You didn't say what kind of piece it was. (Clearly it wasn't an opera...I don't believe that any operas he may have written at that age have survived.)
From what I've heard Mozart mastered the composition of short pieces at a younger age than he mastered the composition of longer pieces. (Were I otherwise I would be quite surprised.)
I'm sure that Mozart and his sister competed at musical composition and performance. This is a part of the "family dynamic". That he father wasn't present at that particular time doesn't imply that he hadn't shaped that dynamic. I suspect, though of course I don't know, that the "composition game" was created at an earlier time period, and that his sister noticed, perhaps, that if she was composing with Mozart, she didn't get called away to do the dishes...or something similar. My parents were like that with homework and studying (to an extent, not completely). I was often able to escape more boring tasks by being engaged in either homework or even recreational reading.
That has a good probability of success, but it's certainly not a guarantee. But it's not a guarantee.
My parents raised 5 kids, and attempted to read to all of them. Three accepted to offer and two rejected it. Personally, I'm not sure this is fair, as the reading material changed over that period of time. I'm not at all sure that "One fish, Two fish, Red fish, Blue fish" compares favorably with "Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose". It does, however, suffice to show that reading isn't sufficient.
Terry Pratchett has invented a term, Narativium, that it seems to me needs to be present in the material read.
Unfortunately, it will also lead them to ascribe all failures to lack of hard work. This is as fallacious as the other, and nearly as socially injurious.
The truth is a messy combination of effects. This is harder to understand, but it *is* what's true. Some kinds are just smarter than others. Some work harder. Those who work harder do better for any given level of ability, and further they develop their abilities so that their base level improves. Those who coast don't.
People want simple answers, but all too frequently the simple answer oversimplifies. OTOH, from an individual perspective, a belief that working "harder" (in a manner appropriate to the field of endeavor) will yield better results is a [usually] true belief, and is a useful belief (i.e., it tells you what you can most reasonably do to improve your situation).
a) When Mozart was 4, or even 14, his operas weren't very good. b) Mozart's father was the original source of his strong drive and intense focus. It's not clear that he retained that intense drive and focus as an independent adult.
Yes, Mozart was born more talented than most other musicians. That wouldn't have made him famous. But he was in an environment that recognized and cultivated that talent.
That said, Mozart doesn't appear to have been strongly self-directed. His directions were imposed from the outside, first by his father, and then by some social groups that he was affiliated with. (His wife doesn't appear to have been particularly effective in directing hime. Nor does physical need...he essentially starved to death, though it was actually sickness that did him in, there's a fair chance that he wouldn't have seccumbed if he hadn't been physically weakened.)
If you want to have smart kids, then you *DO* want to start with at least one really smart parent, because in the early years the child will need to be directed by that parent. So there doesn't only need to be a smart parent, that parent has to be around and involved! But even that doesn't suffice. The parent has to properly motivate the kid. That's what this article is about.
Somehow I don't think you read what I wrote. Let me spell out a few things that didn't get mentioned.
1) If you're using GPL code, then you can use examples from other GPL code to solve your problems. This "gets around" the problem under discussion because you and the example code share the same license, and it gives you permission to do exactly what is being done.
2) If the code is from a standard algorithm, or a text presenting a standard algorithm, then it's purpose is to be used in code. We just don't know whether or not that is true.
Also, as was pointed out in a different post, many forums in their "Terms of Service" require you to assign the right to reuse the posted text under a non-exclusive public license. The exact terms and conditions vary from forum to forum.
So if the code was published on/., then there's not problem.
We don't know which public forum the code was published on, or what it's terms of service are, however, so there may BE a problem. But that does sound like a standard paragraph from "Terms of Service", so they may well NOT be a problem.
In other words, the best advice appears as "Don't make waves until you're certain of your position. Then use your judgement."
Your advice is, indeed, a legal way to proceed. It is also impossible for the poster. That's not one of his choices.
Were I him, I would not admit to having noticed anything. Possibly, depending on personality factors, I might get into a discussion with the other code about copyrights, laws, and ethics, but I would be very careful to not admit having noticed that he might have done anything improper.
