This is nonsense. The GPL relies on copyright law (and the definitions of "derived work" within copyright law) in order to achieve its ends. The FSF can't say "under certain conditions we'll let you do things that would infringe our copyright (according to the legal definitions of infringement and copyright)" and then say "oh by the way we're going to use our definitions of infringement and copyright instead of the legal ones..."
In other words, it doesn't matter if the FSF considers something a derived work. It matters what the Supreme Court considers a derived work...
Incorrect. You *cannot* link a GPL library into a non-gpl app. Check with your lawyers. Seriously..
I don't know any lawyers, but perhaps you do. Ask one for a cite of a case that concludes a non-GPL app that dynamically links to a GPL library cannot be distributed (without the library) due to copyright infringement.
The nasty surprise awaiting the unwary is that the GPL considers linking to be "deriving".
I wonder if the courts would agree (particularly in the case of dynamic linking, where the distributor of the non-GPL'd piece isn't distributing the GPL'd library, and the user who actually combines the two to create something that might possibly resemble a "derived work" isn't distributing anything, and arguably has the right to make the in-RAM copy in question because it's necessary to run the program...)
I've emailed Eben Moglen twice asking about this....
There is a per user license for Ubuntu. It's called the GPL. You did agree to the GPL license in Ubuntu before you used Ubuntu right? If not, you are using it illegally.
Nonsense.
GPL section 5 (emphasis added): "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."
GPL section 0 (ditto) : "The act of running the Program is not restricted."
how do they make sure deadbeats aren't rolling around on bald tires and no brakes?
In Kentucky (and elsewhere I expect) they simply make you prove you have liability insurance when you get your license plate renewed. They figure that if rolling around on bald tires and no brakes gets to be enough of a problem the insurance companies will start requiring mechanical inspections before they'll rewnew your policy.
In fact the only reason why the US is a superpower today is because other countries are benefiting from the status quo. When this is no longer the case, they'll ask the US to repay its debts, which it can not.
Of course it can. All it has to do is print more money (the debts are dollar-based).
The resulting inflation is not likely to be a very pretty sight, but the debt will have been redeemed.
Yep. And that definitely won't happen. I know quite a few mid- to high-level IBM employees in the US who feel that their jobs (and even their divisions) are quite secure.
Unless they're a 4th line or above, they're kidding themselves.
the government should define an open standard for e-filing returns - free of charge
The standard is open, and available from the IRS website last I checked. (Look for Publication 1346.)
IIRC, there is no fee for registering with the IRS to send files.
There is, however, a certification process to go through, and a ton of paperwork involved both in obtaining the certification and keeping all sorts of records about the returns you've uploaded, and the standard itself is byzantine. So if you're not going to recoup any money for the investment of your time, why bother?
TFA (or one similar) cited a grunt in Iraq who says it's common practice for insurgents to feign auto trouble in order to have time to scout US positions.
This would be used to convince them to move along....
It's a great soundbite, but it's laughably wrong, and symptomatic of the belief that the US is bigger than it is. From Wikipedia, US DOD budget, 2006 fiscal year: US$470.2B. From the UK Treasury, UK budget, 2006 fiscal year: £552B, ie US$1093B. That's just one other country.
Read your link. The 552B pound figure you quote is the entire UK budget, not its defence budget (which is only 29B pounds)...
All he needs for this darwinian theory to get off the ground is to say the ability to create black holes is an inherited property and that black holes have the ability to produce new universes, therefore a large number of the universes that exist (making no reference to time since it would be meaningless) posess the abilty to produce black holes.
Many of his universes have finite (indeed very short) lifetimes. Are they among the "large number of the universes that exist"? If so, his argument (as I understand it) is flawed because the statistical properties of the group of universes are not what he proposes. (In particular, universes in which black holes cannot form vastly outnumber those in which black holes can form).
If not, how are you deciding which universes are to be excluded from the "large number of the universes that exist"? Please do so without reference to time or a cross-universal notion of "now".....
Below is the text of an email I sent Dr. Smolin late one night as I was reading the subject book. Ne never answered; if anyone can clarify I would greatly appreciate it...
Sir -
A friend of mine lent me a copy of "The Life of the Cosmos" and I have just reached the point at which you introduce the hypothesis that the observed values of certain of the parameters in the standard model may have arisen in an evolutionary fashion.
