If we're talking about theorems, then the source doesn't matter, at least in principle. There, truths are true, falsehoods are false, at least until you start questioning your axioms or pushing the boundaries of incomplete logic a la Goedel. However, you still find people checking each other's work and the source still does make a difference for the credibility of a claim.
Here, we're talking about a study grounded in a far from a mathematically perfect domain. The results have as much to do with the methodology as they do with the system being examined. The results are not "true" or "false." Furthermore, there are enormous external pressures -- political and financial -- that may taint the work. These are present in any such study, but when competitor A funds a study comparing its product to one from competitor B, the output of that study is damn well suspect.
From the OED: suspect: A. adj. Suspected; regarded with suspicion or distrust; that is an object of suspicion; in early use also, exciting or deserving suspicion, suspicious.
As you will note, this does not mean "false." What it means is that one would be a fool to take the study on its face because there is reason to suspect it may not have been independent. However, you need not simply disregard the study -- further scrutiny is in order. More scrutiny than would be needed if there were not such a clear path for influence.
Anyway, it seems you have spent so much time memorizing definitions from your undergraduate logic textbooks that you've lost sight of how they connect to the real world.
It is an effect, but if you are working with Newtonian mechanics in a rotating reference frame, it has all the properties of a force. If you're spinning a ball on the string, the tension of the string provides a force inward. In the rotating reference frame, the string is still taut so there is an inward force. However, the ball doesn't fly in -- there must be another _force_ outward so that F = F_tension + F_other = ma = 0. Otherwise you'd have non-zero acceleration in that frame.
If you get past high school physics, you may go on to learn that centrifugal force *does* exist, just not in an inertial reference frame. If you work in a non-inertial reference frame, you will find that you need to include "fictitious" forces (coriolis, centrifugal) in order to preserve Newton's laws. For example, in the reference frame rotating with the rotating sphere in your quoted paragraph, it does make sense to talk about a force balance between the Coulomb force and the centrifugal force. In the inertial reference frame, you'd think of it as the Coulomb force providing a centripetal acceleration, but both statements are equivalent.
Of course, I agree that this is a crackpot theory, but it's not quite so obvious.
It's not unreasonable for those who maintain their citizenship, no. The U.S. is still there for you. If you have a problem, the consulate will help you. The rate should be reduced... and it is -- you can deduct $80k off the top. Maybe it should be lower still, but I don't think it's ridiculous to be non-zero.
This logic does not at all suggest that non-citizen residents shouldn't pay U.S. taxes either. They receive services from the U.S. by virtue of living there. Again, maybe it should be a lower rate... and in fact, depending on the tax treaties that their home country may have with the U.S., it may well be lower.
Interesting. The rule is that you're responsible for paying taxes on your income for 10 years after you formally renounce your citizenship on the grounds you mention. I agree, that is unjust when applied to people who leave for legitimate reasons.
It does appear that the only officially "irrebuttable" position comes about if you're taking citizenship in a new country where you have no immediate family. Other than that, you may or may not be able to avoid the tax liability by showing another reason for your renunciation. Whether that is possible in practice, I don't know; it's probably not within the reach of people of ordinary means.
As a non-U.S. resident, you do get an exemption for up to $80k income (plus certain housing expenses), and as I mentioned, in many countries the host country waives many of its income taxes on you as part of a treaty with the U.S. I don't see this part of the law as unreasonable (for citizens).
But I agree, claiming tax jurisdiction over a true non-citizen is unjust.
You're free to go to the US Consulate and renounce your US citizenship at which point you will no longer owe US taxes. Until you do that, you have all the rights and privileges of a US citizen (whether or not you choose to take advantage of them) and hence are responsible for all the obligations it entails.
And it's usually not as bad as you make out. With many countries (Canada for sure, don't know about others), the US has tax treaties that specifically avoid this double-taxation. With Canada, the US waives (at least most, maybe all) income tax it would otherwise levy on Canadian citizens in the US in exchange for Canada's doing the same for US citizens in Canada.
The government of the state you work in is providing the environment that supports the employer in that state. You probably have certain rights in that state, even as an non-resident employee, which are protected by that state's government.
I use bash where you get pushd, popd, and dirs which give similar functionality. One advantage is that you can push multiple directories on to the stack, although I find that I rarely actually need to switch between a couple so that's kind of a boobie prize.
