When designing the test, shouldn't it have been part of the design criteria that the third party application actually be built for the versions of the operating systems being tested? It seems to be the fundamental disconnect people have issue with is that the vendor app was built for windows xp and for either a later version of SuSE or for distributions that include a newer version of glibc.
Since glibc upgrades are generally part of a complete os upgrade, wouldn't it have been more fair to use a distribution that includes the required glibc version, or use a product that doesnt require that glibc version?
Isnt this test almost akin to asking the windows administrators to install a software application built for vista onto a windows xp box?
It seems to me that what the study really says is that you shouldnt install software built for SuSE Enterprise 9 on a box running SuSe Enterprise 8 without upgrading the operating system.
I would be concerned for the CTO's sanity if the he mandated we had to use a certain vendor app, mandated that we couldn't upgrade the operating system to one that supports the system requirements of that app, and demanded we backport massively invasive changes that could destroy the server to get it to work.
Look at the failures. BeOS. Rhapsody. Plan 9, etc.
Rhapsody wasnt really a from scratch OS, so it shouldnt be included in this list.
Plan 9 wasn't a failure. The goal with Plan 9 was never to be a commercially successful operating system. It's a research operating system. The fact that a few companies have used it for commercial products does not mean it must succeed commercially to have fulfilled its designers' objectives.
BeOS did fail, but it never really had a chance to succeed. It was killed by predatory practices before it had a chance to succeed or fail on it's own merits. As a result, the only conclusion i would draw from BeOS is that a totally new operating system cannot succeed in a market where a monopoly that employs predatory tactics holds sway.
Everyone, including the financial backers, approve of the purchase of SuSE and agree with the strategy Novell is trying to implement. The problem is that they dont have faith in the executive management team to implement the plan successfully. They arent looking to scrap the company's migration to linux. They're looking at whether they should get a new management team to finish implementing the plan, or give the current management more time.
The article even includes a Linux success story at the end where a chain of fitness stores abandoned the patch-and-pray cycle of Windows in favour of a Netware on SuSE linux solution. Their I.T. manager says the move has saved them over $400k.
Even if you believe there's a conspiracy to keep articles that are negative toward linux off of Slashdot, this certainly wouldn't qualify as one.
I disagree with your position. They are under no obligation to continue distributing source code unless they continue to distribute the linux kernel. They are also under no obligation at any time to make that source code available to anyone who didn't acquire a copy of the linux kernel from them. They were distributing the source to people they had no contractual relationship with and to whom they had no obligation under the GPL to provide the source code.
As soon as they believe they own a copyright on code in the kernel and decide that code shouldnt be GPLd, they have an obligation to stop distributing the linux kernel. The only license that allows them to distribute the code in the kernel that they don't claim ownership of is the GPL. If they choose to not distribute the code they claim under the GPL, it is their responsibility to either strip it out before continuing distribution, or cease distributing the code they do not assert ownership of.
To do anything else would have to imply consent for the code to be released under the GPL or be a premeditated willful infringement of the copyrights of the owners of the rest of the kernel code.
I doubt a court is going to allow a company to infringe many people's copyrights because it would be harmful to the company to take the effort to properly defend the copyright it claims on elements of a codebase.
If IBM were not entitled to include the code in Linux then it was never under the GPL.
until SCO released it under the GPL, you are correct.
Or else I could just slap the GPL on the leaked Windows Source Code and say "ha, well it's GPL now"
the issue the grandparent was pointing out is that SCO distributed a GPL'd linux kernel containing the code they claim to own. As the (supposed) owners, they certainly would have the legal right to relicense that code and by releasing it as part of the linux kernel under the GPL, they have relicensed it.
The only defense they could have is that they didn't know it was in there and shouldn't be forced to "accidentally" GPL code via an act of copyright violation. This doesn't fly, however, because they continued to distribute the linux kernel, and the code they claim is infringing in it, under the GPL for a year after they initially madethe claims. It's hard to say you didnt know it was in there when you've filed a lawsuit specifically about it.
Look at places like silicon valley. The cost of living is ridiculous. In some places, $20k/year is a livable salary. Hell, my mother raised two kids on a lot less. In Silicon Valley or New York, you'd be homeless.
I remember reading somewhere that garbage men in New York make $50k/year. it's not that they're better garbage men than garbage men in boise, it's just that it costs a hell of a lot more to live in New York.
