Release to the public domain still needs a licence, to say that this is what you are doing. "Giving away the source code" by sticking it on the web means it is closed. So, you cannot get away without a licence.
Even if you do have a licence saying "this is public domain", you still have an issue which is public domain has quite different meanings in different countries.
Well, if you point a gun at someone, then pull the trigger, that is premeditation. So the issue is not murder or manslaughter, I would have thought. The policeman would claim to be operating in the course of protecting someones life (including his own).
All the discussions here seem to be whose fault it was. Clearly, the caller has some responsibility, and also the police. But, at the same time, there has to be the issue of the gun obsessed violent society. Always easy to pass the blame on to other people.
The 24 billion for Hinkley is, I think, construction costs. The lifetime costs vary depending on who you ask, of course, but 35+billion. And, of course, Hinkley is already significantly over budget. Given that the decommissioning costs have only ever gone up, twice the price doesn't seem so far off.
And, of course, Hinkley C is in one place -- so you have to distribute the power to 6 million people over a wide area. WIth solar, this is less true -- you can site it in many places often more locally, so it might well be more stable than nuclear. Although the grid is currently designed for nuclear type power with most generation at few locations.
Conclusion -- the headline figure is just that -- a headline. The actual costs are very, very difficult to estimate. Having solar in the UK (the UK!) being somewhat mroe expensive or somewhat less expensive than nuclear is, indeed, big news. Especially as nuclear is second or third generation. Move this equation to Texas, or Brazil, or anywhere sunnier than the UK, and the figures change again,
How much profit you earn for a company is not the point, how much of the company you own is the point.
Inequality in our societies comes only to a small extent from the value of your labour (i.e. how much profit you earn), and to a much larger extent from inequalities of capital. If we live in a meritocracy, then, merit is not the work you do, the things that you think, it's how much you own. The more you own, the more merit you have.
The distinction between equality and equality of opportunity is a relatively false one, unfortunately. The idea is that inequality is okay, so long as it distinguishes between individuals on the basis of their merit.
That's fine, but how do we define merit, in a way that is not tautological or otherwise meaningless. If, for example, we leave in an environment where personal income is largely defined by your access to capital, rather than your labour, then this is a meritocracy, so long as you define "merit" as having lots of cash. This is largely the society we live in now. If you look back 200 years ago, then we leaved in a meritocracy, so long as you defined merit in terms of having lots of land (at least in Europe, it was less true in the US because there were fewer people and lots of land). If you go back 1000 years, then being good with hacking and slaying was more the thing.
We often see this problem when we look at CEOs with very large salaries. Well, it's said, we have to pay them that because its the market rate. Or, in short, they have merit because they get paid a lot, and we pay them a lot because they have merit.
At heart, we have to strive for some level of equality, and equality of opportunity just clouds the issue. The levels of inequality that we have now are, I think, not sustainable. In the past, the main mechanisms for solving this problem have been the union or other social movements. Or war. Let's hope it's not the latter again.
"Paying $3000 to get your work published in an honest and properly peer reviewed open access journal is a good thing, it means that everyone can read the work for free."
Having everyone free to read your work is good, but paying $3000 is not. It's just a rip off. A rip-off that I endure because some one tells me that I have to.
"Fixing the existing peer review and scientific publishing problems is going to take a lot of concerted effort on the part of scientists and publishers."
Publishers have no role in this. Their interests are entirely in keeping things the way that they are.
The UK government is also unelected, of course. Teresa May was appointed by her *party*, and she appointed the rest of her cabinet.
Of course, it is different with the EU. There the commission are appointed by the heads of the nation governments. So, different, but not that different.
Never mind, we shall have lots of trade deals: that is, we will enter into agreements with other countries, where will give up our sovereignty and appoint a court to make judgements on us. So that's alright then.
This isn't actually true. Not all GNU projects have copyright assigned (although many of them do).
The point is that GNU is trying to build a coherent system. If it takes a project it will sometimes continue with it, even if the people who originally developed decide that they no longer want it to be part of GNU. In this case, as RMS says, this was not the right route because libreboot had not been part of GNU for long (so removing it causes no issues), nor did they have anyone who wanted to maintain it as part of the GNU policy.
If you think that this is weird, it is one of the cornerstone freedoms. Likewise, you could take any GNU project, and create a competitor with a different name today, using their code. It's happened before.