Very hard. I think it would be *extremely* difficult to make a case even plausible enough to be useful as a bullying tool if your claim is simply that someone continued distributing software that you had licensed to them under the GPL. I've never heard of such a case even being considered or threatened.
Most GPL-related news I've seen is a company *not* distributing code they should under the GPL. SCO is a complicated mess, but doesn't and hasn't ever boiled down to this. And I don't know that 'Bill' or anyone in his employ has ever distributed anything under the GPL or would even find it worth his time to bother with such an attempt.
Once it's "out there" it's out there unless no one else has a copy of it -- SCO would be free to stop distributing it under the GPL at any time. However, if someone else got a copy under the GPL they've already been licensed to give you a copy of it under the GPL, so it's still available. Once I've got a license to make a copy under particular terms that don't specify an end date, it's gonna be hard to revoke that license.
I'm with you about the tangible, solid nature of the paper. For me, it's nice to take a break from the screen and sit on the couch and just browse through the paper. I find it a lot easier to scan headlines that way than by paging down a screen. I think I'm just trained to block out junk on a web page that doesn't interest me, whereas with something in print I tend to actually parse it and retain it, even if it's not something immediately of interest.
On topics that I'm not deeply interested in, it's a lot more common for me to hear someone talk about something and say, "Hey, I remember reading about that in the paper a few days ago," than it is to remember something from a web site.
Plus, crossword puzzles are much better on newsprint than any other medium. Comics, too.
Finally, I can sit down with my fiancee and share pieces of a newspaper and feel closer to her. When we sit in the study, each with our own computer and browser, there's not the same connection. With the paper, we both have the same source and read the same things to a greater degree than with the internet.
Plus, there's very little in the world that I need to know about the instant it happens. For 99.99% of the news, I'm perfectly happy letting it percolate through the system for a day before I read about it.
The problem is that we live in a world where copyright is and (importantly) has been a part of law for a long time. You can't just ignore that fact of history. People have built livelihoods on a foundation of selling software under copyright laws. They invested their time and effort to develop something under the expectation that they could sell it for a price and that society felt that they should be rewarded with a monopoly on distributing that software. That affects the price they can charge and the reward they can expect when deciding whether to pursue writing that software. Had they not been promised that monopoly by society, they may well not have chosen to develop that software.
Therefore, although I personally believe very strongly in the idea of free software, I also feel it is wrong to unilaterally decide that I can copy any software I please just because I might GPL (or otherwise freely license) my own creations. Remember that the battle over copyrights is not always the David vs Goliath we imagine where Linus Torvalds fells the wicked Microsoft. Hundreds of thousands of individuals have built lives on a stable foundation based on software copyright. If you think that copyright should be abolished, fine, work for that, but it's unreasonable to try to change it overnight.
I truly believe the FSF has the right approach. They are trying to show that the traditional copyright is not necessary and even a hinderance to progress by *constructively* demonstrating what they can do without it. That is to be admired. I do not admire those who disregard the will of the author, just as I do not admire a thief who steals because he believes that property rights are unethical.
That said, I do believe that the copyright (and patent...) systems need major overhauls. Copyright is to be a limited monopoly, not a ticket for life. Fair use rights need to be vigorously protected, not only by the consumer but by laws preventing interference with those rights. I honestly don't know whether I agree with the FSF's goal, but I applaud them for fighting for their convictions in an honorable and just way (along with all those countless hordes who develop free software).
There is no double-standard among those who both support the GPL and refuse to use/redistribute other software against its licensing terms, whatever they may be. However, there seem to be many of the opinion that since they feel software should be free, they'll go ahead and copy commercially-licensed software in violation of its license. That behavior is inconsistent with expecting others to respect the GPL. The GPL is based on a framework that allows a creator to specify the terms under which his creation may be redistributed.
If you believe the GPL should hold water, the only ethically consistent position is to respect the licenses of other authors (either by paying their fee and not redistributing illegally or by not using their software at all). Otherwise, there is a double standard.
Richard Stallman and the FSF folks understand this. They find non-free/libre licenses to be abhorrent so they refuse to use software so distributed.
According to Sections 1-3 of the first rev of the GPL I came across (version 2, june 1991), you have a few more requirements. I don't think any of these have substantially changed with more recent revisions of the license.
