Well, I think that it was Buckminister Fuller that speculated that the vikings sailed around the world (keeping largely to the coast). Of course, he was speculating that they went around Cape Horn....which adds a whole lot of miles... rather than that they sailed through a NorthWest passage. (And I may be wrong. He may have been speculating about the phoenicians.)
I can't recall any prior assertions of a sailing ship going through the NorthWest passage. (Trying to, yes, but actually making the trip...no.)
That may be the law, IANAL, so I couldn't say. It's not the practice.
One of the reasons that I didn't buy a Gateway when they had a local store was their warranty coverage policy. Fortunately, I checked before I bought.
Although, thinking about it, you may be technically correct. I believe that their statement was to the effect that in order to get warranty coverage I had to either restore the machine to it's original condition or allow them to do so. Including wiping *ALL* files on the hard disk and reformatting. And that if they did it, they'd charge you for the work.
Sorry, but those areas of math also didn't have practical applications at that time. As such, using Riemannian geometry in them doesn't count as a practical application. Good math, yes. Important math, yes. But not science. If there's no practical application (i.e., a good mapping between the math and the physical world), then it isn't science.
Now I'll grant that "a good mapping" isn't a well-defined term...but most people think that, e.g., string theory doesn't have a good mapping. And I'd be surprised if you could show me a "good mapping" of "Coordinate transformations and deformations in 3D" in the 1890's to physical reality rather than to other areas of math. (It's quite possible...I'd just be surprised.) Something more indirect is plausible, but again I doubt it's existence.
Anyway, here we are talking about public perception. There are some string theorists who feel that they have discovered (paraphrase)"The real mapping of string theory to physical reality". They don't have sufficient proof...but perhaps in 5-10 years they will be shown right. Then in another decade or so it may penetrate into the public perception. (Still, if that's the case I should have talked about denigrating Reimann Calculus in 1915, but I think we're further back on the curve.)
String theory isn't science, but it isn't religion either. It's math. Someday it may become science.
Damning string theory is a bit like damning Reiman Calculus was in the 1890's. It was of no existing use. Eventually, though, Einstein found a use for it. That may happen with string theory. Or, of course, it may not.
It is interesting that the math can be mapped onto what is known about the universe. That makes it interesting. But it can't be tested, only particular mappings can be tested. So it's math rather than physics.
That should be qualified. If it's under GPL3 I might consider it safe to buy. Otherwise I wouldn't and don't. I've striped SUSE off my systems, because I don't trust what they might upgrade me with.
Before you accept any reassurances from Novell, actually READ the published parts of their agreement with MS. Its reassurances are trash, garbage, worthless. And *THAT'S* the part they weren't too ashamed to reveal.
As just a flat statement, it's not a problem. It is a reason to be wary.
OTOH, if Sun releases something under the GPL, it's under the GPL, and therefore trustworthy. Especially if it's under the GPL3.
Still....if it isn't under the GPL3 I'm going to scrutinize the terms of the agreement with extra care, and refuse to accept questionable clauses. This is something that should be done anyway, but it's more important when a company has an agreement with MS whose terms I don't know.
The last time I bought a computer, I went with AMD because I was mad at Intel. I still am, though less so. It fades over time.
Last year I did an evaluation, and Intel came out on top... solely because they had an open source video driver. This will soon eliminate that benefit.
N.B.: For me to choose Intel it must be 5% better than the competition. This is due to various corporate actions that I dislike. (Two years ago it was 10%...I use a time decaying function.) If they were up against a competitor that didn't support DRM, they'd need to be 50% better, but I don't see one, so that part of the playing field is level.
You've got a short timeline. This has happened before, and the common element isn't the internet, it's the game companies thinking that they could make the games copy-proof. The result last time was that the copy protection got worse and worse until people stopped buying. (Also the copying technology got better...but that didn't matter, since those weren't the customers.)
That was the period in which I basically quit computer gaming. I still haven't picked it up again with the same fervor. (OTOH, I play Alpha-Centuari on Linux. It doesn't require that I have the CD in the drive before it will run. Notice that? I've got a legitimate copy. I could get around copying it, and I don't. I just quit if it's too much bother.)