When the salaries of programmers are forced downwards by H1Bs, the cost of living in these areas doesnt necessarily go down.
Language evolves. Terms shift in meaning to adapt to the changing times. Deal with it.
popular language evolves. legal language has a defined legal meaning and the court doesnt care how inappropriately it is used outside the court.
Copyright infringement _IS_ considered theft, even if it does happen to match _YOUR_ definition.
It doesnt necessarily match the legal definition. Title 17, Chapter 5 (Copyright infringement and Remedies) doesn't call copyright infringement theft anywhere.
It does distinguish between copyright infringement and criminal copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is punishable as described in Title 18, Chapter 113, section 2319. Chapter 113 is entitled "Stolen Property", which certainly implies theft is an appropriate term.
However, at best that means that theft is an appropriate term only for criminal copyright infringement as defined in section 506 of chapter 5 of title 17. It also means that it would have to meet the requirements for willful criminal infringement. That subsection, btw, specifically says "For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
So Copyright Infringement isn't theft. Willful Criminal Copyright Infringement is punished under stolen property laws and could reasonably be called theft.
two major caveats to this: 1: i'm not a lawyer, i just know how to find the U.S. Code website. 2: the events in the story take place in China and none of this matters. In China, it may or may not be theft.
(after perusing the Chinese copyright law, it appears even less like theft in chinese law. They appear to only have civil liability and remedies and no provision for any act of copyright infringement to have criminal liability or remedies)
Tell that to Joe Camel. Perhaps there wouldn't be criminal charges, but I can guarantee that they would be sued.
there's a difference between a television show and an advertisement for a product that is illegal to sell to minors.
Ah yes, Animation is reserved for children in the US. Any adult that enjoys animation must have something mentally wrong with them. Never mind that animation provides a simple, cheap medium for surrealistic story telling. Nevermind that the opinion that cartoons should be reserved for children didn't exist in the US until sometime in the 80s.
The post you are responding to never made that assertion. it merely said that kids are the primary audience for animation in the United States (which is true). As a result, the majority of japanese animation shown on U.S. television is targeted at kids. Sure there's plenty of animation that isnt targeted at kids, like South Park, Adult Swim, etc. Nobody really seems to have a real problem airing those shows.
I have worked at one of the largest japanese animation conventions in the U.S. every year for the past 14 years and, while there's lots of adults involved in animation, the real explosion of anime fans have been in the teen ages.
As it stands in the US, you have to use bittorrent (or other P2P program) to obtain uncensored materia or you order them and have them shipped to you, like many anime fans did before the advent of high bandwidth internet connections.
Of course, using these programs, you face the possibility of having the FBI arrest you for violating "Community Standards", or have the MPAA sue you for copywrite violation, despite the fact that uncensored versions are not available in a legal way in the US.
Name one case where a person was arrested by the FBI for violating community standards for watching anime in their own home.
The MPAA cannot sue you for copyright violation unless they have the right to do so assigned to them by the owner of the copyright. The japanese anime studios have never, to my knowledge, worked through the MPAA. They do try to shut down the distribution and public showing of bootlegs in the U.S. (at conventions, for example), but they tend to do so by offering legal content to replace the bootlegs.
Nobody said adults who like animation were mental patients. Nobody is mass censoring animation in the name of the children. Hell, you can buy tentacle porn at Fry's.
I have no idea how much of the gates foundation's dollars get earmarked for disease. I know they do things other than disease so i wouldnt want to speculate on how much, on average, goes specifically to fighting disease. I also dont know the breakdown of any of the other donations so i couldnt speculate on how much goes to disease from other sources either.
I'm not sure why we should distinguish between giving money to fight disease and giving money for other charitable causes, though.
Although i do tend to agree with the sentiment that it's easier to give 20 billion to charity when you have 60 billion to start with than it is to give 20 thousand to charity when you only have 50 thousand to start with, i do appreciate the fact that he is doing some good with the excesses of cash he has.
I dislike Gates. But he isnt pure evil. Doing something good ( even to the tune of billions of dollars ) doesnt have any bearing on all the bad things he does; it just means he's human.
I have to point out that Bill and Melinda Gates have given more money, adjusted for inflation, than all other people who have ever ever lived, combined, for the entire history of humanity, to fight terrible and devastating diseases in underdeveloped and impoverished countries.
not to say that i dont appreciate his donations to charity, but I doubt this is true.
I believe the Gates foundation is worth about $26 Billion dollars.