TPP would have benefitted corporations at the end the expensive of individuals in all countries.
Don't thank Trump, though. It was already struggling and had become a hot issue in many countries well before the US election. Also, he might change his mind.
"Clinton has a private and a public position, which part of that is unclear?"
The part where you think that other politicians do not.
The question with TPP is whether it will die (and trust me, it was struggling anyway, thanks to the many people who campaigned, protested and highlighted it for years before the US election took it up), or whether it will be replaced. Bit early to say yet. Especially early to say what Trump will actually do.
Emacs -- provides a functional and highly customizable editor. It's got a lot of very nice packages (org and magit, for example, are both superb). It also has a different user interface paradigm -- it's usable entirely from the keyboard. Once you are used to this moving back to something with all that clicking around is rather hard to cope with. And it's very easy to add new functionality.
VIM -- like Emacs, it is entirely usable from the keyboard. It's not as functional as Emacs, but is it very regular. The main editing commands are very predictable which makes the raw editor of text very efficient.
That's about the best quick description I can give -- I am mostly an Emacs user, and use VIM for systems administration, so there is a bias in what I say. They are both fantastic tools and it's worth trying them out.
For a number of reasons, I think. It would allow, for example, to put a more fully featured web browser inside Emacs. This would probably be a better home for documentation than info.
Brexit happened for many reasons -- including 350 million for the NHS, which pretty much demonstrates that many people in the UK cannot add up.
Dredging, no, that doesn't help. If you dredge upsteam, then the water goes downstream quicker and floods somewhere else. The solution is to slow water down, so that drains over time.
At least that's what the experts say. But, you know, they are just people who have studied and experimented with these issues over a lifetime and so have good knowledge, rather than people who just think of an idea that they suppose is good. It's no wonder that the British people are tired of experts.
Not really. If you got a tax bill for 0.005%, then you might think that something was potentially wrong. The argument, "well I paid it in good faith, and you cannot retrospectively ask me for more cash" does not really hold water.
In Apple's case, it really doesn't hold water, because they are not short of a tax lawyer or two.
It's nothing to do with an American company. As you know, the complaint is against two companies, Apple Ireland, which is a subsidiary of another company called Apple based in Bermuda, I think.
Nothing to do with the US at all, which is why neither of these companies pay tax in the US.
Asserting the tax law as it always stood is not retroactive. It's quite normal when tax has not been levied as it should have been. Obviously, if Apple can show that the late demand is going to cause it difficulties, it should be given a year or two to pay.
Apple has access to plenty of lawyers and tax consultants; they should have advised it that paying a 0.005% corporate tax rate was likely to be wrong, and might come back to haunt them. I mean, the rest of us can work this out, why can't Apple?
No, this would be a disaster. The acronyms have the advantage that they are, relatively, semantics-free., If we turned them into long hand, then they would describe the gene in some way. Which means that the descriptions in the knowledge would go out of date, or would have to be changed. It's a recipe for instability.
It is very easy to laugh at biologists and think that you know how to manage data better than they do. In some cases, you may be right, but in this case it is not so. Identifiers are there to identify and not describe. This is something we learned with Linneaus, and have stuck with since.
The problem is that the not all tools require a ' to stop this behaviour. And, in fact, adding this may well break these tools.
Ultimately, this is not a new problem. It was first noted about a decade ago in yeast (which uses a lot of very date like gene names). It's a bit depressing it's still happening.
I'm unconvinced that this can be classed as a user error, though. Excel is using a heuristic to determine the data type of a field (probably on a per cell, not per column basis). And that heuristic is failing.
The situation is not equivalent. If remain had won, then yes, there could have been calls in the future for a new leave vote. The leave vote on the other hand, if it is enacted, is very hard to reverse, although, if we leave then yes, there will have to be a campaign to re-enter.
It may not happen. It all depends how quickly the economy gets screwed, both by the uncertainty, by the significant cost of rewriting 40 years of laws, as well as half the countries IT systems, aside from the problems that will occur when very little of what we voted for actually comes to pass.
Slashdot Mirror
Release to the public domain still needs a licence, to say that this is what you are doing. "Giving away the source code" by sticking it on the web means it is closed. So, you cannot get away without a licence.
Even if you do have a licence saying "this is public domain", you still have an issue which is public domain has quite different meanings in different countries.