Things you must do if redistributing a modified program include
1) Give a copy of the GPL to the program recipient
2) Clearly identify your changes in the modified source files
3) License your contribution to the modified work under the GPL
4) With respect to inclusion of the source code you must do one of the following: a) Include the source with the binary distribution. b) Include a _written_ offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party a machine-readable copy of the source (free or at cost of producing the copy) c) [valid for non-commercial distribution by someone who received only a binary distribution to begin with] pass along the info you received as an offer to obtain the source when you received your copy
So it's a bit more than just provide if asked -- they must take several steps to inform recipients of the licensing terms and availability of the source and to identify their contribution.
I don't know that you can blame Khoi for the ad intro -- The Onion has had that for a lot longer than it's had an unreadable layout. Actually, for a site I (used to) know I want to visit, I don't mind an intro ad like that too much. Especially since Adblock eliminates it, leaving only a 'click here' link.
But I'm with many of the others here -- I was a big fan of the Onion, even recently, because they usually had at least a few funny bits every week. With the new layout, I can't tell what is a new story, what is a link to archived content, what is an ad, etc. I just gave up because of the new layout. It's just not worth it any more.
Plus, my favorite section was the "What Do You Think." The new daily version of that just isn't as funny. Part of the humor was that you had the same 6 photos every week with new names/occupations. It's now a week's worth of 3 quotes a day with the same two sets of 3 photos repeating every other day. That sort of kills the effect for me. Also, having a whole slew of topics every week just overdoes the joke.
I'm glad you found this guy's question trivial, but I can't help but wonder why someone so obviously of above average intelligence lacks the reading comprehension to understand the simple request not to post answers in the thread.
There's another important reason for documentation separate from the code (i.e., a spec). Non-trivial code will have many effects, some of which are intended (i.e., would be part of the spec) and some of which are just implementation-specific details that are of no particular significance. Taking an approach of "well we have the code so we can always be compatible" also makes it very hard to change that code later -- is that side effect of the algorithm part of the spec in a subtle way? When you've got compatible code in multiple projects, it's no longer practical to look over all the implementations and make sure you'll work with all of them.
You could argue that this could be handled with careful commenting of the code. However, that is effectively a spec in itself and is subject to many of the same difficulties, such as the risk of not being updated and contradicting the actual code.
Also, you may have to hire a lawyer merely to find out whether the reported behaviour is indeed illegal.
If you are thinking about blowing the whistle about some trade secrets you are legally bound not to divulge, you had damn well better hire a lawyer before you talk to anyone about them. That is just common sense and is not an undue burden.
If you report it to the police, but a court later finds that the company did in fact have the law on their side, will the company now be able to find out who made them subject to investigation and lots of bad PR?
If you have information about legally questionable practices, the authorities will almost certainly have a way that you can report it for them to investigate. Your anonimity will probably be protected, and if not, you are unlikely to be successfully prosecuted for having, in good faith, attempted to report wrongdoings to the authorities.
The decision to publish rests with the publisher, and with the publisher alone. Therefore his source should not be penalized differently depending on his decision.
Just because it's not under your control does not mean the eventual outcome doesn't impact the penalty you face. Not as an analogy, but as an example, suppose you hit someone with your car. You don't have control over whether they live or die -- your actions could have been identical in either case -- but you're in much deeper trouble if they die. The idea is that you caused something to happen and you are responsible for its outcome.
That may be so, and if publishing someone's trade secret is illegal, the plaintiff should target the publisher and have him pay damages[...]
In order to prosecute the journalist, you need to establish that they knew or had reason to know that the information they had obtained was a trade secret. If they can't be forced to divulge their source as part of the lawsuit, then that is going to be hard to prove. Otherwise, maybe they read it in another news source. Maybe it was scrawled on a bathroom wall.
It's precisely because of this that the requirement (which Apple appears not to have met) of a complete internal investigation must be done first. The company needs to demonstrate to the court that its bases are covered and that the trade secret really was very likely misappropriated.
Why should third parties (could be anybody, but especially journalists) be forced to act as informants against either of two parties in a private contract dispute?
There are several reasons. Overzealous such protection will only encourage disgruntled employees to abuse the system. This case is a pretty good example of abuse of the "whistle-blowing" system -- do you really think that an employee leaking details of a Garage Band product is trying to prevent Apple from establishing a morally corrupt regime?
Also, journalists have a financial interest in obtaining and publishing trade secrets. If you allow them to protect their sources (and by so-doing make it very difficult to prove that they misappropriated that trade secret), then you're encouraging their behavior.