You are talking here of a new hire. The low man on the totem pole. And this is a case where the proprietaries aren't entirely clear. (E.g., this person should definitely not attempt to acquire a commercial license, as he wouldn't have the right to comit his company to anything.)
FWIW, I consider there to be a fair chance that the example is from a standard text on algorithms. I certainly have no proof that this is true, but it might well be. If so, the PURPOSE of the book was to share how to do various things, say Shell sorts. (Probably not, as that's now commonly built into languages.)
That which you are suggesting is probably something that even the lead programmer wouldn't be able to get the department to do. Yes, it's the legal approach. And it's total impracticality is a small part of what's wrong with the legal approach, and why essentially nobody uses it.
Personally, my favored way of avoiding this problem is to use GPL software...but it doesn't totally get around the problems that the legal approach has saddled us with. We weren't told what license the issued product would be under, and it might BE under GPL. This wouldn't solve any of the problems in this case...this case where there shouldn't BE any problems.
Text published in a public forum without an attached license should BE public domain, with all liability resting on the person or entity who published it. (I'll grant that this would make the GPL a lot more like the BSD license, but in an ideal world those two would be identical in effect. It's the imperfections that cause me to adhere to the GPL.)
For me the benefit of Asus releasing the code is that the next edition of Debian, Ubuntu, etc. will install cleanly if I buy one of their machines.
I'm not realistically likely to buy one of their machines soon. I'm not in the market, I'm just continually evaluating what's out there so that when I AM ready I'll have my ducks in a line. I had pretty much decided not to consider ASUS, because closed drivers mean I can't rely on installing the version of Linux that I need...but since they've released the code under GPL, that's not true. Now I'm a potential future customer. (I need more storage, but I'll bet anything that the next version will HAVE more storage.)
And there are other problems. So, as I said, I'm not sure coal isn't a better option. But the oil shales and tars exist. The last I heard they were looking into cracking the oil with trained bacteria while it was in the shale/sand...so it clearly isn't a pleasant or cheap process. But oil prices are headed upwards, and there exists a price where it would be done. Best choice is to find some other source of energy. It'll still come down to extracting that oil at some point, but one can hope more slowly and carefully. (The chemical industry will need the oil even if autos don't...but they need less of it, and they use different pieces.)
Maybe what you're seeing is that they're only showing part of the picture.
Would you feel better if you knew that they had already invested heavily in a few companies, and done some projections, and decided that this was going to work out...and THEN they announced it as a research project? I think that may be what's going on.
What I don't see is how they're planning on managing energy storage. Supercapacitors have come a long way, but I'm not sure that they're up to this role yet. Possibly highly pressurized air would work, but it would require pretty sturdy containment vessels. (You pressurize it by pumping in water. You pull off the energy by allowing the water to force itself through a turbing. Think of it as closed cycle hydroelectric.)
A large part of the uncertainty is that we don't have a clear idea of what they're thinking of as the size of a plant. Is it scaled for households, business districts, factories, cities, what? 1GW tells you a maximum size, but in the context it could, and probably does, mean several smaller plants.
Actually, there ARE tremendous untapped oil fields...but they aren't wells. I'm talking about things like oil shale and oil sands. The prices may now be high enough to justify building the facilities needed to process those...but it's not the kind of clean process that oil wells are. (That wasn't sarcasm. This stuff is MESSY. More like strip mining.) And the refining itself is energy intensive. Which means a lot more carbon in the air per gallon of fuel. I'm not sure that coal wouldn't be a better energy source...but these do exist.
The problem lies in the period before the court decision. SCOx has already been using Novell's money to hire lawyers...what are the odds Novell will ever see that money?
The constructive trust was to ensure that SCOx couldn't spend Novell's money. The bankruptcy court attempts to ensure that as much of the funds controlled by the business as possible are available to creditors of various classes. (Since Novell's money is essentially stolen, Novell would be a creditor of the highest class.)