If we look at other modern charitable foundations : William and Flora Hewlett Foundation : 6.5 billion David and Cecille Packard Foundation : 5.36 billion Gordon and Betty Moore Foundatin : 4.8 billion
If we look at historical charity donations (adjusted for inflation and based off of the time of death for the individual instead of the time the contribution was made (for simplicity's sake)): Carnegie : 350 million adjusts to 4.3 billion Rockefeller : 540 million adjusts to 7.2 billion
Using those 5 sources, i've already exceeded 26 billion and while that doesnt include the money already spent by his foundation, it also doesnt include the money spent by the other foundations listed, nor the vast number of foundations not listed, nor individual contributions from "normal" people.
(note, i stuck with just U.S. sources so that i didnt have to deal with exchange rates. I'm sure if we included the rest of the world, the total amount of money donated to charity by humanity in general would dwarf the Gates foundation.)
There is no way to explain why beings who are literally frothing with homicidal rage do not turn on each other. actually, i get the impression that they do periodically turn on each other. When they were pretending to be a reaver ship and going through the reaver's space, i recall one reaver ship tearing another reaver ship apart.
Maybe their rage is directed at order and society. Since they live in a state of near anarchy, they dont become the focus of their rage. maybe they hate humanity and their destruction of their own faces and flesh is about destroying their resemblance to humanity. They dont go after each other because they are sufficiently inhuman.
And while we're on the subject, why does the 'empire' not simply go exterminate them? the empire would have to acknowledge their existance to mount a campaign to exterminate them. Also, they are conveniently acting as a barrier to keep people away from the evidence of the empire's mistake at Miranda while they decide how they want to proceed.
If i remember correctly, the reavers have only been around for about 12 years at the time of the movie and there were about 3000 of them at the start. The lack of a propagation path isnt a real problem because they havent had time to die out yet.
The answer to how they propagate is actually explained in the series, though. They sometimes choose victims on their raids and torture them and make them watch their acts and participate in their acts until their minds snap. Then they start teaching them to be reavers. They dont breed. They make more reavers out of selected captives.
Hmm...all Apple needs to do to verify the scope of this problem is open up a web browser. To say there's been a lot in the media about the iPod Nano and its butter-soft screen would be a masterpiece of understatement. Googling 'ipod nano screen scratch' yields 521,000 results.
Personally, i'm greatly offended with the amount of attention this is getting in light of so much more serious problems. Almost nobody in this country seems to care about the rampant and unchecked violence of werewolves against the U.S. population. The problem should be clear and obvious to the government and the population. One has merely to do a Google search on "werewolf attack 2004 u.s." to find that there were almost half a million werewolf attacks last year in this country.
Sure there are many industries that make money peripherally from music piracy, but i think it is clear that the original statement meant basing your business on piracy. I do tend to agree that even that can still be profitable if you are in the right country.
For example: Just because Apple makes money on iTunes (ie: legitimate music sales) they make far, far more on sales of the iPod -- which are prediated on the availability of free pirated music. iTunes keeps Apple's music initiatives legitimate, but to say that Apple hasn't benefited from piracy would be wrong.
I strongly disagree with the assertion that the iPod's sales are predicated on the availability of free pirated music. The iTunes store has sold over half a billion songs and cd sales last year were around $33 billion. That's a whole lot of legitimate music for the 20+ million iPods to play.
Hell, I pull out my wallet for storage and playback media far, far more than I do for music. And I don't think I'm unusual at all -- most people are the same.
I'd like to see some numbers to support that claim. It seems to me that there's still a lot of music being purchased legally. I don't have a real concrete idea of the numbers of tracks acquired illegally. I dont know where you'd go to get reliable estimates of that either. All the estimates i've see came from sources with a vested interest in overstating its occurrence.
Now that all the major options for desktop systems run on intel, they want to see os competition. Erosion of Microsoft's desktop monopoly by Apple no longer equates to loss of market share for intel. Now they'd like to see Microsoft's influence reduced and be the only 800 lb. gorilla in the x86 world.
I dont think they are focused on IBM powered consoles as much as they are focused on being the last monopoly standing in the desktop market....or at least making sure that if AMD takes them down in court, nobody else is standing either.
but the problem then is that you and he have identical buckets of chips. When playing them, you'll both get caught and thrown out. If you make a bucket of fakes and switch them for someone's bucket of real chips, then you look like a legit player and he goes down for the counterfeit.
you wait and collect information. Bob at machine 3 played a chip with the same id as Ted at machine 5. Bob at machine 3 played a chip with the same id as Kim at machine 9. Bob at machine 3 played a chip with the same id as Joe at machine 43.