Anyway, I agree that it is important that there be mechanisms for anonymous whistle-blowing. However, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that in a case where the "whistle-blowing" amounted to a leak of a product spec the journalist really doesn't have a legitimate interest in protecting his source. There is just absolutely no way the source or journalist in this situation thought they were acting to protect the public from some wrong doing. The journalist was trying to scoop everyone by publishing what he almost certainly knew to be illegally obtained information.
I agree that those situations are different. However, they could be intertwined to the point that someone may technically have to violate an NDA in order to disclose morally corrupt behaviour. While a court could declare the NDA non-binding under certain circumstances, such an outcome cannot be reliably predicted by the whistle blower or the journalist before the information is handed over.
If it's illegal behavior, then divulge it to law enforcement rather than a journalist. If it's morally corrupt but not illegal, then I'm not convinced there should be protection.
The journalist cannot know what information is covered by an NDA and what is not. Should he be afraid even to ask questions? Does the law effectively make him bound by the contract as well?
If the journalist "know[s] or has reason to know" that the information is a trade secret, in most states that journalist would be guilty of misappropriating trade secrets. It doesn't seem a stretch to me that a tech journalist should "know or have reason to know" that internal product information is probably a trade secret if he got it from an source that does not want to be revealed.
So, yes, the law does make him bound by the contract inasmuch as he has reason to know that the secrets are secrets.
The possibility of a contract being broken, or a crime being committed, does not necessarily allow every potential means of investigation. Can you obtain a search warrant or a phone wiretap in order to resolve a case of petty theft or a business dispute? Forcing a journalist to reveal his source sounds like pretty much the same thing.
In this case, it seems that the journalist himself may have broken the law. If the company claiming a tort can show that there is no way he got it through legitimate channels, he better be able to show that he thought he was publishing legally-obtained information.
This is a little different than a lot of First Amendment cases in that the information the journalist obtained was simply trade secrets. While I think First Amendment rights are extremely important, I don't see protecting the source of a trade secret in the same light as, say, protecting a whistle blower who tips off a journalist to illegal or morally corrupt behavior.
If you obtained trade secrets under an NDA, you do NOT have the right to tell those to a journalist at all. If a company can prove that it has ensured that anyone who had access to the information was bound not to share it, that's pretty good evidence the journalist did not have a legitimate source. Either it was "stolen" by someone, or someone breached their contract. In that case, the journalist may have broken the law by inducing the leak. It seems reasonable to investigate, and part of that investigation would be asking the journalist where he got the information.
Really? I guess mine must have been an earlier version -- it was a real printer and worked with Linux from the very start. I even got to go buy old 70ns simms to upgrade its ram. Seems like it was a bit more than $129 too -- probably $200 or $250. Ah well...
That's the one -- NEC Superscript. Very nice printer. The only thing I didn't like was the external paper storage, but for the price, it was a great printer.
Right on... I got the 1710ML for under $100 and have been happy with it so far. However, it's kind of a laser printer with the inkjet business model -- it comes with a "starter" toner that is only good for 1500 pages or so, then you get to buy expensive toner cartridges that are good for 3000-5000 pages (I think). The 1710 replaced my old NEC consumer laser printer (don't remember the part number) on which the paper handling system gave out before I ever had to replace the toner. That lasted about 5 years, including a lot of printing while I was working on my Master's thesis.
You don't necessarily need humans aboard to do this. In fact, you're probably much better off without the need for the additional "fuel" (air, food, water) and radiation protection etc. All that is heavy and reduces your cargo.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, what a spineless piece of shit you are, AC. Go take a shower and get to work, I need some fries with my burger.
Beeplet is a babe, in addition to nearly having a PhD in astrophysics. The grandparent was correct -- she's a geek's dream girl.
But none of this is relevant to the discussion.
Wow, just wow.
If we're talking about theorems, then the source doesn't matter, at least in principle. There, truths are true, falsehoods are false, at least until you start questioning your axioms or pushing the boundaries of incomplete logic a la Goedel. However, you still find people checking each other's work and the source still does make a difference for the credibility of a claim.
Here, we're talking about a study grounded in a far from a mathematically perfect domain. The results have as much to do with the methodology as they do with the system being examined. The results are not "true" or "false." Furthermore, there are enormous external pressures -- political and financial -- that may taint the work. These are present in any such study, but when competitor A funds a study comparing its product to one from competitor B, the output of that study is damn well suspect.
From the OED:
suspect: A. adj. Suspected; regarded with suspicion or distrust; that is an object of suspicion; in early use also, exciting or deserving suspicion, suspicious.
