If you remove one of the licensees in a dual-licesned source file, then you force every other person who receives that file (from your source tree) to accept the one license you left behind. You have, therefore, have denied the people who receive someone elses work from you a right you know the original author intended to convey to everyone. That's more than just dishonest, that's illegal.
Incorrect. Dual-licensing is an OR situation, not a mandatory AND. You may choose to use/distribute the modified code under the GPL license, or the BSD license, or both licenses.
...And that is PERFECTLY FINE. GPL or proprietary, someone has found a use for BSD code and it moves on. Directly or indirectly, EVERYONE benefits. But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible? They are sharing, under a license that they find philosophically compatible. When you say "why can't [they] share with BSD coders", what you're actually saying is "why can't the GPL folks just accept that the BSD license is the way they should license their code?" That's a fundamentally different issue.
So nothing is morally wrong with sharing modified BSD code with other GPL coders, but not with the BSD coders who made it possible? If BSD-license-using coders find it "immoral" for people to use their code under other, more restrictive license schemes, then why are they using the BSD license? Hasn't Theo de Brat long boasted that the BSD license is superior for exactly this reason, the true freedom to do what you like with the code? Releasing under the BSD license and complaining about BSD code getting "GPL'd" is the height of absurdity. The BSD coders don't get to use the code when it's expanded and the resulting app is sold in the traditional business, and they're fine with that. It's like what they say about freedom of speech: the price is that you can't silence people you disagree with.
Ahh.. Here lies proof that if you shovel enough blatant bullshit, some ass-clown will mod you informative. Tree farms are another way to say scrub land. It's cheaper to plant the trees and get the government tax benefit, then ignore the crap that grows and harvest elsewhere. It is trees that are growing, but scrub pine and poplar trees, useless for anything but pulp mills, and conning jackasses who want to believe things are better then they are. Sorry, I don't see where you've refuted either of his points, that a) the Amazon is primarily being deforested for ranching and farming, not for the use of the trees, and b) that paper pulp is largely harvested from farmed trees planted for that purpose. Whether the monocropping practiced by tree farming results in "good trees" or "bad trees" is a completely separate issue and does not invalidate the previous assertions.
Maybe they did buy the images and the webmaster has made an error in the HTML. Error - people make them. When you buy an image from Getty, you download it on to your own computer. You do not simply like to it, brain trust.
That solution is silly, and only a good illustration of "thinking outside the box" a la the Gordian knot. But they are not particularly clever. In fact, the whole point of solutions like that is to show that the clever solution is not always necessary. Sometimes you can get away with twisting the letter of the instructions to suit your ham-fisted attempt. I'd say the Gordian Knot solution by Alexander the Great was less an example of "twisting" to suit ham-fistedness than it was a wake up call for a bunch of smug priests. Ol' Alex havks through it in one stroke and says "that means I'm to be king of Asia, right?" The priests, looking at this armed nutter with a sharp sword and a large army decide that a quaint little legend isn't all that important to defend in the larger scheme of things and say "yep, that's right, you win!"
Hydraulics is powered by electric pumps, not by power of will. Dude, give it up. You keep sticking your foot in your mouth with your technical ignorance. There are indeed electrical hydraulic pumps, but they're auxiliary systems; the primary systems are mechanical and run directly off the engine accessory drive.
All in all, completely losing power is unacceptable, but in case you lose all your primary generators the airplane gets dark fast. I do not recall for how long the batteries ought to suffice, but your figure (30 min.) is close enough to what I said. Most of the battery's power will be spent on mechanically controlling the airplane. No, mechanically controlling the airplane when APU and engine power is lost is achieved hydraulically via the Ram Air Turbine. The RAT powers the control surfaces directly, and electrical systems via a hydraulic generator. Batteries only provide power for the brief time between APU/engine failure and the automatic deployment of the RAT.
Why do you say "no" when you essentially agree with my characterization? Your point is that they didn't do anything "actually" bad. His point is that corporations making money as best they can is a given, and that this is no more a matter of "good" or "bad" than is a crocodile eating a water buffalo. It's what happens by nature. Now, the "bad" comes when someone says "hey, let's make the crocodile work for the government", and then sets it loose and turns its back while it eats people.
