This is the kind of thinking which gave us crappy looking free fonts.
Font design *is* artwork. Getting a font to look *good* at common resolutions and point sizes is hard and requires artistic skills and a hell of a lot of time.
There is a lot of code in the Linux kernel which has been released as BSD without the Advertising clause. BSD without the advertising clause is compatible with the GPL.
The SE Linus extensions could have benn released BSD.
But the bigger question is are the NSA-funded extensions Public Domain? Since the product of Gevernment Work may not be copyrighted and since the GPL requires copyright to function, I strongly suspect that the GPL can not be enforced on the SE Linux patches.
When you think about it, the government's only real job is to defend the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
Government's role is to promote the welfare of the people. Sometimes that means promoting business. Sometimes that means providing a social safety net. Sometimes that means providing for a common defense.
They have a critical view in the sense of criticism. Yes, creationists disagreed with the notion that species changed slowly over long periods of time. But their alternative was that there is no evolutionary change at all, not that evolution has rapid and slow phases.
Irreducable complexity is a crock. "I don't know how it could have happened." is not a proof of Intelligent Design, it is a proof of the lack of imagination.
There's the diary thing they do during sweeps month. That covers a lot more people than the weekly Neilson surveys.
The people who are permanent Neilson families get a device hooked up to the input of their TV which detects what channel they are watching and when the TV is on and off. The device dials out to a toll-free number nightly to dump data. These folks get watched 52 weeks a year. They can give overnight ratings with this kind of system.
A canvasser came to my door and explained how the program works. Apparently, the prior owners of the house were Neilsons as well. We filled out an application, but the canvasser didn't know if TiVo would be a problem -- it was.
We got a call a week afterward saying that we couldn't participate. I wonder if I'll get another call. If I do, I can't tell you. No one is supposed to know who the Nielson families are.
But the MPAA doan't want me to have one. As a result, my widescreen TV will be showing DVDs and TiVo content. Stuff that is already broadcast in letter box looks excellent.
My only problem is I can't get my Buffy DVDs to show up decently on the widescreen TV. Everything is stretched horizontally.:^(
I have to say that, the way it's phrased, it does seem like an invitation to buy their silence which is a pretty sleazy way to do business. The leet handles used by the researchers dosn't give me the impression of a reputable company either.
But another poster had an excellent point. You can't be shakendown if you fix the vulnerability.
I do think that organizations like this who independantly investigate and publish their findings do the industry a service. Exploits are found and, if the give the company a chance to fix the problem, they are actually doing a service to the industry.
Don't punish the messenger even if they are not 'dressed for business'.
If someone makes a universal statement, a single counter example is sufficient to disprove it. It dosn't make an argument for the negative of the statement.
If you own something go do not have the right to do anything you wish with it even on your own property. Try dumping toxic chemicals in your backyard.
If someone is providing a service for a fee, you have the choice to pay for the service or forego it. Modifying anything to get the service without paying for it is called 'stealing'.
It's not a personal attack, it's a Scientific attack on something which purposts to be a science but in fact misrepresents how science is done. "Intelligent Design" theories are just not science becuase they can not be falsified. They are religion dressed up in scientific clothing in order to get it into the classroom. It is dogma, not science.
Anyways, most of his points I agreed with, but it still annoys me when scientist refuse to accept even the possibility that some intelligence got everything started.
I personally have no doubt that some intelligence got the process started. But that statement is a statement of faith, not a statement of science.
When I hear a scientist talking about science, I expect that he will confine his remarks to science.
In the Day 2 notes, DG writes this in his notes. It's actually an important point for the Eldred v. Ashcroft (formerly Eldred v. Reno) case.
Because the term extension under the Sonny Bono act is "not severable", the extension for future works needs to be stricken if the extension for existing works is stricken.
The reason is that Judges may not rewrite a law to make it constitutional. They may strike part of a law but only if that which remains is still meaningful. The term extension was written (and I'm paraphrasing here)
the term of copyright for all works is to be...
If they had written this in two sections, then the extension for existing works could have been severable:
Sec 1. The term for works created after [effective date] shall be...
