I agree with you. But in the true spirit of tit for tat: No. "cannot be distributed" is incorrect. It has been distributed. You meant, "cannot legally be distributed."
The commentary makes no sense at all. A bunch of disconnected factoids, that may or may not be true. I would need to hear a more convincing means, opportunity and motive before I swallowed a word of it.
As far as I'm concerned, the clip incorporates the original ad into a new derivative work, with the voice and video-overs. As such, it is *not* fair use of the original ad, and is *is* copyrightable in its own right. But the copyright holder in the original ad has a substantial stake in that copyright.
Right or wrong, my theory is irrelevant, because few individuals have the resources to do battle with corporations over copyright.
It has to be determined what fraction of the Sun/Microsoft licenses are SVRX, and that will affect the judgement. Also, there may well be punitive damages and rather large costs. And don't forget that Novell's slander of title suit is going to trial as well.
None of SCO's copyight claims involve their own code. They involve "Original AT&T code." The only SCO code demonstrated to be in Linux is the stuff labeled "Copyright Caldera" immediately followed by a GPL-2 license.
It is not to cover a mistake in short-selling. When I short sell, I promise to deliver the stock to you at a later date. So if, say, I sold it to you for $6, or even $1, I can buy it today at $0.50 and discharge my obligations to you, making a tidy profit. Sure I can hold on. But if the agreed price was $6, I don't make much more even if the stock drops to $0. And even if the agreed-on price was $1 I might as well wash my hands of it and be well clear of the final implosion.
The 9/11 m.o. would not work today. It depends entirely on the passenger and crew's appeasement of the hijackers which, until 9/11, was the recommended response.
"We may or may not be experiencing global warming, however just in case we are we should do the following.... etc...". It kind of like, I may not really believe in god, but as I am hurtling towards the earth in a busted airplane I might say a few words to god, you know, just to hedge my bets.
The situations aren't comparable. The first is more like "I think I might have lyme disease and there's no diagnostic test lab available so I think I'll pop some antibiotics." It is a well founded decision that maximizes your chance of living a healthy life. The second is Pascal's wager, which is illogical.
So why isn't rocket science just rocket engineering?
Because it pushes the envelope of what we know. In order to make rockets work, humankind had to form theories and hypotheses and test them by experiment; i.e. the scientific method. The public just see the ultimate successess and failures, but there are thousands -- probably millions -- of true scientific investigations along the way.
Engineering, on the other hand, deals with the routine. Sure you might design new brakes for that car or whatever -- that's why engineering is often called applied science -- but the basic process of building an automobile or road is pretty routine.
There's a fuzzy line between routine applied science and science applied to discover fundamental new truths, but I'd say that building a road and flying to the moon are on opposite sides of the line.
So where is computer science? There are plenty of fundamental truths left to be discovered, and I'd call the exploration of those "computer science." The routine generation of some payroll system or commercial app, I'd call "engineering." "Software engineering," on the other hand, I would call "management science" which, IMO, neither science nor engineering.
There are several options I might have taken, all involving more work and delay, neither of which was an option in this particular circumstance. I used to buy greybox computers but now the package deals at box stores provide better value, fewer headaches, and are available for cash-and-carry. In order to avail myself of those particular boxes, I was forced to buy Vista.
That's what a monopoly is all about. Making alternatives sufficiently unattractive that they are no longer viable choices in a large number of circumstances. That's the sense in which I use the word "forced."
But the bottom line is that Microsoft lists me as a "sale" when I found the product unsuitable for its intended purpose and do not use it.
I bought a new computer the other day. I wanted something that would "just work" so after a couple of hours of screwing around with Vista I installed Linux. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the resize on the Vista NTFS partition rendered Vista unable to boot.
No loss. I have my Linux system and it just works.
I would've probably stuck with XP had the computer come with it. Adapting to the gratuitous changes in Vista was way more effort than I wanted to invest. Aside from everything being moved around, Vista had security pop-ups every time I tried to do anything. I don't believe these pop-ups really add security as they give you no meaningful option other than to say "OK."
But they sure do get in the way. Especially if you want to do unattended or remote operations, as I do frequently. Now I understand that with a few more hours research I could've probably found workarounds, but I could not get VNC to work in server mode, or sshd to install as a service.
I did not *ask* for a new, incompatible, version of Windows. It was forced on me.