As you will note, this does not mean "false." What it means is that one would be a fool to take the study on its face because there is reason to suspect it may not have been independent. However, you need not simply disregard the study -- further scrutiny is in order. More scrutiny than would be needed if there were not such a clear path for influence.
Anyway, it seems you have spent so much time memorizing definitions from your undergraduate logic textbooks that you've lost sight of how they connect to the real world.
It is an effect, but if you are working with Newtonian mechanics in a rotating reference frame, it has all the properties of a force. If you're spinning a ball on the string, the tension of the string provides a force inward. In the rotating reference frame, the string is still taut so there is an inward force. However, the ball doesn't fly in -- there must be another _force_ outward so that F = F_tension + F_other = ma = 0. Otherwise you'd have non-zero acceleration in that frame.
If you get past high school physics, you may go on to learn that centrifugal force *does* exist, just not in an inertial reference frame. If you work in a non-inertial reference frame, you will find that you need to include "fictitious" forces (coriolis, centrifugal) in order to preserve Newton's laws. For example, in the reference frame rotating with the rotating sphere in your quoted paragraph, it does make sense to talk about a force balance between the Coulomb force and the centrifugal force. In the inertial reference frame, you'd think of it as the Coulomb force providing a centripetal acceleration, but both statements are equivalent.
Of course, I agree that this is a crackpot theory, but it's not quite so obvious.
It's not unreasonable for those who maintain their citizenship, no. The U.S. is still there for you. If you have a problem, the consulate will help you. The rate should be reduced... and it is -- you can deduct $80k off the top. Maybe it should be lower still, but I don't think it's ridiculous to be non-zero.
This logic does not at all suggest that non-citizen residents shouldn't pay U.S. taxes either. They receive services from the U.S. by virtue of living there. Again, maybe it should be a lower rate... and in fact, depending on the tax treaties that their home country may have with the U.S., it may well be lower.
Interesting. The rule is that you're responsible for paying taxes on your income for 10 years after you formally renounce your citizenship on the grounds you mention. I agree, that is unjust when applied to people who leave for legitimate reasons.
It does appear that the only officially "irrebuttable" position comes about if you're taking citizenship in a new country where you have no immediate family. Other than that, you may or may not be able to avoid the tax liability by showing another reason for your renunciation. Whether that is possible in practice, I don't know; it's probably not within the reach of people of ordinary means.
As a non-U.S. resident, you do get an exemption for up to $80k income (plus certain housing expenses), and as I mentioned, in many countries the host country waives many of its income taxes on you as part of a treaty with the U.S. I don't see this part of the law as unreasonable (for citizens).
But I agree, claiming tax jurisdiction over a true non-citizen is unjust.
You're free to go to the US Consulate and renounce your US citizenship at which point you will no longer owe US taxes. Until you do that, you have all the rights and privileges of a US citizen (whether or not you choose to take advantage of them) and hence are responsible for all the obligations it entails.
And it's usually not as bad as you make out. With many countries (Canada for sure, don't know about others), the US has tax treaties that specifically avoid this double-taxation. With Canada, the US waives (at least most, maybe all) income tax it would otherwise levy on Canadian citizens in the US in exchange for Canada's doing the same for US citizens in Canada.
The government of the state you work in is providing the environment that supports the employer in that state. You probably have certain rights in that state, even as an non-resident employee, which are protected by that state's government.
I use bash where you get pushd, popd, and dirs which give similar functionality. One advantage is that you can push multiple directories on to the stack, although I find that I rarely actually need to switch between a couple so that's kind of a boobie prize.
Very hard. I think it would be *extremely* difficult to make a case even plausible enough to be useful as a bullying tool if your claim is simply that someone continued distributing software that you had licensed to them under the GPL. I've never heard of such a case even being considered or threatened.
Most GPL-related news I've seen is a company *not* distributing code they should under the GPL. SCO is a complicated mess, but doesn't and hasn't ever boiled down to this. And I don't know that 'Bill' or anyone in his employ has ever distributed anything under the GPL or would even find it worth his time to bother with such an attempt.
Once it's "out there" it's out there unless no one else has a copy of it -- SCO would be free to stop distributing it under the GPL at any time. However, if someone else got a copy under the GPL they've already been licensed to give you a copy of it under the GPL, so it's still available. Once I've got a license to make a copy under particular terms that don't specify an end date, it's gonna be hard to revoke that license.