Sec 2. The term for existing works shall be the same as in Sec 1.
Then Sec 2. could be stricken leaving us with term extensions for future works, but the old terms for existing works. But it didn't happen that way, so it's either all or nothing when the SC eventually rules.
It's actually quite routine. After a Criminal trial, there is a sentancing hearing at which the prosecution can recommend a sentance (say, the maximum or perhaps something less) and the defense can offer reasons why a lesser sentance should be imposed. Usually regret or extenuating circumstances are shown that might convince a judge to issue a lighter sentance. But the judge still chooses the appropriate sentance and may impose a higher sentance than the prosecution asks for (but not greater than the maximum under the sentancing guidelines.)
In this case, like most antitrust cases, the penalty is a complicated one as it is supposed to restore competition in the affected markets and it is not a matter of a fine or jail time. MS and the DOJ agreed on a penalty, but that does not remove the role of the judge to impose a greater penalty. That the remaining states pushed for a specific proposal just makes her job easier in that regard.
"It is our recommendation that the court cast a wide net, looking for rules or actions that will increase competition today by lowering entry barriers."
You have a lot of good information on your site. I wish I had known about it earlier.
There are two ways you can meet the minimum requirements of the GPL:
1) Give the source to everyone you give the program to.
2) Provide the source to all third parties for at least three years and for a fee no greater than the cost of making the copy.
Under 1), there is no requirement to provide the source code to third parties. Under 2) you may even charge to cover the cost of making and shipping the copies. No where is there a requirement that source be made freely available over the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the kind of thinking which gave us crappy looking free fonts.
Font design *is* artwork. Getting a font to look *good* at common resolutions and point sizes is hard and requires artistic skills and a hell of a lot of time.
There is a lot of code in the Linux kernel which has been released as BSD without the Advertising clause. BSD without the advertising clause is compatible with the GPL.
The SE Linus extensions could have benn released BSD.
But the bigger question is are the NSA-funded extensions Public Domain? Since the product of Gevernment Work may not be copyrighted and since the GPL requires copyright to function, I strongly suspect that the GPL can not be enforced on the SE Linux patches.
When you think about it, the government's only real job is to defend the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
Government's role is to promote the welfare of the people. Sometimes that means promoting business. Sometimes that means providing a social safety net. Sometimes that means providing for a common defense.
It's not science.
They have a critical view in the sense of criticism. Yes, creationists disagreed with the notion that species changed slowly over long periods of time. But their alternative was that there is no evolutionary change at all, not that evolution has rapid and slow phases.
Irreducable complexity is a crock. "I don't know how it could have happened." is not a proof of Intelligent Design, it is a proof of the lack of imagination.
Read 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from Scientific American.
a great deal of the water is absorbed into the bloodstream in the stomach. Some water is added back in the large intestine.
Oh, and the beer is better, too.
There's the diary thing they do during sweeps month. That covers a lot more people than the weekly Neilson surveys.
The people who are permanent Neilson families get a device hooked up to the input of their TV which detects what channel they are watching and when the TV is on and off. The device dials out to a toll-free number nightly to dump data. These folks get watched 52 weeks a year. They can give overnight ratings with this kind of system.
but got turned down because of my TiVo.
A canvasser came to my door and explained how the program works. Apparently, the prior owners of the house were Neilsons as well. We filled out an application, but the canvasser didn't know if TiVo would be a problem -- it was.
We got a call a week afterward saying that we couldn't participate. I wonder if I'll get another call. If I do, I can't tell you. No one is supposed to know who the Nielson families are.
But the MPAA doan't want me to have one. As a result, my widescreen TV will be showing DVDs and TiVo content. Stuff that is already broadcast in letter box looks excellent.
:^(
My only problem is I can't get my Buffy DVDs to show up decently on the widescreen TV. Everything is stretched horizontally.
I have to say that, the way it's phrased, it does seem like an invitation to buy their silence which is a pretty sleazy way to do business. The leet handles used by the researchers dosn't give me the impression of a reputable company either.
But another poster had an excellent point. You can't be shakendown if you fix the vulnerability.