Both are methods of controlling how SCOx spends the money it controls. The constructive trust would probably be more secure, but Kimball wasn't willing to impose one without knowing how much money should be put into it.
I don't even have records of my own software, and I'm a single person.
I've never illicitly acquired a piece of software, but proving that would be impossible. Fortunately, I switched to Linux around a decade ago. This is a much more efficient way to handle the problem: eliminate it.
P.S.: I seriously doubt that you or your employer have sufficiently good records to stave off the BSA. I've heard stories.
P.P.S.: I heard a story awhile back about a company that lost a Netware server. (I said this was awhile back.) They knew it was still in the building, because it was still running and serving files. Eventually they had to tear down a wall to recover it. Somebody had built up a wall around the running server. (The news story never did say if they ever found out who done it.) Novell used to use this story in their advertising to show how much more stable their systems were thant he competition...and it was true, as long as they were running. I think this was back in the 90's, but it might have been earlier.
In other words: You don't know what you're talking about. Even top secret material walks in and out the door, and that's with armed guards at multiple checkpoints.
You've got the wrong image of how the Linux community operates. Linus *doesn't* care much about the license, he just cares about the code. He enjoys that it's good, widely used, important, etc., but that's not his job. His job is to oversee the kernel and choose which patches to accept and which to reject.
People keep trying to see Linus as a manager, or director or some such. He's the owner of the trademark, and he's a guy who runs a high profile FOSS project...but basically he's the guy who can accept or veto code chunks for inclusion in the kernel. Others fulfill the role of being hard cases or idealogues, that's not Linus' role. He's also not a manager. He can say "I'm looking for a piece of code that does such-and-so, and you could probably write it", but he can't say "Here's rent money, write me this code."
"Just an engineer" is a middling accurate description of Linus. Not a really accurate one, but one that a fairly large number of people can relate to. (As such, it has values beyond strict accuracy. One that was much more accurate might well be much less intelligible, or intelligible to a much smaller number of people.)
Remember, Linus had to be talked into using the GPL. He's NOT interested in that area. This means that he's highly influenced by his associates. Some of them are arguing for pulling all binary modules into userspace. (I think I heard that this has already been scheduled, but not for this year. Next year or the year after.)
WalMart seems to agree with you analysis. At least to the extent that Xandros is a Linux distribution. (I.e., pretty far...but maybe not completely. Linspire has made me cynical about these edge commercial distributions.)
No, it's because of a change in the EULA. The Apple EULA (for Quicktime?) now contains that infamous phrase "We reserve the right to add, modify, copy, or delete any file on your computer." That makes it unacceptable to any serious user who also intends to adhere to contracts.
You can say that they don't intend to use that blanket permission to do anything nefarious. Perhaps they don't...now. They can change their minds, and YOU have already given your permission.
That was 2006. All that's left now is catching the late-adopters (admittedly, a large number).
There are still a few niche markets that need to be satisfied...and some that probably never will. I'll probably keep my MSWind95 machine until I can't run it any longer. (But I sure won't connect it to the internet.)
Neither of my Senators seem to care what I think. They're more interested in collecting money for the next campaign.
One of Democratic Senator has been voting in ways that are likely to cause me to vote Republican next time, because if I'm going to have a Republican Senator, why not at least have one that can't sabotage the Democratic party leadership.
My Representative does seem to represent me...but that's 1/2 of one branch of the government that's responsive to my opinions.
My city council seems corrupt...but I haven't been able to analyse it well enough to be certain just HOW corrupt.
The state I'm not sure of. The state government seems mildly responsive, when it isn't shackled by federal requirements. Unfortunately it's broke and in debt.
Does this, to you, sound like a self-correcting system? Can you tell what state I'm from? (If not, then this may be even more common that it looks like from my vantage.)
I wish it were, but when you kill people's loves and relatives, and then give them the opportunity to strike back, you shouldn't be surprised if they do.