The FCC doesn't force cell phone companies to allow just any phone to run on their network, yet it's trying to do the equivalent to the cable companies. Why? Because cable companies operate in geographical monopolies, you idiot turd. Customers have only two choices for cable TV: take it or leave it. Cell phones, you have your choice of 3-6 providers. Seriously, are you really that dumb?
The funny thing to me about the connections to Al Qaeda debate is that as far as I know, we gave them all their money and weapons originally, didn't we? But that's not a connection, that's history. No, that's neither a connection nor history, but a gross oversimplification. We supported the afghan mujahideen in Afghanistan in a proxy war against the Soviets after the invasion of '79. At the time, bin Laden was also funding mujahideen in Afghanistan, but mostly foreign ones. When the Soviets pulled out in '89, the CIA dropped its support of the muj, and many of them joined up with a newly-created organization called "al Qaeda". Many of them also did not join al Qaeda, and in fact actively resisted the new Taliban government (see "Northern Alliance). Al Qaeda was formed to fight non-muslim influences (i.e. western nations) in the muslim world, and to work towards a world wide islamic caliphate. The CIA did not fund this organization. Really, the notion that the US funded bin Laden is ridiculous on the face of it, as bin Laden is fucking loaded. Seriously, the man's a billionaire. He didn't need CIA money or guns. The idea that "we gave them all their money and weapons" is at best a gross mischaracterization .
it doesn't really matter whever it should as it already is there. To paraphrase the classic anti-Israel argument to the above, "It doesn't matter whether the Nazis should have been in France or not back in 1944, as they were already there." Many Palestinians view Israel pretty much exactly like that, and view their efforts to push them out as akin to the allied forces driving Hitler out of France. The question of whether some 2000 year old religious mythology gives a bunch of diaspora Jews from Europe or America a legitimate claim to a "homeland" that has been a literal home to a bunch of Palestinians is, in fact, largely irrelevant now that there are millions of them there, but it does go a long way to explaining why they hate their guts. The big problem we have in the west in understanding the Palestinian position is that while Israel is factually a religious state imposed by recent immigrants to the area to the detriment of the indigenous population, it is a fairly modern liberal democracy that displaced a bunch of cantankerous, unruly Muslim folks. We are inclined to side with the "more civilized" side, regardless. I you are right, though, that it really doesn't matter whether they should be there or not, as they're not leaving. I personally think that we ought to pull out of the whole region and let them fight it out. I'm something of an isolationist, though. Having participated in two wars in the region during my Army career, I am probably a bit biased against all that crap.
The most annoying and inane rules anywhere. Seriously, call your senator! It wouldn't do any good. The problem isn't so much vague language in the regulations, but the people interpreting that vague language. My father worked for one defense contractor for his entire career--- nearly 40 years. Upon retirement, he chose to travel to Europe and basically live there half the year (he was born in Austria). A couple years after retirement, his former employer asked him to come back as a contractor to help on a project (B-2 stealth bomber related) which he essentially created and ran for the last ten years of his career. He filled out the paperwork to have his security clearance renewed and it was refused. The reason given was that he had too much contact with foreign nationals and spent too much time out of the country, so giving him access to this top secret information would be a security risk. Completely ignored was the fact that he himself originally wrote or reviewed every bit of that top secret information when he worked there. He says the problem can be traced to one thing: Big-Haired Women from Mississippi.
OK, so they're not all literally Big-Haired, from Mississippi, or Women; but that archetype typifies the kind of person who ends up implementing security policy in the DoD. They're minimally educated low to mid level administrators. They're hard working, but solidly average intelligence folks. Watch a little prime time TV and imagine the sort of person who enjoys it. It's people like that that are actually turning the crank that makes the bureaucracy machine go. When you hear about the government moving to classify a bunch of formerly unclassified information, the temptation is to think that the decision to do so originated from Cheney or Scooter...err..Bush, but the reality is that the notion that it ought to be done at all originated from below, from the BHWfM, and the "terrorists are everywhere" paranoids just signed off on it. Even outside those single wholesale orders to classify info, the BHWfM are responsible for a continuous and irrational "classification creep" that you don't even see unless you work in the system. It works like this: XYZ Corp designs a rocket (call it the X-123) for the DoD. The X-123 rocket design is reviewed by the DoD project managers, who tell their BHWfM to stamp it "top secret". A couple years pass, and XYZ Corp submits some design modifications to the LOX pump of the X-123. It's a bog-standard pump design, straight out of an engineering 101 textbook, but it's part of the top secret X-123 rocket, it too is stamped top secret by the BHWfM. A year later, XYZ Corp designs an improved life support module for the ISS and they re-use the same pump. Whoops! DoD says no go, because it uses a top secret LOX pump design! Since once something is classified it's nearly impossible to get it declassified, they have to create a new pump design.