I wonder who has the counterfeit chips.
A better scam would be to counterfeit enough chips for a bucket and then switch an innocent person's bucket for one full of counterfeits.
So a forked right version quite obviously would have multiple copyright holders, for the new and old code. Right? Right.
right
What happens to the forked version if and when the copyright holder decides to re-license their code under a more stringent license?
nothing
Are they now forced to either license the code or drop the product?
no. they still have a valid license to use the code they have under the GPL. The owner changing licenses has no effect on people who already have a valid license.
What happens if they re-license to a non-derivative license?
doesnt matter
Is the forked version permanently grandfathered in, so that they can continue to modify the code? I'm not really sure at all how this works.
no need to grandfather it in. The codebase they are working off of is still licensed under the GPL.
When I was in 7th grade, I was in a humanities class. In 8th grade I was in a class called "Reach" which was basically a philosophy class. Granted, these were classes for "gifted and talented" students, but they did exist.
Though I have no retort about astrology, geography deals almost exclusively in flat earth teachings.
no, geography doesn't. You even disprove your own assertion in your next statement.
Ever notice how maps are rather flat and 2d? Cartography deals with the many ways of representing the spherical earth in a 2d plane, be it the orange slice, projection, or perhaps the disco ball mgrs/utm methods.
As you yourself have just pointed out, they are representing a spherical earth (i.e. not flat). Therefore, they have nothing to do with the failed flat earth theory the grandparent was referring to.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting the argument you are responding to, or do you really not know what the flat earth teachings are?
To continue the analogy, teaching ONLY creationism is like teaching geography/cartography ONLY with globes, and no flat maps or charts.
This is an interesting reversal (although, i doubt it was intentional). The grandparent post likened creationism to the failed idea of a flat earth, and you've "continued the analogy" by likening creationism to a spherical earth.
Slashdot Mirror
When designing the test, shouldn't it have been part of the design criteria that the third party application actually be built for the versions of the operating systems being tested? It seems to be the fundamental disconnect people have issue with is that the vendor app was built for windows xp and for either a later version of SuSE or for distributions that include a newer version of glibc.
Since glibc upgrades are generally part of a complete os upgrade, wouldn't it have been more fair to use a distribution that includes the required glibc version, or use a product that doesnt require that glibc version?
Isnt this test almost akin to asking the windows administrators to install a software application built for vista onto a windows xp box?
It seems to me that what the study really says is that you shouldnt install software built for SuSE Enterprise 9 on a box running SuSe Enterprise 8 without upgrading the operating system.
I would be concerned for the CTO's sanity if the he mandated we had to use a certain vendor app, mandated that we couldn't upgrade the operating system to one that supports the system requirements of that app, and demanded we backport massively invasive changes that could destroy the server to get it to work.
We don't even have any way to write numbers that doesn't require smaller numbers to write them, except for the numbers -9 to 9.
of course we do.
Hexadecimal, for example, allows 0 - 15 without needing smaller numbers to display the value.
that wasn't a netware pun. that was a sony drm pun.
Look at the failures. BeOS. Rhapsody. Plan 9, etc.
Rhapsody wasnt really a from scratch OS, so it shouldnt be included in this list.
Plan 9 wasn't a failure. The goal with Plan 9 was never to be a commercially successful operating system. It's a research operating system. The fact that a few companies have used it for commercial products does not mean it must succeed commercially to have fulfilled its designers' objectives.
BeOS did fail, but it never really had a chance to succeed. It was killed by predatory practices before it had a chance to succeed or fail on it's own merits. As a result, the only conclusion i would draw from BeOS is that a totally new operating system cannot succeed in a market where a monopoly that employs predatory tactics holds sway.
I dont see why this story wouldn't get posted.
Everyone, including the financial backers, approve of the purchase of SuSE and agree with the strategy Novell is trying to implement. The problem is that they dont have faith in the executive management team to implement the plan successfully. They arent looking to scrap the company's migration to linux. They're looking at whether they should get a new management team to finish implementing the plan, or give the current management more time.
The article even includes a Linux success story at the end where a chain of fitness stores abandoned the patch-and-pray cycle of Windows in favour of a Netware on SuSE linux solution. Their I.T. manager says the move has saved them over $400k.