I'm with you about the tangible, solid nature of the paper. For me, it's nice to take a break from the screen and sit on the couch and just browse through the paper. I find it a lot easier to scan headlines that way than by paging down a screen. I think I'm just trained to block out junk on a web page that doesn't interest me, whereas with something in print I tend to actually parse it and retain it, even if it's not something immediately of interest.
On topics that I'm not deeply interested in, it's a lot more common for me to hear someone talk about something and say, "Hey, I remember reading about that in the paper a few days ago," than it is to remember something from a web site.
Plus, crossword puzzles are much better on newsprint than any other medium. Comics, too.
Finally, I can sit down with my fiancee and share pieces of a newspaper and feel closer to her. When we sit in the study, each with our own computer and browser, there's not the same connection. With the paper, we both have the same source and read the same things to a greater degree than with the internet.
Plus, there's very little in the world that I need to know about the instant it happens. For 99.99% of the news, I'm perfectly happy letting it percolate through the system for a day before I read about it.
The problem is that we live in a world where copyright is and (importantly) has been a part of law for a long time. You can't just ignore that fact of history. People have built livelihoods on a foundation of selling software under copyright laws. They invested their time and effort to develop something under the expectation that they could sell it for a price and that society felt that they should be rewarded with a monopoly on distributing that software. That affects the price they can charge and the reward they can expect when deciding whether to pursue writing that software. Had they not been promised that monopoly by society, they may well not have chosen to develop that software.
Therefore, although I personally believe very strongly in the idea of free software, I also feel it is wrong to unilaterally decide that I can copy any software I please just because I might GPL (or otherwise freely license) my own creations. Remember that the battle over copyrights is not always the David vs Goliath we imagine where Linus Torvalds fells the wicked Microsoft. Hundreds of thousands of individuals have built lives on a stable foundation based on software copyright. If you think that copyright should be abolished, fine, work for that, but it's unreasonable to try to change it overnight.
I truly believe the FSF has the right approach. They are trying to show that the traditional copyright is not necessary and even a hinderance to progress by *constructively* demonstrating what they can do without it. That is to be admired. I do not admire those who disregard the will of the author, just as I do not admire a thief who steals because he believes that property rights are unethical.
That said, I do believe that the copyright (and patent...) systems need major overhauls. Copyright is to be a limited monopoly, not a ticket for life. Fair use rights need to be vigorously protected, not only by the consumer but by laws preventing interference with those rights. I honestly don't know whether I agree with the FSF's goal, but I applaud them for fighting for their convictions in an honorable and just way (along with all those countless hordes who develop free software).
There is no double-standard among those who both support the GPL and refuse to use/redistribute other software against its licensing terms, whatever they may be. However, there seem to be many of the opinion that since they feel software should be free, they'll go ahead and copy commercially-licensed software in violation of its license. That behavior is inconsistent with expecting others to respect the GPL. The GPL is based on a framework that allows a creator to specify the terms under which his creation may be redistributed.
If you believe the GPL should hold water, the only ethically consistent position is to respect the licenses of other authors (either by paying their fee and not redistributing illegally or by not using their software at all). Otherwise, there is a double standard.
Richard Stallman and the FSF folks understand this. They find non-free/libre licenses to be abhorrent so they refuse to use software so distributed.
According to Sections 1-3 of the first rev of the GPL I came across (version 2, june 1991), you have a few more requirements. I don't think any of these have substantially changed with more recent revisions of the license.
Things you must do if redistributing a modified program include
1) Give a copy of the GPL to the program recipient
2) Clearly identify your changes in the modified source files
3) License your contribution to the modified work under the GPL
4) With respect to inclusion of the source code you must do one of the following:
a) Include the source with the binary distribution.
b) Include a _written_ offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party a machine-readable copy of the source (free or at cost of producing the copy)
c) [valid for non-commercial distribution by someone who received only a binary distribution to begin with] pass along the info you received as an offer to obtain the source when you received your copy
So it's a bit more than just provide if asked -- they must take several steps to inform recipients of the licensing terms and availability of the source and to identify their contribution.
I don't know that you can blame Khoi for the ad intro -- The Onion has had that for a lot longer than it's had an unreadable layout. Actually, for a site I (used to) know I want to visit, I don't mind an intro ad like that too much. Especially since Adblock eliminates it, leaving only a 'click here' link.