This isn't (necessarily) "fearmongering", it's awareness of guilt. And we, i.e. the US as a country, *are* guilty. Most of us know it, and just feel helpless to stop it. Some portion of those know it, but won't admit it to themselves...and thus get all defensive. And some don't even seem to realize that we've done anything wrong. I end up unsure whether they are (willfully) ignorant or psychopathic.
All that said, fear of radiation is a bit overblown. If we treated cars the same way, there wouldn't be a car allowed on the streets. (It's not that it isn't dangerous, it is. But it's only one danger among many.)
a) We should not have software patents b) This particular patent was obvious to anyone skilled in the art in advance of it's announcement (and was derided as such at the time).
While the desireability of combining the particular set of features was not obvious to most programmers, the techniques for doing so were not opaque.
This is a more harmful than average patent, which was also more obvious than average. And the average is pretty damn low. (By which I mean that the average software patent is for things that are pretty obvious...and this one is, and was at the time, more obvious than most. Also most software patents are harmful, but this is more harmful than most.)
It has been suggested that the only reason this was re-approved was because of bribery. It's hard to conceive of any other plausible reason. The examiner being drunk on the job seems the next most likely.
Only problem is, for the article that I remember, it was done on a very small scale under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The set-up was rather complex. It was also quite unstable even under lab conditions.
I don't think it was being thought of as a method of mass-producing hydrogen so much as something for use with nano-machinery. I think the article was from the New Scientist, but it could have been Science News. (I also seem to remember that it involved either scavanging choloroplasts from a genetically modified algae or palladium catalyst...those were two separate articles, but my memory has munged them and crossfiled under "undesireable catalytic requirements".)
I don't have a link, as I didn't encounter it on the web.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't say what kind of piece it was. (Clearly it wasn't an opera...I don't believe that any operas he may have written at that age have survived.)
From what I've heard Mozart mastered the composition of short pieces at a younger age than he mastered the composition of longer pieces. (Were I otherwise I would be quite surprised.)
I'm sure that Mozart and his sister competed at musical composition and performance. This is a part of the "family dynamic". That he father wasn't present at that particular time doesn't imply that he hadn't shaped that dynamic. I suspect, though of course I don't know, that the "composition game" was created at an earlier time period, and that his sister noticed, perhaps, that if she was composing with Mozart, she didn't get called away to do the dishes...or something similar. My parents were like that with homework and studying (to an extent, not completely). I was often able to escape more boring tasks by being engaged in either homework or even recreational reading.
That has a good probability of success, but it's certainly not a guarantee. But it's not a guarantee.
My parents raised 5 kids, and attempted to read to all of them. Three accepted to offer and two rejected it. Personally, I'm not sure this is fair, as the reading material changed over that period of time. I'm not at all sure that "One fish, Two fish, Red fish, Blue fish" compares favorably with "Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose". It does, however, suffice to show that reading isn't sufficient.
Terry Pratchett has invented a term, Narativium, that it seems to me needs to be present in the material read.
If what you're interested in is assigning blame, then you've missed the point.
Yes. What you say is true.
Unfortunately, it will also lead them to ascribe all failures to lack of hard work. This is as fallacious as the other, and nearly as socially injurious.
The truth is a messy combination of effects. This is harder to understand, but it *is* what's true. Some kinds are just smarter than others. Some work harder. Those who work harder do better for any given level of ability, and further they develop their abilities so that their base level improves. Those who coast don't.
People want simple answers, but all too frequently the simple answer oversimplifies.
OTOH, from an individual perspective, a belief that working "harder" (in a manner appropriate to the field of endeavor) will yield better results is a [usually] true belief, and is a useful belief (i.e., it tells you what you can most reasonably do to improve your situation).
a) When Mozart was 4, or even 14, his operas weren't very good.
b) Mozart's father was the original source of his strong drive and intense focus. It's not clear that he retained that intense drive and focus as an independent adult.
Yes, Mozart was born more talented than most other musicians. That wouldn't have made him famous. But he was in an environment that recognized and cultivated that talent.