Even if you believe there's a conspiracy to keep articles that are negative toward linux off of Slashdot, this certainly wouldn't qualify as one.
I disagree with your position. They are under no obligation to continue distributing source code unless they continue to distribute the linux kernel. They are also under no obligation at any time to make that source code available to anyone who didn't acquire a copy of the linux kernel from them.
They were distributing the source to people they had no contractual relationship with and to whom they had no obligation under the GPL to provide the source code.
As soon as they believe they own a copyright on code in the kernel and decide that code shouldnt be GPLd, they have an obligation to stop distributing the linux kernel. The only license that allows them to distribute the code in the kernel that they don't claim ownership of is the GPL. If they choose to not distribute the code they claim under the GPL, it is their responsibility to either strip it out before continuing distribution, or cease distributing the code they do not assert ownership of.
To do anything else would have to imply consent for the code to be released under the GPL or be a premeditated willful infringement of the copyrights of the owners of the rest of the kernel code.
I doubt a court is going to allow a company to infringe many people's copyrights because it would be harmful to the company to take the effort to properly defend the copyright it claims on elements of a codebase.
If IBM were not entitled to include the code in Linux then it was never under the GPL.
until SCO released it under the GPL, you are correct.
Or else I could just slap the GPL on the leaked Windows Source Code and say "ha, well it's GPL now"
the issue the grandparent was pointing out is that SCO distributed a GPL'd linux kernel containing the code they claim to own. As the (supposed) owners, they certainly would have the legal right to relicense that code and by releasing it as part of the linux kernel under the GPL, they have relicensed it.
The only defense they could have is that they didn't know it was in there and shouldn't be forced to "accidentally" GPL code via an act of copyright violation. This doesn't fly, however, because they continued to distribute the linux kernel, and the code they claim is infringing in it, under the GPL for a year after they initially madethe claims. It's hard to say you didnt know it was in there when you've filed a lawsuit specifically about it.
What's the cost of being monitored by Tivo or having your saved television expired when they compromise with content providers?
as opposed to the cost of trusting those paragons of consumer and privacy rights over at Microsoft?
You arent taking into account the cost of living.
Look at places like silicon valley. The cost of living is ridiculous. In some places, $20k/year is a livable salary. Hell, my mother raised two kids on a lot less. In Silicon Valley or New York, you'd be homeless.
I remember reading somewhere that garbage men in New York make $50k/year. it's not that they're better garbage men than garbage men in boise, it's just that it costs a hell of a lot more to live in New York.
When the salaries of programmers are forced downwards by H1Bs, the cost of living in these areas doesnt necessarily go down.
Language evolves. Terms shift in meaning to adapt to the changing times. Deal with it.
popular language evolves. legal language has a defined legal meaning and the court doesnt care how inappropriately it is used outside the court.
Copyright infringement _IS_ considered theft, even if it does happen to match _YOUR_ definition.
It doesnt necessarily match the legal definition. Title 17, Chapter 5 (Copyright infringement and Remedies) doesn't call copyright infringement theft anywhere.
It does distinguish between copyright infringement and criminal copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is punishable as described in Title 18, Chapter 113, section 2319. Chapter 113 is entitled "Stolen Property", which certainly implies theft is an appropriate term.
However, at best that means that theft is an appropriate term only for criminal copyright infringement as defined in section 506 of chapter 5 of title 17. It also means that it would have to meet the requirements for willful criminal infringement. That subsection, btw, specifically says "For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement."
So Copyright Infringement isn't theft. Willful Criminal Copyright Infringement is punished under stolen property laws and could reasonably be called theft.
two major caveats to this:
1: i'm not a lawyer, i just know how to find the U.S. Code website.
2: the events in the story take place in China and none of this matters. In China, it may or may not be theft.
(after perusing the Chinese copyright law, it appears even less like theft in chinese law. They appear to only have civil liability and remedies and no provision for any act of copyright infringement to have criminal liability or remedies)
Tell that to Joe Camel. Perhaps there wouldn't be criminal charges, but I can guarantee that they would be sued.
there's a difference between a television show and an advertisement for a product that is illegal to sell to minors.
Ah yes, Animation is reserved for children in the US. Any adult that enjoys animation must have something mentally wrong with them. Never mind that animation provides a simple, cheap medium for surrealistic story telling. Nevermind that the opinion that cartoons should be reserved for children didn't exist in the US until sometime in the 80s.