I can't really talk about their motives...merely the conditions under which they act, and how they act under those conditions. And the results.
Now I'll grant you that I, also, have a short timeline. Two cycles aren't that much better than one. But they are enough to eliminate some hypotheses, such as that the copy protection is caused by easy internet copying.
It's more expensive for you, but customize each copy, and embed a check-sum so that it won't work if the user's name is altered.
This means that if someone's copy is copied, then the copy contains that customer's id.
At start-up time, flash a brief dialog that includes the phrase "This copy licensed to...", so they'll know that if they share it, the id of the sharer is included.
You also need to include in you contract that you have the right to cancel all further services without additional payment if the copyright is violated. (Phrase it better. IANAL.)
This exposes the customer to threat of copyright violation suit if their copy is distributed over the net. OTOH, you've got to generate each copy separately. For best security, each copy should be separately compiled, with the name and check-sum included in the main body of the code (under mild encryption, rot17 might be good enough, or rot17 & byteswap).
N.B.: This doesn't interfere with copying. It shouldn't impinge on any legal use. And it allows multiple backups. It's more trouble for YOU. (That's fair. You're the one being "paranoid".)
FWIW, I'd also be sure to include a copyright notice, and a brief statement that distribution of copies to others is prohibited. This isn't legally necessary, but it seems to be what you are after, so it would be kind to tell people how you want them to act.
I did. The article was convincing as far as it went...but I'm well aware that, as others have noted, mail-merge, e.g., was better in MSWord95 than it was in OpenOffice2.0.
OTOH, I don't use mail-merge very often, so that's not very significant to me. So for me that leaves OOo in the lead.
It's certainly clear that some people with different needs than I have might well judge on a different basis. I'm certain that there are criteria by which MSWord would be superior. I just don't know what they are. The author of the article didn't cover them (either because he didn't find them significant, or because they would have defeated his pre-chosen conclusion...the evidence is consistent with either hypothesis).
So RTFA doesn't help me. I did, and the author's opinions appeared reasonable, though not always convincing.
I'm never going to look at MSWord, so I'll never be able to make an informed guess as to what you mean by "Office 2007 is miles ahead of Open Office." unless you list some specific features. You probably need to list the environment, also, as I'm rather certain that it wouldn't even *install* on my system (Debian Etch).
(I'm giving you the presumption of innocence, and presuming that you aren't a troll.)
But what they *ought* to do is figure out how to stack 33 or 35 planes (1 word + parity). I suppose that they could do fancier error correction...but this is a ram chip, not a computer.
Anyway, then if they could read/write all planes in parallel you'd not only have fast access, but also simple addressing. (I.e., you could reasonably do I/O to a single column...admittedly slower than block transfer, but nicer if you only need to change one word.) This would be more important if memory usage cycles were more important, and if there were block parity, that would still need updating, but potentially a very nice approach.
Yeah, I shouldn't have used the post office. I think the term came from the phone company, and I should have stayed with them. More direct analogy anyway.
Well, it's certainly a very high profit margin. I never understood that they were sold...somehow I thought that they were church property.
OTOH, consider all the folk who were talked into giving ALL they wealth to some christian church or other to insure that they went to heaven. It's not an unusual thing for a church to engage in selling it's services are a strangely high price without any evidence of it doing any good.
They won't let you means they have policies forbidding it, not that they check each package.
OTOH, I'll admit that this policy was made a long time ago. I don't know what it's current status is. There are certainly grounds for arguing that the USPO has forfeited it's common carrier status...but if the argument has ever been made, I haven't heard about it. (I think that "common carrier" was invented for the phone system, though. The USPO, being a government agency (at the time) didn't really need that kind of protection.)
If the ISPs filter based on torrent source, then they cease to be common carriers, and lose common carrier protection. Then they immediately become liable for every case of copyright infringement that they are accessory to.
I don't think they'd like that choice.
If they are common carriers, then they are supposed to be indifferent to WHAT they are carrying, like the mail or the phones. If an extortion threat is transmitted by mail, you can't sue the post office. Not just because it's acting as an agent of the govt, but because it's a common carrier. (UPS is just as protected.) They aren't supposed to know or care what they're carrying. If they did, and demonstrated the capability of filtering it by filtering some of it, then they would lose their common carrier status, and become liable as accessories to extortion, e.g.