But I'm with many of the others here -- I was a big fan of the Onion, even recently, because they usually had at least a few funny bits every week. With the new layout, I can't tell what is a new story, what is a link to archived content, what is an ad, etc. I just gave up because of the new layout. It's just not worth it any more.
Plus, my favorite section was the "What Do You Think." The new daily version of that just isn't as funny. Part of the humor was that you had the same 6 photos every week with new names/occupations. It's now a week's worth of 3 quotes a day with the same two sets of 3 photos repeating every other day. That sort of kills the effect for me. Also, having a whole slew of topics every week just overdoes the joke.
I'm glad you found this guy's question trivial, but I can't help but wonder why someone so obviously of above average intelligence lacks the reading comprehension to understand the simple request not to post answers in the thread.
There's another important reason for documentation separate from the code (i.e., a spec). Non-trivial code will have many effects, some of which are intended (i.e., would be part of the spec) and some of which are just implementation-specific details that are of no particular significance. Taking an approach of "well we have the code so we can always be compatible" also makes it very hard to change that code later -- is that side effect of the algorithm part of the spec in a subtle way? When you've got compatible code in multiple projects, it's no longer practical to look over all the implementations and make sure you'll work with all of them.
You could argue that this could be handled with careful commenting of the code. However, that is effectively a spec in itself and is subject to many of the same difficulties, such as the risk of not being updated and contradicting the actual code.
It's precisely because of this that the requirement (which Apple appears not to have met) of a complete internal investigation must be done first. The company needs to demonstrate to the court that its bases are covered and that the trade secret really was very likely misappropriated.
There are several reasons. Overzealous such protection will only encourage disgruntled employees to abuse the system. This case is a pretty good example of abuse of the "whistle-blowing" system -- do you really think that an employee leaking details of a Garage Band product is trying to prevent Apple from establishing a morally corrupt regime?Also, journalists have a financial interest in obtaining and publishing trade secrets. If you allow them to protect their sources (and by so-doing make it very difficult to prove that they misappropriated that trade secret), then you're encouraging their behavior.
Anyway, I agree that it is important that there be mechanisms for anonymous whistle-blowing. However, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to say that in a case where the "whistle-blowing" amounted to a leak of a product spec the journalist really doesn't have a legitimate interest in protecting his source. There is just absolutely no way the source or journalist in this situation thought they were acting to protect the public from some wrong doing. The journalist was trying to scoop everyone by publishing what he almost certainly knew to be illegally obtained information.
So, yes, the law does make him bound by the contract inasmuch as he has reason to know that the secrets are secrets.
In this case, it seems that the journalist himself may have broken the law. If the company claiming a tort can show that there is no way he got it through legitimate channels, he better be able to show that he thought he was publishing legally-obtained information.More on the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which is used by most US states.
This is a little different than a lot of First Amendment cases in that the information the journalist obtained was simply trade secrets. While I think First Amendment rights are extremely important, I don't see protecting the source of a trade secret in the same light as, say, protecting a whistle blower who tips off a journalist to illegal or morally corrupt behavior.
If you obtained trade secrets under an NDA, you do NOT have the right to tell those to a journalist at all. If a company can prove that it has ensured that anyone who had access to the information was bound not to share it, that's pretty good evidence the journalist did not have a legitimate source. Either it was "stolen" by someone, or someone breached their contract. In that case, the journalist may have broken the law by inducing the leak. It seems reasonable to investigate, and part of that investigation would be asking the journalist where he got the information.
Really? I guess mine must have been an earlier version -- it was a real printer and worked with Linux from the very start. I even got to go buy old 70ns simms to upgrade its ram. Seems like it was a bit more than $129 too -- probably $200 or $250. Ah well...
That's the one -- NEC Superscript. Very nice printer. The only thing I didn't like was the external paper storage, but for the price, it was a great printer.
Right on... I got the 1710ML for under $100 and have been happy with it so far. However, it's kind of a laser printer with the inkjet business model -- it comes with a "starter" toner that is only good for 1500 pages or so, then you get to buy expensive toner cartridges that are good for 3000-5000 pages (I think). The 1710 replaced my old NEC consumer laser printer (don't remember the part number) on which the paper handling system gave out before I ever had to replace the toner. That lasted about 5 years, including a lot of printing while I was working on my Master's thesis.
You don't necessarily need humans aboard to do this. In fact, you're probably much better off without the need for the additional "fuel" (air, food, water) and radiation protection etc. All that is heavy and reduces your cargo.