The post you are responding to never made that assertion. it merely said that kids are the primary audience for animation in the United States (which is true). As a result, the majority of japanese animation shown on U.S. television is targeted at kids. Sure there's plenty of animation that isnt targeted at kids, like South Park, Adult Swim, etc. Nobody really seems to have a real problem airing those shows.
I have worked at one of the largest japanese animation conventions in the U.S. every year for the past 14 years and, while there's lots of adults involved in animation, the real explosion of anime fans have been in the teen ages.
As it stands in the US, you have to use bittorrent (or other P2P program) to obtain uncensored materia
or you order them and have them shipped to you, like many anime fans did before the advent of high bandwidth internet connections.
Of course, using these programs, you face the possibility of having the FBI arrest you for violating "Community Standards", or have the MPAA sue you for copywrite violation, despite the fact that uncensored versions are not available in a legal way in the US.
Name one case where a person was arrested by the FBI for violating community standards for watching anime in their own home.
The MPAA cannot sue you for copyright violation unless they have the right to do so assigned to them by the owner of the copyright. The japanese anime studios have never, to my knowledge, worked through the MPAA. They do try to shut down the distribution and public showing of bootlegs in the U.S. (at conventions, for example), but they tend to do so by offering legal content to replace the bootlegs.
Nobody said adults who like animation were mental patients. Nobody is mass censoring animation in the name of the children.
Hell, you can buy tentacle porn at Fry's.
I have no idea how much of the gates foundation's dollars get earmarked for disease. I know they do things other than disease so i wouldnt want to speculate on how much, on average, goes specifically to fighting disease.
I also dont know the breakdown of any of the other donations so i couldnt speculate on how much goes to disease from other sources either.
I'm not sure why we should distinguish between giving money to fight disease and giving money for other charitable causes, though.
Although i do tend to agree with the sentiment that it's easier to give 20 billion to charity when you have 60 billion to start with than it is to give 20 thousand to charity when you only have 50 thousand to start with, i do appreciate the fact that he is doing some good with the excesses of cash he has.
I dislike Gates. But he isnt pure evil. Doing something good ( even to the tune of billions of dollars ) doesnt have any bearing on all the bad things he does; it just means he's human.
I have to point out that Bill and Melinda Gates have given more money, adjusted for inflation, than all other people who have ever ever lived, combined, for the entire history of humanity, to fight terrible and devastating diseases in underdeveloped and impoverished countries.
not to say that i dont appreciate his donations to charity, but I doubt this is true.
I believe the Gates foundation is worth about $26 Billion dollars.
If we look at other modern charitable foundations :
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation : 6.5 billion
David and Cecille Packard Foundation : 5.36 billion
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundatin : 4.8 billion
If we look at historical charity donations (adjusted for inflation and based off of the time of death for the individual instead of the time the contribution was made (for simplicity's sake)):
Carnegie : 350 million adjusts to 4.3 billion
Rockefeller : 540 million adjusts to 7.2 billion
Using those 5 sources, i've already exceeded 26 billion and while that doesnt include the money already spent by his foundation, it also doesnt include the money spent by the other foundations listed, nor the vast number of foundations not listed, nor individual contributions from "normal" people.
(note, i stuck with just U.S. sources so that i didnt have to deal with exchange rates. I'm sure if we included the rest of the world, the total amount of money donated to charity by humanity in general would dwarf the Gates foundation.)
There is no way to explain why beings who are literally frothing with homicidal rage do not turn on each other.
actually, i get the impression that they do periodically turn on each other. When they were pretending to be a reaver ship and going through the reaver's space, i recall one reaver ship tearing another reaver ship apart.
Maybe their rage is directed at order and society. Since they live in a state of near anarchy, they dont become the focus of their rage. maybe they hate humanity and their destruction of their own faces and flesh is about destroying their resemblance to humanity. They dont go after each other because they are sufficiently inhuman.
And while we're on the subject, why does the 'empire' not simply go exterminate them?
the empire would have to acknowledge their existance to mount a campaign to exterminate them. Also, they are conveniently acting as a barrier to keep people away from the evidence of the empire's mistake at Miranda while they decide how they want to proceed.
yeah. i corrected my typo immediately after i posted it.
correction. i think it's 30000 reavers, not 3000.
A couple of points about this...