OTOH, I don't want them pretending to be me. Not at all. That should be grounds for a suit. It should also be grounds for criminal prosecution not only of those who implemented it, but of all of their supervisors, managers, etc. also. Including the boards of directors. It shouldn't have a particular onerous penalty...say 10 days for each separate offense. Cumulative. I'll be generous, and say 1 day per instance. I.e., 1 day per false packet.
OK...though it was before the migration. (The Salem trials are notorious because they were unusual...not because they were very excessive.) N.B.: This is true of the British, also. They (and we) reserved their (our) venom for other christians. See Bloody Mary, et al. In the U.S. it was usually political. (See the alien and sedition acts.)
OTOH, if McCarthy hadn't been so foolish as to challenge the Army...we might have seen a close modern day repetition. (Note the close ties between McCarthy -> Nixon -> Reagan. I'm not quite sure how the Bushes fit into this scenario. They are probably linked, but I don't have solid information.)
Also don't forget the KKK, etc. Not particularly anti-other-religions only because they had easier targets, but they were explicitly anti-Jew and anti-Catholic. Some places they may well have effectively had local mini-inquisitions being run that just didn't get a lot of publicity.
What part of that is Scientology and what part is Dianetics?
People do tend to have a fallacious idea that their personality is unitary. Unity is something that one can aspire to (possibly unwisely), but it's not something that is normally present. This is usually masked by "state specific memories", in which each sub-component of the self finds it easier to remember the things that it has experienced than those experienced by other states of mind (i.e., mini-personalities). An extreme example of this is intoxication. It can be difficult to remember what you did once you become sober, but easier if you again become intoxicated. The same effect happens with emotional states. When you are angry it's easier to remember the experiences of other times when you were angry. Etc.
All this is very standard. As such, much of what you have said (ignoring the SF component) seems to be orthodox psychology stated in unfamiliar terms. (N.B.: Untestable hypotheses are assumed to have null truth value. E.g., the existence of Xenu is untestable as stated. etc. Also, any hypothesis which when shown to be false is patched with an untestable hypothesis is presumed to have null truth value. This would presumably include the atomic bombs on the volcanoes, etc. If something has null truth value it is considered neither true nor false, but probably meaningless.)
The reprehensible part of Scientology is not the stories that it tells, but the illegal methods that it uses. (I do not consider e-meters to be reprehensible, even though the US at one time ruled them illegal. I consider that unconstitutional governmental intrusion into private affairs. I'm talking about threats, extortion, barratry, etc.)
Linus, e.g., allows people to enter patches into his tree only if he feels like it. There's no stated rationale. He uses his judgment.
So, as stated, projects can limit their membership for whim, reasons of convenience, or any other reason they feel like.
What's sensitive is closing the code. That's dependent upon the license...AND upon the copyright ownership.
Without investigating your project or license I'd propose this: 1) He can't be a member of your project, but he can submit code patches 2) You recommend that he start his own local project, and you have a license that allows code to be shared. Between the two. (GPL3?) 3) Have a friendly mailing list that has an open subscription policy...but only subscribers can post. (And subscriptions can be revoked... though cause should be stated. E.g., "No spamming policy violated.")
Seriously consider having shared copyright ownership and a "version 3 or later" clause in the license. Possibly something to allow a 2/3 majority of the copyright holders to vote for a license change? That gets tricky, though. Legal morass. KISS.
Possibly have multiple projects as the copyright owners. May make it easier to track down who needs to approve license changes. License changes should be possible, but quite difficult. The question is "Just how difficult?"
Just for an example: Suppose that the project develops a flying autonomous vehicle. Autonomous means that it makes it's own decisions as to how to act. I.e., intelligent. (Well, not this year, probably.) Clearly is should own itself, unless you think that slavery is proper. Shouldn't it? If not, why not? To what extent? Current licenses don't cover this situation at all, but it could become quite important. It could make the difference between robots working with us and a robot rebellion. (Yes, I know it all depends on the code. I can't show you the code because it hasn't been written. Yet.)