Ironically, the expedient choice has now changed -- at least for me -- from just accepting the pre-installed system to installing Linux.
Probably a new feature of MVS. I'm pretty sure that, 25 years ago, catalogs had at most 5 levels. Next thing you know, Windows will have multi-tasking and memory protection!
Actually, you'd be perfectly happy with your alarm going off for 1000% of all fires (10% positive predictive value). Since house fires are relatively rare events (maybe 1 in your lifetime) I daresay that 10 falses in your lifetime would be tolerable. But a fire alarm that went off 10 times per week would be utterly useless.
Yeah but the great thing about paranoia is you only have to be right once for it to all be worth while.:)
Fallacy. The value of any sort of test or alarm depends on its positive predictive value; that is, the probability that when the alarm is raised, it is for cause. Paranoid judgments have essentially 0 predictive value. They are harmful because they divert resources from efforts with higher predictive value, and due to the direct undesirable consequences of responding to false alarms.
I read the paper. As you note, it is a short communication documenting some observations from an experiment. It does not purport to be a breakthrough, although it does claim that the observations must be due to a nuclear reaction. The discussion clearly states that they have no theory as to the physical mechanism that might account for the observations.
As an editor or a reviewer, I might well choose to publish a paper -- especially a short paper -- that documented some experimental results, even if the mechanism behind those results was unclear. Maybe there's a future paper forthcoming that either contradicts the results, or offers an explanation, nuclear or not. It makes sense to me to document the alleged evidence in the archival literature.
I want to repeat that the conclusions of the paper are very weak. The outrageous claims have been added later by the popular press. And the argument that "Einstein published there 100 years ago, so it must be true" is unworthy of repetition or rebuttal.
Could it really be true that nuclear fusion can be coaxed into action at room temperature, using only simple lab equipment? Most nuclear physicists don't think so, and dismiss Gordon's pitted piece of plastic as nothing more than the result of a badly conceived experiment.
Naturwissenschaften article, last sentence:
from a physicist's point of view, the theoretical
arguments offered in this communication are pure speculation.
It is hoped that future investigations will undoubtedly
provide a clearer picture of the nuclear events taking place
in the polarized Pd/D-D2O system.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you. But in the true spirit of tit for tat: No. "cannot be distributed" is incorrect. It has been distributed. You meant, "cannot legally be distributed."
The commentary makes no sense at all. A bunch of disconnected factoids, that may or may not be true. I would need to hear a more convincing means, opportunity and motive before I swallowed a word of it.
As far as I'm concerned, the clip incorporates the original ad into a new derivative work, with the voice and video-overs. As such, it is *not* fair use of the original ad, and is *is* copyrightable in its own right. But the copyright holder in the original ad has a substantial stake in that copyright.
Right or wrong, my theory is irrelevant, because few individuals have the resources to do battle with corporations over copyright.
Copyright notices have not been required in the U.S. since 1989.
Americans like to buy Chinese stuff with their greenbacks, but refuse to honor them when the Chinese attempt to purchase anything of value.
It has to be determined what fraction of the Sun/Microsoft licenses are SVRX, and that will affect the judgement. Also, there may well be punitive damages and rather large costs. And don't forget that Novell's slander of title suit is going to trial as well.
None of SCO's copyight claims involve their own code. They involve "Original AT&T code." The only SCO code demonstrated to be in Linux is the stuff labeled "Copyright Caldera" immediately followed by a GPL-2 license.
It is not to cover a mistake in short-selling. When I short sell, I promise to deliver the stock to you at a later date. So if, say, I sold it to you for $6, or even $1, I can buy it today at $0.50 and discharge my obligations to you, making a tidy profit. Sure I can hold on. But if the agreed price was $6, I don't make much more even if the stock drops to $0. And even if the agreed-on price was $1 I might as well wash my hands of it and be well clear of the final implosion.
The 9/11 m.o. would not work today. It depends entirely on the passenger and crew's appeasement of the hijackers which, until 9/11, was the recommended response.
Why is there no transcript?
Because you haven't typed one. And neither has anyone else.
So if they are going to count hours interacting, I suppose they are going to figure out a way to exclude Gmail and competitors?
Any one-dimensional ranking is biased. Bias notwithstanding, Google is a *big player*. What meaning has a ranking beyond that?