That said, Mozart doesn't appear to have been strongly self-directed. His directions were imposed from the outside, first by his father, and then by some social groups that he was affiliated with. (His wife doesn't appear to have been particularly effective in directing hime. Nor does physical need...he essentially starved to death, though it was actually sickness that did him in, there's a fair chance that he wouldn't have seccumbed if he hadn't been physically weakened.)
If you want to have smart kids, then you *DO* want to start with at least one really smart parent, because in the early years the child will need to be directed by that parent. So there doesn't only need to be a smart parent, that parent has to be around and involved! But even that doesn't suffice. The parent has to properly motivate the kid. That's what this article is about.
Somehow I don't think you read what I wrote. Let me spell out a few things that didn't get mentioned.
1) If you're using GPL code, then you can use examples from other GPL code to solve your problems. This "gets around" the problem under discussion because you and the example code share the same license, and it gives you permission to do exactly what is being done.
2) If the code is from a standard algorithm, or a text presenting a standard algorithm, then it's purpose is to be used in code. We just don't know whether or not that is true.
Also, as was pointed out in a different post, many forums in their "Terms of Service" require you to assign the right to reuse the posted text under a non-exclusive public license. The exact terms and conditions vary from forum to forum.
So if the code was published on /., then there's not problem.
We don't know which public forum the code was published on, or what it's terms of service are, however, so there may BE a problem. But that does sound like a standard paragraph from "Terms of Service", so they may well NOT be a problem.
In other words, the best advice appears as "Don't make waves until you're certain of your position. Then use your judgement."
I believe that you are a lawyer.
Your advice is, indeed, a legal way to proceed. It is also impossible for the poster. That's not one of his choices.
Were I him, I would not admit to having noticed anything. Possibly, depending on personality factors, I might get into a discussion with the other code about copyrights, laws, and ethics, but I would be very careful to not admit having noticed that he might have done anything improper.
You are talking here of a new hire. The low man on the totem pole. And this is a case where the proprietaries aren't entirely clear. (E.g., this person should definitely not attempt to acquire a commercial license, as he wouldn't have the right to comit his company to anything.)
FWIW, I consider there to be a fair chance that the example is from a standard text on algorithms. I certainly have no proof that this is true, but it might well be. If so, the PURPOSE of the book was to share how to do various things, say Shell sorts. (Probably not, as that's now commonly built into languages.)
That which you are suggesting is probably something that even the lead programmer wouldn't be able to get the department to do. Yes, it's the legal approach. And it's total impracticality is a small part of what's wrong with the legal approach, and why essentially nobody uses it.
Personally, my favored way of avoiding this problem is to use GPL software...but it doesn't totally get around the problems that the legal approach has saddled us with. We weren't told what license the issued product would be under, and it might BE under GPL. This wouldn't solve any of the problems in this case...this case where there shouldn't BE any problems.
Text published in a public forum without an attached license should BE public domain, with all liability resting on the person or entity who published it. (I'll grant that this would make the GPL a lot more like the BSD license, but in an ideal world those two would be identical in effect. It's the imperfections that cause me to adhere to the GPL.)
That's nice, and I hope it happens, but for me...
For me the benefit of Asus releasing the code is that the next edition of Debian, Ubuntu, etc. will install cleanly if I buy one of their machines.
I'm not realistically likely to buy one of their machines soon. I'm not in the market, I'm just continually evaluating what's out there so that when I AM ready I'll have my ducks in a line. I had pretty much decided not to consider ASUS, because closed drivers mean I can't rely on installing the version of Linux that I need...but since they've released the code under GPL, that's not true. Now I'm a potential future customer. (I need more storage, but I'll bet anything that the next version will HAVE more storage.)
And there are other problems. So, as I said, I'm not sure coal isn't a better option. But the oil shales and tars exist. The last I heard they were looking into cracking the oil with trained bacteria while it was in the shale/sand...so it clearly isn't a pleasant or cheap process. But oil prices are headed upwards, and there exists a price where it would be done. Best choice is to find some other source of energy. It'll still come down to extracting that oil at some point, but one can hope more slowly and carefully. (The chemical industry will need the oil even if autos don't...but they need less of it, and they use different pieces.)