It is now four in the morning and I am sending you this letter because I don't think I'll get a good night's sleep until I do. It is possible (albeit unlikely) that I will remain restless until the question the letter poses is resolved, and I would therefore very much appreciate it if you could clarify precisely which universes are members of the "collection" that is of interest.
At first I thought perhaps the answer to this question is "every universe that has ever existed or will ever exist". Upon reflection, however, this choice does not lead to a population in which the number of universes in which black holes can form greatly exceeds the number of universes in which they cannot. Even though the latter have but a single offspring, the rate at which they reproduce (once every few Planck times) is so great that a collection formed according to this definition would surely be dominated by short-lived but "uninteresting" universes.
I have instead nearly convinced myself that you have the following in mind:
Consider the "family tree" of universes. We start with the initial universe, and for an inconceivably large number of generations all we see is a single lineage of parent followed by single child, so:
U -> U -> U -> U -> U ->...
At some point, the standard model parameters have randomly changed to the point that at least one black hole can form before the universe collapses. For the sake of argument I will (and I think without loss of generality I may) assume two children:.... -> U has children U1 and U2; U1 has children U1a and U1b; U2 has child U2'; U2' has child U2''...
Since the standard model parameters are so close to their critical values, I show one of U's children (U2) "regressing" to the prior single lineage. But if U1 "inherits" the ability to form black holes, it may have two children (U1a and U1b), and four grandchildren (progeny of U1a and U1b), and eight great-grandchildren, and in general an exponentially growing number of descendants. Some fraction of them may revert to the single lineage state, but in general if we wait long enough and then select a moment in time and put all the universes that exist at that moment in our collection (perforce including U, U1, U1a, and U1b), we have a collection that fits the bill.
However, the manner in which this collection is assembled seems to require some notion of absolute time (or, maybe, "metatime", since the "internal clocks" of all the universes are decoupled), i.e., simultaneity across multiple universes, so that we only include a single instance of those universes that are part of a single lineage chain. I have the impression that physics considers "simultaneous" a meaningless concept when restricted to the framework of a single universe, so is it really kosher to introduce it here?
Slashdot Mirror
This is nonsense. The GPL relies on copyright law (and the definitions of "derived work" within copyright law) in order to achieve its ends. The FSF can't say "under certain conditions we'll let you do things that would infringe our copyright (according to the legal definitions of infringement and copyright)" and then say "oh by the way we're going to use our definitions of infringement and copyright instead of the legal ones..."
In other words, it doesn't matter if the FSF considers something a derived work. It matters what the Supreme Court considers a derived work...
I don't know any lawyers, but perhaps you do. Ask one for a cite of a case that concludes a non-GPL app that dynamically links to a GPL library cannot be distributed (without the library) due to copyright infringement.
I'd really like to know if such a case exists....
I wonder if the courts would agree (particularly in the case of dynamic linking, where the distributor of the non-GPL'd piece isn't distributing the GPL'd library, and the user who actually combines the two to create something that might possibly resemble a "derived work" isn't distributing anything, and arguably has the right to make the in-RAM copy in question because it's necessary to run the program...)
I've emailed Eben Moglen twice asking about this....
Nonsense.
GPL section 5 (emphasis added): "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works."
GPL section 0 (ditto) : "The act of running the Program is not restricted."
Well, IBM's board *does* support IBM upper management. Why *not* a second bunch?
Ceres and Vesta
In Kentucky (and elsewhere I expect) they simply make you prove you have liability insurance when you get your license plate renewed. They figure that if rolling around on bald tires and no brakes gets to be enough of a problem the insurance companies will start requiring mechanical inspections before they'll rewnew your policy.
Apparently it's not enough of a problem yet....
Happily for the founders, the Cincinnati International Airport is only about 5 miles off-center from nowhere...
Of course it can. All it has to do is print more money (the debts are dollar-based).
The resulting inflation is not likely to be a very pretty sight, but the debt will have been redeemed.
Unless they're a 4th line or above, they're kidding themselves.
I believe the technical term is "committee"...
So when do I start?
The standard is open, and available from the IRS website last I checked. (Look for Publication 1346.)
IIRC, there is no fee for registering with the IRS to send files.
There is, however, a certification process to go through, and a ton of paperwork involved both in obtaining the certification and keeping all sorts of records about the returns you've uploaded, and the standard itself is byzantine. So if you're not going to recoup any money for the investment of your time, why bother?
Scanner support on Linux has been the one thing that I've found to be elusive.