So why isn't rocket science just rocket engineering?
Because it pushes the envelope of what we know. In order
to make rockets work, humankind had to form theories and
hypotheses and test them by experiment; i.e. the scientific
method. The public just see the ultimate successess and
failures, but there are thousands -- probably millions --
of true scientific investigations along the way.
Engineering, on the other hand, deals with the routine. Sure
you might design new brakes for that car or whatever -- that's
why engineering is often called applied science -- but the
basic process of building an automobile or road is pretty
routine.
There's a fuzzy line between routine applied science and
science applied to discover fundamental new truths, but I'd
say that building a road and flying to the moon are on
opposite sides of the line.
So where is computer science? There are plenty of fundamental
truths left to be discovered, and I'd call the exploration
of those "computer science." The routine generation of some
payroll system or commercial app, I'd call "engineering."
"Software engineering," on the other hand, I would call "management
science" which, IMO, neither science nor engineering.
There are several options I might have taken, all involving more work and delay, neither of which was an option in this particular circumstance. I used to buy greybox computers but now the package deals at box stores provide better value, fewer headaches, and are available for cash-and-carry. In order to avail myself of those particular boxes, I was forced to buy Vista.
That's what a monopoly is all about. Making alternatives sufficiently unattractive that they are no longer viable choices in a large number of circumstances. That's the sense in which I use the word "forced."
But the bottom line is that Microsoft lists me as a "sale" when I found the product unsuitable for its intended purpose and do not use it.
I bought a new computer the other day. I wanted something that would "just work" so after a couple of hours of screwing around with Vista I installed Linux. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the resize on the Vista NTFS partition rendered Vista unable to boot.
No loss. I have my Linux system and it just works.
I would've probably stuck with XP had the computer come with it. Adapting to the gratuitous changes in Vista was way more effort than I wanted to invest. Aside from everything being moved around, Vista had security pop-ups every time I tried to do anything. I don't believe these pop-ups really add security as they give you no meaningful option other than to say "OK."
But they sure do get in the way. Especially if you want to do unattended or remote operations, as I do frequently. Now I understand that with a few more hours research I could've probably found workarounds, but I could not get VNC to work in server mode, or sshd to install as a service.
I did not *ask* for a new, incompatible, version of Windows. It was forced on me.
Ironically, the expedient choice has now changed -- at least for me -- from just accepting the pre-installed system to installing Linux.
Probably a new feature of MVS. I'm pretty sure that, 25 years ago, catalogs had at most 5 levels. Next thing you know, Windows will have multi-tasking and memory protection!
MVS is certainly different from Unix, but I wouldn't immediately say it is "more different" than Windows.
The linked-to article is web spam. Meaningless gibberish laden with sponsored links. I'm not even convinced that it was written by a human.
Check out the evaluation guidelines for the Web Spam Challenge (final results to be announced tomorrow) and tell me that you would not say the article is spam.
Actually, you'd be perfectly happy with your alarm going off for 1000% of all fires (10% positive predictive value). Since house fires are relatively rare events (maybe 1 in your lifetime) I daresay that 10 falses in your lifetime would be tolerable. But a fire alarm that went off 10 times per week would be utterly useless.
My library has a subscription.
Here's a freely available article that apparently explains the theory. It is cited in an erratum to the original paper.
The Naturwissenschaften authors published an erratum in a later issue stating that the effect they had observed was explained by the following paper, of which they were unaware: Ultra low momentum neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions on metallic hydride surfaces
Two virtual desktops on one screen! What will they think of next?
I read the paper. As you note, it is a short communication documenting some observations from an experiment. It does not purport to be a breakthrough, although it does claim that the observations must be due to a nuclear reaction. The discussion clearly states that they have no theory as to the physical mechanism that might account for the observations.
As an editor or a reviewer, I might well choose to publish a paper -- especially a short paper -- that documented some experimental results, even if the mechanism behind those results was unclear. Maybe there's a future paper forthcoming that either contradicts the results, or offers an explanation, nuclear or not. It makes sense to me to document the alleged evidence in the archival literature.
I want to repeat that the conclusions of the paper are very weak. The outrageous claims have been added later by the popular press. And the argument that "Einstein published there 100 years ago, so it must be true" is unworthy of repetition or rebuttal.