I seem to remember that only a few no votes are required to sink the "quick-tracking" ("fast-tracking"?) of a proposed standard, but I don't remember how many.
We've read the news. We don't need more examples to prove the justice of the title. This has been going on since Scopes. Before then (and frequently since) they were more vicious. Also viscous...as in thick. (Sorry, that's one of my frequent typos.)
If this guy *isn't* a christian, that just makes him more uncommon. (Rarer == More valuable?)
FWIW, I certainly hope that the reviewer wins his case easily. I also hope that he's able to get the crackpot to pay not only court costs, but his legal bills and a fair hourly rate for his professional services. Plus penalties. This doesn't depend on the crackpot being a christian. Many aren't.
Personally my complaint about the title would be that it's slightly redundant. OTOH, I have met christians who weren't crackpots, so that's not fair either.
I'd put it more strongly. I'd say "Things don't scale arbitrarily." And I would still claim that scanning is not, in an of itself, innovative.
E.g., to, perhaps, clarify. Plating chromium on steel wasn't innovative. Using chromium plating to prevent rust was. Notice that the technical difficulty was in developing the chromium plating technologies. Also notice that this depends totally on one's point of view. If you were assigned the problem of preventing rust by plating chromium onto steel, then the development of chromium technology would have been innovative. Since chromium plating was invented separately, the innovative thing was noticing that it could be used to prevent rust.
Chip makers have already noticed that scaling it important. As such, scaling isn't innovative. Methods of doing so may be. Ways of using the resulting product may be. But the scaling itself isn't.
Perhaps you want to change your analogy. I've yet to see anything from GM that compares favorably to a Toyota Prius. I don't watch the ads, so they *may* be advertising some such. If I saw the ad I wouldn't believe it until I saw the car and heard favorable reports from purchasers.
But you're right about a monopoly causing stagnation.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I think that it was Buckminister Fuller that speculated that the vikings sailed around the world (keeping largely to the coast). Of course, he was speculating that they went around Cape Horn....which adds a whole lot of miles ... rather than that they sailed through a NorthWest passage. (And I may be wrong. He may have been speculating about the phoenicians.)
I can't recall any prior assertions of a sailing ship going through the NorthWest passage. (Trying to, yes, but actually making the trip...no.)
That may be the law, IANAL, so I couldn't say. It's not the practice.
One of the reasons that I didn't buy a Gateway when they had a local store was their warranty coverage policy. Fortunately, I checked before I bought.
Although, thinking about it, you may be technically correct. I believe that their statement was to the effect that in order to get warranty coverage I had to either restore the machine to it's original condition or allow them to do so. Including wiping *ALL* files on the hard disk and reformatting. And that if they did it, they'd charge you for the work.
As I said, I went elsewhere.
Well...the reason that they'll *announce* changing their policy.
Never forget that it's easier to announce that you're changing a policy than to actually do so.
Sorry, but those areas of math also didn't have practical applications at that time. As such, using Riemannian geometry in them doesn't count as a practical application. Good math, yes. Important math, yes. But not science. If there's no practical application (i.e., a good mapping between the math and the physical world), then it isn't science.
Now I'll grant that "a good mapping" isn't a well-defined term...but most people think that, e.g., string theory doesn't have a good mapping. And I'd be surprised if you could show me a "good mapping" of "Coordinate transformations and deformations in 3D" in the 1890's to physical reality rather than to other areas of math. (It's quite possible...I'd just be surprised.) Something more indirect is plausible, but again I doubt it's existence.
Anyway, here we are talking about public perception. There are some string theorists who feel that they have discovered (paraphrase)"The real mapping of string theory to physical reality". They don't have sufficient proof...but perhaps in 5-10 years they will be shown right. Then in another decade or so it may penetrate into the public perception. (Still, if that's the case I should have talked about denigrating Reimann Calculus in 1915, but I think we're further back on the curve.)
String theory isn't science, but it isn't religion either. It's math. Someday it may become science.
Damning string theory is a bit like damning Reiman Calculus was in the 1890's. It was of no existing use. Eventually, though, Einstein found a use for it. That may happen with string theory. Or, of course, it may not.