Maybe what you're seeing is that they're only showing part of the picture.
Would you feel better if you knew that they had already invested heavily in a few companies, and done some projections, and decided that this was going to work out...and THEN they announced it as a research project? I think that may be what's going on.
What I don't see is how they're planning on managing energy storage. Supercapacitors have come a long way, but I'm not sure that they're up to this role yet. Possibly highly pressurized air would work, but it would require pretty sturdy containment vessels. (You pressurize it by pumping in water. You pull off the energy by allowing the water to force itself through a turbing. Think of it as closed cycle hydroelectric.)
A large part of the uncertainty is that we don't have a clear idea of what they're thinking of as the size of a plant. Is it scaled for households, business districts, factories, cities, what? 1GW tells you a maximum size, but in the context it could, and probably does, mean several smaller plants.
Actually, there ARE tremendous untapped oil fields...but they aren't wells. I'm talking about things like oil shale and oil sands. The prices may now be high enough to justify building the facilities needed to process those...but it's not the kind of clean process that oil wells are. (That wasn't sarcasm. This stuff is MESSY. More like strip mining.) And the refining itself is energy intensive. Which means a lot more carbon in the air per gallon of fuel. I'm not sure that coal wouldn't be a better energy source...but these do exist.
The problem lies in the period before the court decision. SCOx has already been using Novell's money to hire lawyers...what are the odds Novell will ever see that money?
The constructive trust was to ensure that SCOx couldn't spend Novell's money. The bankruptcy court attempts to ensure that as much of the funds controlled by the business as possible are available to creditors of various classes. (Since Novell's money is essentially stolen, Novell would be a creditor of the highest class.)
Both are methods of controlling how SCOx spends the money it controls. The constructive trust would probably be more secure, but Kimball wasn't willing to impose one without knowing how much money should be put into it.
It's a sticky problem.
This sounds, from a distance, like a case where Google made the correct decision, but...
Who gets to define "criminal"? How is this different from turning over the id of a Chinese journalist?
When powerful people get to define what is a crime, then I'm not easy about "criminal" being used as a justifier for the breaking of confidentiality.
It's not clear that the bankruptcy judge is going to allow a constructive trust to be imposed.
OTOH, since SCOx can no longer dispose of it's assets without approval by the bankruptcy court, a constructive trust may be less needed...perhaps.
I don't even have records of my own software, and I'm a single person.
I've never illicitly acquired a piece of software, but proving that would be impossible. Fortunately, I switched to Linux around a decade ago. This is a much more efficient way to handle the problem: eliminate it.
P.S.: I seriously doubt that you or your employer have sufficiently good records to stave off the BSA. I've heard stories.
P.P.S.: I heard a story awhile back about a company that lost a Netware server. (I said this was awhile back.) They knew it was still in the building, because it was still running and serving files. Eventually they had to tear down a wall to recover it. Somebody had built up a wall around the running server. (The news story never did say if they ever found out who done it.) Novell used to use this story in their advertising to show how much more stable their systems were thant he competition...and it was true, as long as they were running. I think this was back in the 90's, but it might have been earlier.
In other words: You don't know what you're talking about. Even top secret material walks in and out the door, and that's with armed guards at multiple checkpoints.
Have you read a recent EULA from Apple? They no longer deserve your love.
OTOH, the BSA *does* have a reputation of acting as if MS is the only company paying their rent.
You've got the wrong image of how the Linux community operates. Linus *doesn't* care much about the license, he just cares about the code. He enjoys that it's good, widely used, important, etc., but that's not his job. His job is to oversee the kernel and choose which patches to accept and which to reject.
People keep trying to see Linus as a manager, or director or some such. He's the owner of the trademark, and he's a guy who runs a high profile FOSS project...but basically he's the guy who can accept or veto code chunks for inclusion in the kernel. Others fulfill the role of being hard cases or idealogues, that's not Linus' role. He's also not a manager. He can say "I'm looking for a piece of code that does such-and-so, and you could probably write it", but he can't say "Here's rent money, write me this code."