I do think that organizations like this who independantly investigate and publish their findings do the industry a service. Exploits are found and, if the give the company a chance to fix the problem, they are actually doing a service to the industry.
Don't punish the messenger even if they are not 'dressed for business'.
His consistant use of the term mars an otherwise fine paper.
The half life of Pu 239 is 25,000 years and I have heard that it is warm to the touch. Pu 238 would be still warmer yet.
I hear it's even warmer if you hold it to your genitals, but you won't catch me testing any of these claims.
Review Logic 101.
If someone makes a universal statement, a single counter example is sufficient to disprove it. It dosn't make an argument for the negative of the statement.
No. You probably deserve a medal.
If you own something go do not have the right to do anything you wish with it even on your own property. Try dumping toxic chemicals in your backyard.
If someone is providing a service for a fee, you have the choice to pay for the service or forego it. Modifying anything to get the service without paying for it is called 'stealing'.
Resume your normal, insecure procedures on Monday morning. There's no point in going overboard with this security hoopla.
It's not a personal attack, it's a Scientific attack on something which purposts to be a science but in fact misrepresents how science is done. "Intelligent Design" theories are just not science becuase they can not be falsified. They are religion dressed up in scientific clothing in order to get it into the classroom. It is dogma, not science.
Anyways, most of his points I agreed with, but it still annoys me when scientist refuse to accept even the possibility that some intelligence got everything started.
I personally have no doubt that some intelligence got the process started. But that statement is a statement of faith, not a statement of science.
When I hear a scientist talking about science, I expect that he will confine his remarks to science.
Read 15 Answers to Creationist Nonesense in this month's Scientific American.
In the Day 2 notes, DG writes this in his notes. It's actually an important point for the Eldred v. Ashcroft (formerly Eldred v. Reno) case.
...
Because the term extension under the Sonny Bono act is "not severable", the extension for future works needs to be stricken if the extension for existing works is stricken.
The reason is that Judges may not rewrite a law to make it constitutional. They may strike part of a law but only if that which remains is still meaningful. The term extension was written (and I'm paraphrasing here)
the term of copyright for all works is to be
If they had written this in two sections, then the extension for existing works could have been severable:
Sec 1. The term for works created after [effective date] shall be...
Sec 2. The term for existing works shall be the same as in Sec 1.
Then Sec 2. could be stricken leaving us with term extensions for future works, but the old terms for existing works. But it didn't happen that way, so it's either all or nothing when the SC eventually rules.
How can you spoil a short feature?
I liked Robby the Robot dancing with the Robot from Lost in Space.
It's actually quite routine. After a Criminal trial, there is a sentancing hearing at which the prosecution can recommend a sentance (say, the maximum or perhaps something less) and the defense can offer reasons why a lesser sentance should be imposed. Usually regret or extenuating circumstances are shown that might convince a judge to issue a lighter sentance. But the judge still chooses the appropriate sentance and may impose a higher sentance than the prosecution asks for (but not greater than the maximum under the sentancing guidelines.)
In this case, like most antitrust cases, the penalty is a complicated one as it is supposed to restore competition in the affected markets and it is not a matter of a fine or jail time. MS and the DOJ agreed on a penalty, but that does not remove the role of the judge to impose a greater penalty. That the remaining states pushed for a specific proposal just makes her job easier in that regard.
Look for MS to get a severe spanking.
Thanks for the link. The brief is very good.
"It is our recommendation that the court cast a wide net, looking for rules or actions that will increase competition today by lowering entry barriers."
You have a lot of good information on your site. I wish I had known about it earlier.
A report in the NYTimes earlier this week said that six former DOJ Antitrust officials chimed in on the proposed remedies. I've looked in several places, but haven't found a copy of the brief. Does anyone know where it can be found?
There are two ways you can meet the minimum requirements of the GPL:
1) Give the source to everyone you give the program to.
2) Provide the source to all third parties for at least three years and for a fee no greater than the cost of making the copy.
Under 1), there is no requirement to provide the source code to third parties. Under 2) you may even charge to cover the cost of making and shipping the copies. No where is there a requirement that source be made freely available over the Internet.