Samsung seems generally Linux-friendly.
I've been using an SCX-4100 laser 3-in-1 for over a year, on FC2 and SuSE 10.
TFA (or one similar) cited a grunt in Iraq who says it's common practice for insurgents to feign auto trouble in order to have time to scout US positions.
This would be used to convince them to move along....
Sharks don't have swim bladders.
It's a great soundbite, but it's laughably wrong, and symptomatic of the belief that the US is bigger than it is. From Wikipedia, US DOD budget, 2006 fiscal year: US$470.2B. From the UK Treasury, UK budget, 2006 fiscal year: £552B, ie US$1093B. That's just one other country.
Read your link. The 552B pound figure you quote is the entire UK budget, not its defence budget (which is only 29B pounds)...
All he needs for this darwinian theory to get off the ground is to say the ability to create black holes is an inherited property and that black holes have the ability to produce new universes, therefore a large number of the universes that exist (making no reference to time since it would be meaningless) posess the abilty to produce black holes.
Many of his universes have finite (indeed very short) lifetimes. Are they among the "large number of the universes that exist"? If so, his argument (as I understand it) is flawed because the statistical properties of the group of universes are not what he proposes. (In particular, universes in which black holes cannot form vastly outnumber those in which black holes can form).
If not, how are you deciding which universes are to be excluded from the "large number of the universes that exist"? Please do so without reference to time or a cross-universal notion of "now".....
The Bell inequality rules out the "hidden parameter" explanation.
At least that's what "Quantum Reality" says...
Below is the text of an email I sent Dr. Smolin late one night as I was reading the subject book. Ne never answered; if anyone can clarify I would greatly appreciate it...
...
.... -> U has children U1 and U2; U1 has children U1a and U1b; U2 has child U2'; U2' has child U2''...
Sir -
A friend of mine lent me a copy of "The Life of the Cosmos" and I have just reached the point at which you introduce the hypothesis that the observed values of certain of the parameters in the standard model may have arisen in an evolutionary fashion.
It is now four in the morning and I am sending you this letter because I don't think I'll get a good night's sleep until I do. It is possible (albeit unlikely) that I will remain restless until the question the letter poses is resolved, and I would therefore very much appreciate it if you could clarify precisely which universes are members of the "collection" that is of interest.
At first I thought perhaps the answer to this question is "every universe that has ever existed or will ever exist". Upon reflection, however, this choice does not lead to a population in which the number of universes in which black holes can form greatly exceeds the number of universes in which they cannot. Even though the latter have but a single offspring, the rate at which they reproduce (once every few Planck times) is so great that a collection formed according to this definition would surely be dominated by short-lived but "uninteresting" universes.
I have instead nearly convinced myself that you have the following in mind:
Consider the "family tree" of universes. We start with the initial universe, and for an inconceivably large number of generations all we see is a single lineage of parent followed by single child, so:
U -> U -> U -> U -> U ->
At some point, the standard model parameters have randomly changed to the point that at least one black hole can form before the universe collapses. For the sake of argument I will (and I think without loss of generality I may) assume two children:
Since the standard model parameters are so close to their critical values, I show one of U's children (U2) "regressing" to the prior single lineage. But if U1 "inherits" the ability to form black holes, it may have two children (U1a and U1b), and four grandchildren (progeny of U1a and U1b), and eight great-grandchildren, and in general an exponentially growing number of descendants. Some fraction of them may revert to the single lineage state, but in general if we wait long enough and then select a moment in time and put all the universes that exist at that moment in our collection (perforce including U, U1, U1a, and U1b), we have a collection that fits the bill.
However, the manner in which this collection is assembled seems to require some notion of absolute time (or, maybe, "metatime", since the "internal clocks" of all the universes are decoupled), i.e., simultaneity across multiple universes, so that we only include a single instance of those universes that are part of a single lineage chain. I have the impression that physics considers "simultaneous" a meaningless concept when restricted to the framework of a single universe, so is it really kosher to introduce it here?
Think I'll start a Paypal collection to ship Frosty and his brood to Kansas....
You want to add a mechanical switch to a chip that's roughly the size of a grain of rice?
Yes, right, exactly. It's in Ohio. Not in northern Kentucky...
I'm in Lexington...
And who paid the Congress to pass that law, hmmm?
Maybe in the Eastern hemisphere. Certainly wasn't (and isn't) the case here....