It is interesting that the math can be mapped onto what is known about the universe. That makes it interesting. But it can't be tested, only particular mappings can be tested. So it's math rather than physics.
That should be qualified. If it's under GPL3 I might consider it safe to buy. Otherwise I wouldn't and don't. I've striped SUSE off my systems, because I don't trust what they might upgrade me with.
Before you accept any reassurances from Novell, actually READ the published parts of their agreement with MS. Its reassurances are trash, garbage, worthless. And *THAT'S* the part they weren't too ashamed to reveal.
As just a flat statement, it's not a problem. It is a reason to be wary.
OTOH, if Sun releases something under the GPL, it's under the GPL, and therefore trustworthy. Especially if it's under the GPL3.
Still....if it isn't under the GPL3 I'm going to scrutinize the terms of the agreement with extra care, and refuse to accept questionable clauses. This is something that should be done anyway, but it's more important when a company has an agreement with MS whose terms I don't know.
The last time I bought a computer, I went with AMD because I was mad at Intel. I still am, though less so. It fades over time.
... solely because they had an open source video driver. This will soon eliminate that benefit.
Last year I did an evaluation, and Intel came out on top
N.B.: For me to choose Intel it must be 5% better than the competition. This is due to various corporate actions that I dislike. (Two years ago it was 10%...I use a time decaying function.) If they were up against a competitor that didn't support DRM, they'd need to be 50% better, but I don't see one, so that part of the playing field is level.
You've got a short timeline. This has happened before, and the common element isn't the internet, it's the game companies thinking that they could make the games copy-proof. The result last time was that the copy protection got worse and worse until people stopped buying. (Also the copying technology got better...but that didn't matter, since those weren't the customers.)
That was the period in which I basically quit computer gaming. I still haven't picked it up again with the same fervor. (OTOH, I play Alpha-Centuari on Linux. It doesn't require that I have the CD in the drive before it will run. Notice that? I've got a legitimate copy. I could get around copying it, and I don't. I just quit if it's too much bother.)
I can't really talk about their motives...merely the conditions under which they act, and how they act under those conditions. And the results.
Now I'll grant you that I, also, have a short timeline. Two cycles aren't that much better than one. But they are enough to eliminate some hypotheses, such as that the copy protection is caused by easy internet copying.
It's more expensive for you, but customize each copy, and embed a check-sum so that it won't work if the user's name is altered.
...", so they'll know that if they share it, the id of the sharer is included.
This means that if someone's copy is copied, then the copy contains that customer's id.
At start-up time, flash a brief dialog that includes the phrase "This copy licensed to
You also need to include in you contract that you have the right to cancel all further services without additional payment if the copyright is violated. (Phrase it better. IANAL.)
This exposes the customer to threat of copyright violation suit if their copy is distributed over the net. OTOH, you've got to generate each copy separately. For best security, each copy should be separately compiled, with the name and check-sum included in the main body of the code (under mild encryption, rot17 might be good enough, or rot17 & byteswap).
N.B.: This doesn't interfere with copying. It shouldn't impinge on any legal use. And it allows multiple backups. It's more trouble for YOU. (That's fair. You're the one being "paranoid".)
FWIW, I'd also be sure to include a copyright notice, and a brief statement that distribution of copies to others is prohibited. This isn't legally necessary, but it seems to be what you are after, so it would be kind to tell people how you want them to act.
I did. The article was convincing as far as it went...but I'm well aware that, as others have noted, mail-merge, e.g., was better in MSWord95 than it was in OpenOffice2.0.
OTOH, I don't use mail-merge very often, so that's not very significant to me. So for me that leaves OOo in the lead.
It's certainly clear that some people with different needs than I have might well judge on a different basis. I'm certain that there are criteria by which MSWord would be superior. I just don't know what they are. The author of the article didn't cover them (either because he didn't find them significant, or because they would have defeated his pre-chosen conclusion...the evidence is consistent with either hypothesis).
So RTFA doesn't help me. I did, and the author's opinions appeared reasonable, though not always convincing.
Can you be more specific?