Now imagine that happening every day, and not just with big, tangible things like LOX pumps, but with mundane crap like a table of performance characteristics of mild steel that was included in some report. It's totally asinine, but apparently unstoppable.
It is not a gag order, it is saying they don't speak in an official capacity.
Ok, then where do you get the official information about the condition of the infrastructure? Because there is now apparently only one official source, and she refuses to speak. Hypothetical clip from a news piece:
Miss Nason of the NHTSA stated in a news conference "...our infrastructure is well maintained and in good condition." However, sources within the NHTSA state that this is not true, and that the whole shebang is likely to go tits up at any moment.
The military is about killing, occupying and controlling. It's got nothing to do with health care. Sure it does. Unhealthy soldiers are not as effective at killing, occupying, and controlling. Nearly all of our emergency medical treatment techniques come straight out of war, from the army medical corps.
Seems to me the 30 million would be better spent researching ways to stops getting into so many wars. Please. 30 million wouldn't even fund a simple study to figure out what to look at, much less produce any meaningful results. Besides we already know why we get into so many wars, and it's not something that lends itself to being stopped with money. Humans sometimes resort to violence to get what they want. It's part of our nature. Any idiot who thinks we can "change our violent culture" and thereby make war not happen has an abysmally poor understanding of the effect of millions of years of evolutionary pressure from a very dangerous, violent world.
Other than closing loopholes, I'm not sure why they require it to enter a federal park - are we afraid the terrorist will go after the deer and chipmunks? The parks/Federal Buildings thing is about leverage. When citizens of all those "holdout" states with non-federally-compliant state IDs go on vacation for 2 weeks to Jellystone National Park imagine what will happen. Dad drives up to the entrance in the family mini-van packed with the wife, 2.4 screaming kids, and a bunch of camping gear. The NPS Ranger at the booth takes a look at his NH driver's license and says "sorry sir, but you have to have a federally recognized ID to enter the park." So there they are, staying at the Best Western that night, looking at a long drive back to New Hampshire because their state doesn't want to comply with the federal standard. It's a load of crap, sure, but it's the way the feds do things.
If/when they became the only game in down, what's their incentive to maintain the networks? I work as a locksmith for the second largest school district in the country. For lock repairs and installations, we are the "only game in town" for 1200+ schools. We do a good job because we are skilled professionals who take pride in doing our jobs well. For every story you hear about a lazy government worker who shirks his duties, there are a hundred other workers who are conscientious and diligent because that's how decent people do their jobs.
Yes, like they've done such a good job maintaining bridges. It is not like they have anything more important to do. Bridge inspection, repair, and maintenance is handled by the state and federal governments, fucktard.
So I take it you've never dealt with the IRS, DMV, EPA, or most other government agencies that people have deal with on a regular basis....
Well, that's probably because you don't have a lot of experience dealing with underfunded, understaffed, municipal services. I like how you disingenuously list huge federal/state bureaucracies which have the same size/distance problems the OP cited for large telecom megacorps in a discussion about municipal government. I live in Los Angles, which has as disgustingly bloated and stupid a city government as you'll find anywhere, and still they run rings around Veterans Affairs, Social Security, and the IRS. Even with the city department of Building and Safety, which has a terrible reputation for sloth and ineptitude, I've been able to resolve issues in a timely manner because the people involved are here, where I can badger them at my convenience. Ever try badgering the VA? It doesn't work at all. If you're lucky, you can get the attention of your congressperson, and they might be able to get your issue addressed, but don't count on it.
I don't think DirecTV's DRM has been cracked since they replaced it a few years ago. DirecTV encryption isn't classical "DRM". It's a live, encrypted delivery system rather than a chunk of data in a fixed medium, which makes it a moving target. It would be quite possible (though not exactly trivial) to record a given segment of the data stream and hack the particular key used to encrypt it, thus "breaking the DRM" on that particular block of content. This could not be done in a timely enough manner (i.e. in real time) to make it worthwhile, though, which is why no one does it.