Well, if you point a gun at someone, then pull the trigger, that is premeditation. So the issue is not murder or manslaughter, I would have thought. The policeman would claim to be operating in the course of protecting someones life (including his own).
All the discussions here seem to be whose fault it was. Clearly, the caller has some responsibility, and also the police. But, at the same time, there has to be the issue of the gun obsessed violent society. Always easy to pass the blame on to other people.
This is hardly news. People have been saying "Thank you" and much to computers since Eliza was created in 1964.
The 24 billion for Hinkley is, I think, construction costs. The lifetime costs vary depending on who you ask, of course, but 35+billion. And, of course, Hinkley is already significantly over budget. Given that the decommissioning costs have only ever gone up, twice the price doesn't seem so far off.
And, of course, Hinkley C is in one place -- so you have to distribute the power to 6 million people over a wide area. WIth solar, this is less true -- you can site it in many places often more locally, so it might well be more stable than nuclear. Although the grid is currently designed for nuclear type power with most generation at few locations.
Conclusion -- the headline figure is just that -- a headline. The actual costs are very, very difficult to estimate. Having solar in the UK (the UK!) being somewhat mroe expensive or somewhat less expensive than nuclear is, indeed, big news. Especially as nuclear is second or third generation. Move this equation to Texas, or Brazil, or anywhere sunnier than the UK, and the figures change again,
How much profit you earn for a company is not the point, how much of the company you own is the point.
Inequality in our societies comes only to a small extent from the value of your labour (i.e. how much profit you earn), and to a much larger extent from inequalities of capital. If we live in a meritocracy, then, merit is not the work you do, the things that you think, it's how much you own. The more you own, the more merit you have.
The distinction between equality and equality of opportunity is a relatively false one, unfortunately. The idea is that inequality is okay, so long as it distinguishes between individuals on the basis of their merit.
That's fine, but how do we define merit, in a way that is not tautological or otherwise meaningless. If, for example, we leave in an environment where personal income is largely defined by your access to capital, rather than your labour, then this is a meritocracy, so long as you define "merit" as having lots of cash. This is largely the society we live in now. If you look back 200 years ago, then we leaved in a meritocracy, so long as you defined merit in terms of having lots of land (at least in Europe, it was less true in the US because there were fewer people and lots of land). If you go back 1000 years, then being good with hacking and slaying was more the thing.
We often see this problem when we look at CEOs with very large salaries. Well, it's said, we have to pay them that because its the market rate. Or, in short, they have merit because they get paid a lot, and we pay them a lot because they have merit.
At heart, we have to strive for some level of equality, and equality of opportunity just clouds the issue. The levels of inequality that we have now are, I think, not sustainable. In the past, the main mechanisms for solving this problem have been the union or other social movements. Or war. Let's hope it's not the latter again.
"Paying $3000 to get your work published in an honest and properly peer reviewed open access journal is a good thing, it means that everyone can read the work for free."
Having everyone free to read your work is good, but paying $3000 is not. It's just a rip off. A rip-off that I endure because some one tells me that I have to.
"Fixing the existing peer review and scientific publishing problems is going to take a lot of concerted effort on the part of scientists and publishers."
Publishers have no role in this. Their interests are entirely in keeping things the way that they are.
Scientific Publishing is, largely, about brownie points, rather than communication.
We get forced to use publishers because that's how we are judged; it's not a question of whether the publishers are doing anything actually useful.
Part of Britain has and is joining the EU. Expect the number of dual nationals to increase significantly over the next few years.
Right. Although, modern higher education is also where all the libertarian, free market ideologues where invented. Damn those lefties.
The UK government is also unelected, of course. Teresa May was appointed by her *party*, and she appointed the rest of her cabinet.
Of course, it is different with the EU. There the commission are appointed by the heads of the nation governments. So, different, but not that different.
Never mind, we shall have lots of trade deals: that is, we will enter into agreements with other countries, where will give up our sovereignty and appoint a court to make judgements on us. So that's alright then.
This isn't actually true. Not all GNU projects have copyright assigned (although many of them do).
The point is that GNU is trying to build a coherent system. If it takes a project it will sometimes continue with it, even if the people who originally developed decide that they no longer want it to be part of GNU. In this case, as RMS says, this was not the right route because libreboot had not been part of GNU for long (so removing it causes no issues), nor did they have anyone who wanted to maintain it as part of the GNU policy.