I'm never going to look at MSWord, so I'll never be able to make an informed guess as to what you mean by "Office 2007 is miles ahead of Open Office." unless you list some specific features. You probably need to list the environment, also, as I'm rather certain that it wouldn't even *install* on my system (Debian Etch).
(I'm giving you the presumption of innocence, and presuming that you aren't a troll.)
But what they *ought* to do is figure out how to stack 33 or 35 planes (1 word + parity). I suppose that they could do fancier error correction...but this is a ram chip, not a computer.
Anyway, then if they could read/write all planes in parallel you'd not only have fast access, but also simple addressing. (I.e., you could reasonably do I/O to a single column...admittedly slower than block transfer, but nicer if you only need to change one word.) This would be more important if memory usage cycles were more important, and if there were block parity, that would still need updating, but potentially a very nice approach.
Yeah, I shouldn't have used the post office. I think the term came from the phone company, and I should have stayed with them. More direct analogy anyway.
Well, it's certainly a very high profit margin. I never understood that they were sold...somehow I thought that they were church property.
OTOH, consider all the folk who were talked into giving ALL they wealth to some christian church or other to insure that they went to heaven. It's not an unusual thing for a church to engage in selling it's services are a strangely high price without any evidence of it doing any good.
They won't let you means they have policies forbidding it, not that they check each package.
OTOH, I'll admit that this policy was made a long time ago. I don't know what it's current status is. There are certainly grounds for arguing that the USPO has forfeited it's common carrier status...but if the argument has ever been made, I haven't heard about it. (I think that "common carrier" was invented for the phone system, though. The USPO, being a government agency (at the time) didn't really need that kind of protection.)
As always, IANAL, etc.
If the ISPs filter based on torrent source, then they cease to be common carriers, and lose common carrier protection. Then they immediately become liable for every case of copyright infringement that they are accessory to.
I don't think they'd like that choice.
If they are common carriers, then they are supposed to be indifferent to WHAT they are carrying, like the mail or the phones. If an extortion threat is transmitted by mail, you can't sue the post office. Not just because it's acting as an agent of the govt, but because it's a common carrier. (UPS is just as protected.) They aren't supposed to know or care what they're carrying. If they did, and demonstrated the capability of filtering it by filtering some of it, then they would lose their common carrier status, and become liable as accessories to extortion, e.g.
OTOH, I don't want them pretending to be me. Not at all. That should be grounds for a suit. It should also be grounds for criminal prosecution not only of those who implemented it, but of all of their supervisors, managers, etc. also. Including the boards of directors. It shouldn't have a particular onerous penalty...say 10 days for each separate offense. Cumulative. I'll be generous, and say 1 day per instance. I.e., 1 day per false packet.
Did the US ever ratify it? We've weaseled out of most international treaties.
OK...though it was before the migration. (The Salem trials are notorious because they were unusual...not because they were very excessive.)
N.B.: This is true of the British, also. They (and we) reserved their (our) venom for other christians. See Bloody Mary, et al. In the U.S. it was usually political. (See the alien and sedition acts.)
OTOH, if McCarthy hadn't been so foolish as to challenge the Army...we might have seen a close modern day repetition. (Note the close ties between McCarthy -> Nixon -> Reagan. I'm not quite sure how the Bushes fit into this scenario. They are probably linked, but I don't have solid information.)
Also don't forget the KKK, etc. Not particularly anti-other-religions only because they had easier targets, but they were explicitly anti-Jew and anti-Catholic. Some places they may well have effectively had local mini-inquisitions being run that just didn't get a lot of publicity.
What part of that is Scientology and what part is Dianetics?
People do tend to have a fallacious idea that their personality is unitary. Unity is something that one can aspire to (possibly unwisely), but it's not something that is normally present. This is usually masked by "state specific memories", in which each sub-component of the self finds it easier to remember the things that it has experienced than those experienced by other states of mind (i.e., mini-personalities). An extreme example of this is intoxication. It can be difficult to remember what you did once you become sober, but easier if you again become intoxicated. The same effect happens with emotional states. When you are angry it's easier to remember the experiences of other times when you were angry. Etc.
