, but not by much.
Although I agree that a well designed HUD could definitely be useful in automobiles, in all fairness, it requires substantially more training to be an aircraft pilot than it does to drive an automobile... so comparing their use in aircraft to using them in cars isn't necessarily the best way to illustrate their practicality for the latter.
Your eyes don't actually have to be focused on any part of the window if the iconography is distinctive enough. I've seen cars with HUDs that present their information with icons or colored symbols and they are not remotely dangerous to drive... they are arguably safer because of the extra information that can be communicated to the driver.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't award damages on stuff that is being released for free, but copyright infringement is still against the law, and there can be punative damages, payable to the state, for ignoring it. Willfull disregard of copyright has exponentially higher fines associated with it. The only damages I would expect that could be claimed by the copyright holder in such a case are their legal fees involved with them bringing the case before the court in the first place (which would, of course, have to be entirely proved), and any other amount of money they can provably show they are out of as a result of the infringement.
It can, however, make you guilty of copyright infringement if you don't comply (since permission to copy the work does not exist if you don't agree to the terms of the GPL), and this can result in a legally sustainable C&D against the distribution of any and all products by the company which utilize the GPL code in a noncompliant fashion until either all of the GPL code is removed, the code is released, or else alternative licensing arrangements can be made. Exact damages awarded to the copyright holder, if any, would probably be at the discretion of the court, but even if there were none, the company that infringed on the copyright would still have a fine for violating copyright law, payable to the state, and the amount applicable would escalate quickly if or when any willful infringement can be shown. so it's really not in anyone's best interests to go around ignoring it.
And just throw everyone in jail who happens to be unemployed. That will save you a whole lot of time.
[/eyeroll]
Why? "Windows" got trademarked. True, the trademark is only applicable with regards to naming of software, but it's still arguably extremely descriptive of its functionality. How would "Lift" be any different?
That report is inapplicable to the exact contents of the tailing pond at the time of the breach. It is probably a good indication of the types of contents to expect, but the concentration levels may be less or more than what was reported last year. By all indications, based on tests that are currently being conducted and their turnaround, we will probably know for sure what was in the pond by as early as late this afternoon or tomorrow.
Obviously some effort should be taken to ensure that problems happen as infrequently as possible, but beyond a certain point there will be diminishing returns, because *EVERY* solution will have its share of potential problems when the completely unexpected happens, and the costs associated with such a situation are going to be there regardless of what you do. The important thing, therefore, is to have a system where the situation can be mitigated with the least cost.
The cost of changing a password is virtually nothing. The cost of changing biometrics can easily be infeasible.
Because accidents happen. No matter how improbable... no matter what kind of artificial barriers we might try and design to prevent them, over time even the unthinkable can and often will happen.
And when it does, some kind of mitigatory system needs to be in place, or else once the system has been compromised, nobody will ever want to use it again. In the case of biometrics, if a database of people's biometric "passwords" has been compromised, potentially allowing somebody to access whatever that database might be linked to, that mitigatory system is going to end up being the password until a different biometric system can be put in place.
Biometrics can make sense as an alternative to passwords in some contexts... such as on an internal and private network, where certain people who work there need regular access to particular information, while they do not want just anyone using the computers, and biometrics can measured by a computer much more quickly than a password can be entered, so it serves as a convenient shortcut. They don't, however, make sense as a general replacement for passwords. Honestly, I can't help but feel that the people who keep suggesting this are terminally lazy and don't want to have to remember passwords in the first place.
I still can't say I understand why they changed the name.
Uhmm.... I'm not sure what you're reading, possibly results of samplings taken in 2013, but I've been trying staying on top of this news myself, being a resident of BC, and to the best of my knowledge, nobody still has any idea what, exactly, was in the tailings pond yet. Incompetence writ large.
All the tests so far mean is that the any of the toxicity that is in the sludge that got dumped from the tailings pond isn't leeching into the water itself, because the pH balance is good enough. The silt itself, however, is still actually *IN* the water, and its presence may pose a longer-term threat to human life and wildlife in the region if it can't be cleaned up.
Only if you count per TWH of energy produced, and that would only be because the actual number of solar installs is so much higher than the number of nuclear power plants worldwide where, all other things being equal, the number of accidents happening during installation would be larger anyways (which is when most accidents for things like solar or wind occur, because their installation generally requires working at a height, such as on a roof, and although most professional roofers do take precautions to avoid falling, most fatalities in those industries are still caused by falls, which in all fairness, could happen even if the work had nothing whatsoever to do with trying to get power from wind or solar), and because almost all solar installs are for private energy consumption rather than for public energy use, the total amount of power being produced by solar overall is so much less than nuclear that the denominator of the expression is very tiny, resulting in a misleading large number.
And if you look at the factual data of solar power, how dangerous is that, compared to the amount of money that has to be invested in it?
Only ones that are kept in captivity and cared for. In the wild, they die.
How about this?
Simply put, such dementia would leave the animal without essential survival skills, and unless they are being cared for by people, they would die. Rabies causes irrational behavior, but does not deprive the animal of the ability of the cognitive skills necessary for survival. Certain other forms of dementia, such as Alzheimer's, which is also what this slashdot story is about, does.
Cancer doesn't impose the same kind of survivability impact that dementia does. An animal in the wild with cancer may not live much longer, but can continue to fend for itself for relatively quite a long time often almost right up until the time the disease kills them. An animal with dementia cannot even fend for itself in the wild and would die *VERY* quickly, even though the disease may not otherwise be damaging to their physical health.
No, mice don't get alzheimer's disease in the wild. They don't live long enough to. A domesticated mouse can sometimes develop dementia entirely on its own as it ages, however. Any mouse, or any creature for that matter, which happened to live long enough in the wild to develop such conditions would not survive for long without human intervention.
Even if you only counted incidents where there was a loss of one or more human lives, there have been over twice as many as that which happened on USA soil alone. And actual fatalities caused is far and away the only useful metric in measuring how problematic something actually is. I'd suggest that the costs of cleanup would play a large part in it as well.
If you measure its negative impact only by lives lost... what about if you also include how much it actually ended up costing to clean up after an accident? The Three Mile Island incident didn't kill anyone, afaik, for instance, but remains on record as the worst one in US history (exceeded worldwide only by the Chernobyl meltdown, afaik).
The comparison would have more merit if wind or solar had even the slightest chance of a meltdown, as nuclear reactors seem to do so often when something sufficiently unexpected happens.
You don't actually have to focus on a HUD in order to see it, nor to understand the information it is communicating to you.
Use a car with an integrated HUD and you'll see what I mean.
Babies can't do any of those things very well either.
Although we do really use most of our brain over a prolonged period, only a very small amount of it is used at any one time for cognitive activities. 10% may be a bit of a low estimate, but not by much.
Evolution got Shakespeare after throwing enough monkeys into the mix.... why can't we?
Although I agree that a well designed HUD could definitely be useful in automobiles, in all fairness, it requires substantially more training to be an aircraft pilot than it does to drive an automobile... so comparing their use in aircraft to using them in cars isn't necessarily the best way to illustrate their practicality for the latter.
Your eyes don't actually have to be focused on any part of the window if the iconography is distinctive enough. I've seen cars with HUDs that present their information with icons or colored symbols and they are not remotely dangerous to drive... they are arguably safer because of the extra information that can be communicated to the driver.