"Just an engineer" is a middling accurate description of Linus. Not a really accurate one, but one that a fairly large number of people can relate to. (As such, it has values beyond strict accuracy. One that was much more accurate might well be much less intelligible, or intelligible to a much smaller number of people.)
Remember, Linus had to be talked into using the GPL. He's NOT interested in that area. This means that he's highly influenced by his associates. Some of them are arguing for pulling all binary modules into userspace. (I think I heard that this has already been scheduled, but not for this year. Next year or the year after.)
WalMart seems to agree with you analysis. At least to the extent that Xandros is a Linux distribution. (I.e., pretty far...but maybe not completely. Linspire has made me cynical about these edge commercial distributions.)
No, it's because of a change in the EULA. The Apple EULA (for Quicktime?) now contains that infamous phrase "We reserve the right to add, modify, copy, or delete any file on your computer." That makes it unacceptable to any serious user who also intends to adhere to contracts.
You can say that they don't intend to use that blanket permission to do anything nefarious. Perhaps they don't...now. They can change their minds, and YOU have already given your permission.
That was 2006. All that's left now is catching the late-adopters (admittedly, a large number).
There are still a few niche markets that need to be satisfied...and some that probably never will. I'll probably keep my MSWind95 machine until I can't run it any longer. (But I sure won't connect it to the internet.)
Neither of my Senators seem to care what I think. They're more interested in collecting money for the next campaign.
One of Democratic Senator has been voting in ways that are likely to cause me to vote Republican next time, because if I'm going to have a Republican Senator, why not at least have one that can't sabotage the Democratic party leadership.
My Representative does seem to represent me...but that's 1/2 of one branch of the government that's responsive to my opinions.
My city council seems corrupt...but I haven't been able to analyse it well enough to be certain just HOW corrupt.
The state I'm not sure of. The state government seems mildly responsive, when it isn't shackled by federal requirements. Unfortunately it's broke and in debt.
Does this, to you, sound like a self-correcting system? Can you tell what state I'm from? (If not, then this may be even more common that it looks like from my vantage.)
I'm from California.
I wish it were, but when you kill people's loves and relatives, and then give them the opportunity to strike back, you shouldn't be surprised if they do.
This isn't (necessarily) "fearmongering", it's awareness of guilt. And we, i.e. the US as a country, *are* guilty. Most of us know it, and just feel helpless to stop it. Some portion of those know it, but won't admit it to themselves...and thus get all defensive. And some don't even seem to realize that we've done anything wrong. I end up unsure whether they are (willfully) ignorant or psychopathic.
All that said, fear of radiation is a bit overblown. If we treated cars the same way, there wouldn't be a car allowed on the streets. (It's not that it isn't dangerous, it is. But it's only one danger among many.)
a) We should not have software patents
b) This particular patent was obvious to anyone skilled in the art in advance of it's announcement (and was derided as such at the time).
While the desireability of combining the particular set of features was not obvious to most programmers, the techniques for doing so were not opaque.
This is a more harmful than average patent, which was also more obvious than average. And the average is pretty damn low. (By which I mean that the average software patent is for things that are pretty obvious...and this one is, and was at the time, more obvious than most. Also most software patents are harmful, but this is more harmful than most.)
It has been suggested that the only reason this was re-approved was because of bribery. It's hard to conceive of any other plausible reason. The examiner being drunk on the job seems the next most likely.
Actually, I believe that he's correct.
Only problem is, for the article that I remember, it was done on a very small scale under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. The set-up was rather complex. It was also quite unstable even under lab conditions.
I don't think it was being thought of as a method of mass-producing hydrogen so much as something for use with nano-machinery. I think the article was from the New Scientist, but it could have been Science News. (I also seem to remember that it involved either scavanging choloroplasts from a genetically modified algae or palladium catalyst...those were two separate articles, but my memory has munged them and crossfiled under "undesireable catalytic requirements".)
I don't have a link, as I didn't encounter it on the web.