Classic. As our company commander in Afghanistan liked to say "the only rule you need to know about being an effective infantryman is printed on the front of the Claymore".
The AT&T plan I gave up to switch to my iPhone would cost $60 for the most nearly equivalent plan, and I was paying $40 for it from "the old AT&T". AT&T charges $20 a month for unlimited Edge network internet connectivity. You can get a plan for $10, but it's limited to 5MB/mo. I seriously doubt you had a $40/mo plan with internet connectivity, especially since their lowest plan anywhere is 450min for $39.99 (no data). I have the bottom of the line voice with unlimited data plan, and it costs me.... $60 a month. I think perhaps they're not actually raising their prices, but you're simply bad at reading and/or math.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. Dual-licensing is an OR situation, not a mandatory AND. You may choose to use/distribute the modified code under the GPL license, or the BSD license, or both licenses.
...And that is PERFECTLY FINE. GPL or proprietary, someone has found a use for BSD code and it moves on. Directly or indirectly, EVERYONE benefits. But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?They are sharing, under a license that they find philosophically compatible. When you say "why can't [they] share with BSD coders", what you're actually saying is "why can't the GPL folks just accept that the BSD license is the way they should license their code?" That's a fundamentally different issue.
OK, so they're not all literally Big-Haired, from Mississippi, or Women; but that archetype typifies the kind of person who ends up implementing security policy in the DoD. They're minimally educated low to mid level administrators. They're hard working, but solidly average intelligence folks. Watch a little prime time TV and imagine the sort of person who enjoys it. It's people like that that are actually turning the crank that makes the bureaucracy machine go. When you hear about the government moving to classify a bunch of formerly unclassified information, the temptation is to think that the decision to do so originated from Cheney or Scooter...err..Bush, but the reality is that the notion that it ought to be done at all originated from below, from the BHWfM, and the "terrorists are everywhere" paranoids just signed off on it. Even outside those single wholesale orders to classify info, the BHWfM are responsible for a continuous and irrational "classification creep" that you don't even see unless you work in the system. It works like this: XYZ Corp designs a rocket (call it the X-123) for the DoD. The X-123 rocket design is reviewed by the DoD project managers, who tell their BHWfM to stamp it "top secret". A couple years pass, and XYZ Corp submits some design modifications to the LOX pump of the X-123. It's a bog-standard pump design, straight out of an engineering 101 textbook, but it's part of the top secret X-123 rocket, it too is stamped top secret by the BHWfM. A year later, XYZ Corp designs an improved life support module for the ISS and they re-use the same pump. Whoops! DoD says no go, because it uses a top secret LOX pump design! Since once something is classified it's nearly impossible to get it declassified, they have to create a new pump design.
Now imagine that happening every day, and not just with big, tangible things like LOX pumps, but with mundane crap like a table of performance characteristics of mild steel that was included in some report. It's totally asinine, but apparently unstoppable.
Ok, then where do you get the official information about the condition of the infrastructure? Because there is now apparently only one official source, and she refuses to speak. Hypothetical clip from a news piece:
Miss Nason of the NHTSA stated in a news conference "...our infrastructure is well maintained and in good condition." However, sources within the NHTSA state that this is not true, and that the whole shebang is likely to go tits up at any moment.
How hard was that?
DMCA. D-M-C-A. Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Honestly, the four letter are right there in the title of the web page.
...the Spanish American war (concluded 1846). 1846? Try 1898.The parks/Federal Buildings thing is about leverage. When citizens of all those "holdout" states with non-federally-compliant state IDs go on vacation for 2 weeks to Jellystone National Park imagine what will happen. Dad drives up to the entrance in the family mini-van packed with the wife, 2.4 screaming kids, and a bunch of camping gear. The NPS Ranger at the booth takes a look at his NH driver's license and says "sorry sir, but you have to have a federally recognized ID to enter the park." So there they are, staying at the Best Western that night, looking at a long drive back to New Hampshire because their state doesn't want to comply with the federal standard. It's a load of crap, sure, but it's the way the feds do things.
Yep, that's what he should of done.
FRONT TOWARD ENEMY
Classic. As our company commander in Afghanistan liked to say "the only rule you need to know about being an effective infantryman is printed on the front of the Claymore".