If you think that this is weird, it is one of the cornerstone freedoms. Likewise, you could take any GNU project, and create a competitor with a different name today, using their code. It's happened before.
Half the scientists that I know are barely aware of politics, so it's hard to know how you came to this conclusion.
TPP would have benefitted corporations at the end the expensive of individuals in all countries.
Don't thank Trump, though. It was already struggling and had become a hot issue in many countries well before the US election. Also, he might change his mind.
"Clinton has a private and a public position, which part of that is unclear?"
The part where you think that other politicians do not.
The question with TPP is whether it will die (and trust me, it was struggling anyway, thanks to the many people who campaigned, protested and highlighted it for years before the US election took it up), or whether it will be replaced. Bit early to say yet. Especially early to say what Trump will actually do.
Emacs -- provides a functional and highly customizable editor. It's got a lot of very nice packages (org and magit, for example, are both superb). It also has a different user interface paradigm -- it's usable entirely from the keyboard. Once you are used to this moving back to something with all that clicking around is rather hard to cope with. And it's very easy to add new functionality.
VIM -- like Emacs, it is entirely usable from the keyboard. It's not as functional as Emacs, but is it very regular. The main editing commands are very predictable which makes the raw editor of text very efficient.
That's about the best quick description I can give -- I am mostly an Emacs user, and use VIM for systems administration, so there is a bias in what I say. They are both fantastic tools and it's worth trying them out.
For a number of reasons, I think. It would allow, for example, to put a more fully featured web browser inside Emacs. This would probably be a better home for documentation than info.
Brexit happened for many reasons -- including 350 million for the NHS, which pretty much demonstrates that many people in the UK cannot add up.
Dredging, no, that doesn't help. If you dredge upsteam, then the water goes downstream quicker and floods somewhere else. The solution is to slow water down, so that drains over time.
At least that's what the experts say. But, you know, they are just people who have studied and experimented with these issues over a lifetime and so have good knowledge, rather than people who just think of an idea that they suppose is good. It's no wonder that the British people are tired of experts.
Not really. If you got a tax bill for 0.005%, then you might think that something was potentially wrong. The argument, "well I paid it in good faith, and you cannot retrospectively ask me for more cash" does not really hold water.
In Apple's case, it really doesn't hold water, because they are not short of a tax lawyer or two.
It's nothing to do with an American company. As you know, the complaint is against two companies, Apple Ireland, which is a subsidiary of another company called Apple based in Bermuda, I think.
Nothing to do with the US at all, which is why neither of these companies pay tax in the US.
Asserting the tax law as it always stood is not retroactive. It's quite normal when tax has not been levied as it should have been. Obviously, if Apple can show that the late demand is going to cause it difficulties, it should be given a year or two to pay.
Apple has access to plenty of lawyers and tax consultants; they should have advised it that paying a 0.005% corporate tax rate was likely to be wrong, and might come back to haunt them. I mean, the rest of us can work this out, why can't Apple?
No, this would be a disaster. The acronyms have the advantage that they are, relatively, semantics-free., If we turned them into long hand, then they would describe the gene in some way. Which means that the descriptions in the knowledge would go out of date, or would have to be changed. It's a recipe for instability.
It is very easy to laugh at biologists and think that you know how to manage data better than they do. In some cases, you may be right, but in this case it is not so. Identifiers are there to identify and not describe. This is something we learned with Linneaus, and have stuck with since.
The problem is that the not all tools require a ' to stop this behaviour. And, in fact, adding this may well break these tools.
Ultimately, this is not a new problem. It was first noted about a decade ago in yeast (which uses a lot of very date like gene names). It's a bit depressing it's still happening.
I'm unconvinced that this can be classed as a user error, though. Excel is using a heuristic to determine the data type of a field (probably on a per cell, not per column basis). And that heuristic is failing.
Assuming it does not happen before the election.
The situation is not equivalent. If remain had won, then yes, there could have been calls in the future for a new leave vote. The leave vote on the other hand, if it is enacted, is very hard to reverse, although, if we leave then yes, there will have to be a campaign to re-enter.
It may not happen. It all depends how quickly the economy gets screwed, both by the uncertainty, by the significant cost of rewriting 40 years of laws, as well as half the countries IT systems, aside from the problems that will occur when very little of what we voted for actually comes to pass.