All this is very standard. As such, much of what you have said (ignoring the SF component) seems to be orthodox psychology stated in unfamiliar terms. (N.B.: Untestable hypotheses are assumed to have null truth value. E.g., the existence of Xenu is untestable as stated. etc. Also, any hypothesis which when shown to be false is patched with an untestable hypothesis is presumed to have null truth value. This would presumably include the atomic bombs on the volcanoes, etc. If something has null truth value it is considered neither true nor false, but probably meaningless.)
The reprehensible part of Scientology is not the stories that it tells, but the illegal methods that it uses. (I do not consider e-meters to be reprehensible, even though the US at one time ruled them illegal. I consider that unconstitutional governmental intrusion into private affairs. I'm talking about threats, extortion, barratry, etc.)
Linus, e.g., allows people to enter patches into his tree only if he feels like it. There's no stated rationale. He uses his judgment.
... though cause should be stated. E.g., "No spamming policy violated.")
So, as stated, projects can limit their membership for whim, reasons of convenience, or any other reason they feel like.
What's sensitive is closing the code. That's dependent upon the license...AND upon the copyright ownership.
Without investigating your project or license I'd propose this:
1) He can't be a member of your project, but he can submit code patches
2) You recommend that he start his own local project, and you have a license that allows code to be shared. Between the two. (GPL3?)
3) Have a friendly mailing list that has an open subscription policy...but only subscribers can post. (And subscriptions can be revoked
Seriously consider having shared copyright ownership and a "version 3 or later" clause in the license. Possibly something to allow a 2/3 majority of the copyright holders to vote for a license change? That gets tricky, though. Legal morass. KISS.
Possibly have multiple projects as the copyright owners. May make it easier to track down who needs to approve license changes. License changes should be possible, but quite difficult. The question is "Just how difficult?"
Just for an example: Suppose that the project develops a flying autonomous vehicle. Autonomous means that it makes it's own decisions as to how to act. I.e., intelligent. (Well, not this year, probably.) Clearly is should own itself, unless you think that slavery is proper. Shouldn't it? If not, why not? To what extent? Current licenses don't cover this situation at all, but it could become quite important. It could make the difference between robots working with us and a robot rebellion. (Yes, I know it all depends on the code. I can't show you the code because it hasn't been written. Yet.)
I seem to remember that only a few no votes are required to sink the "quick-tracking" ("fast-tracking"?) of a proposed standard, but I don't remember how many.
And didn't Poland also vote no?
We've read the news. We don't need more examples to prove the justice of the title. This has been going on since Scopes. Before then (and frequently since) they were more vicious. Also viscous...as in thick. (Sorry, that's one of my frequent typos.)
If this guy *isn't* a christian, that just makes him more uncommon. (Rarer == More valuable?)
FWIW, I certainly hope that the reviewer wins his case easily. I also hope that he's able to get the crackpot to pay not only court costs, but his legal bills and a fair hourly rate for his professional services. Plus penalties. This doesn't depend on the crackpot being a christian. Many aren't.
Personally my complaint about the title would be that it's slightly redundant. OTOH, I have met christians who weren't crackpots, so that's not fair either.
I'd put it more strongly. I'd say "Things don't scale arbitrarily." And I would still claim that scanning is not, in an of itself, innovative.
E.g., to, perhaps, clarify. Plating chromium on steel wasn't innovative. Using chromium plating to prevent rust was. Notice that the technical difficulty was in developing the chromium plating technologies. Also notice that this depends totally on one's point of view. If you were assigned the problem of preventing rust by plating chromium onto steel, then the development of chromium technology would have been innovative. Since chromium plating was invented separately, the innovative thing was noticing that it could be used to prevent rust.
Chip makers have already noticed that scaling it important. As such, scaling isn't innovative. Methods of doing so may be. Ways of using the resulting product may be. But the scaling itself isn't.
Perhaps you want to change your analogy. I've yet to see anything from GM that compares favorably to a Toyota Prius. I don't watch the ads, so they *may* be advertising some such. If I saw the ad I wouldn't believe it until I saw the car and heard favorable reports from purchasers.
But you're right about a monopoly causing stagnation.