If i remember correctly, the reavers have only been around for about 12 years at the time of the movie and there were about 3000 of them at the start. The lack of a propagation path isnt a real problem because they havent had time to die out yet.
The answer to how they propagate is actually explained in the series, though. They sometimes choose victims on their raids and torture them and make them watch their acts and participate in their acts until their minds snap. Then they start teaching them to be reavers. They dont breed. They make more reavers out of selected captives.
Hmm...all Apple needs to do to verify the scope of this problem is open up a web browser. To say there's been a lot in the media about the iPod Nano and its butter-soft screen would be a masterpiece of understatement. Googling 'ipod nano screen scratch' yields 521,000 results.
Personally, i'm greatly offended with the amount of attention this is getting in light of so much more serious problems.
Almost nobody in this country seems to care about the rampant and unchecked violence of werewolves against the U.S. population.
The problem should be clear and obvious to the government and the population. One has merely to do a Google search on "werewolf attack 2004 u.s." to find that there were almost half a million werewolf attacks last year in this country.
That's just ridiculous.
Sure there are many industries that make money peripherally from music piracy, but i think it is clear that the original statement meant basing your business on piracy. I do tend to agree that even that can still be profitable if you are in the right country.
For example: Just because Apple makes money on iTunes (ie: legitimate music sales) they make far, far more on sales of the iPod -- which are prediated on the availability of free pirated music. iTunes keeps Apple's music initiatives legitimate, but to say that Apple hasn't benefited from piracy would be wrong.
I strongly disagree with the assertion that the iPod's sales are predicated on the availability of free pirated music. The iTunes store has sold over half a billion songs and cd sales last year were around $33 billion. That's a whole lot of legitimate music for the 20+ million iPods to play.
Hell, I pull out my wallet for storage and playback media far, far more than I do for music. And I don't think I'm unusual at all -- most people are the same.
I'd like to see some numbers to support that claim. It seems to me that there's still a lot of music being purchased legally. I don't have a real concrete idea of the numbers of tracks acquired illegally. I dont know where you'd go to get reliable estimates of that either. All the estimates i've see came from sources with a vested interest in overstating its occurrence.
Now that all the major options for desktop systems run on intel, they want to see os competition. Erosion of Microsoft's desktop monopoly by Apple no longer equates to loss of market share for intel. Now they'd like to see Microsoft's influence reduced and be the only 800 lb. gorilla in the x86 world.
I dont think they are focused on IBM powered consoles as much as they are focused on being the last monopoly standing in the desktop market....or at least making sure that if AMD takes them down in court, nobody else is standing either.
but the problem then is that you and he have identical buckets of chips. When playing them, you'll both get caught and thrown out.
If you make a bucket of fakes and switch them for someone's bucket of real chips, then you look like a legit player and he goes down for the counterfeit.
you wait and collect information.
Bob at machine 3 played a chip with the same id as Ted at machine 5.
Bob at machine 3 played a chip with the same id as Kim at machine 9.
Bob at machine 3 played a chip with the same id as Joe at machine 43.
I wonder who has the counterfeit chips.
A better scam would be to counterfeit enough chips for a bucket and then switch an innocent person's bucket for one full of counterfeits.
So a forked right version quite obviously would have multiple copyright holders, for the new and old code. Right? Right.
right
What happens to the forked version if and when the copyright holder decides to re-license their code under a more stringent license?
nothing
Are they now forced to either license the code or drop the product?
no. they still have a valid license to use the code they have under the GPL. The owner changing licenses has no effect on people who already have a valid license.
What happens if they re-license to a non-derivative license?
doesnt matter
Is the forked version permanently grandfathered in, so that they can continue to modify the code? I'm not really sure at all how this works.
no need to grandfather it in. The codebase they are working off of is still licensed under the GPL.
When I was in 7th grade, I was in a humanities class. In 8th grade I was in a class called "Reach" which was basically a philosophy class.
Granted, these were classes for "gifted and talented" students, but they did exist.
(that was in the mid-80s, if you are wondering)
Though I have no retort about astrology, geography deals almost exclusively in flat earth teachings.
no, geography doesn't. You even disprove your own assertion in your next statement.
Ever notice how maps are rather flat and 2d? Cartography deals with the many ways of representing the spherical earth in a 2d plane, be it the orange slice, projection, or perhaps the disco ball mgrs/utm methods.
As you yourself have just pointed out, they are representing a spherical earth (i.e. not flat). Therefore, they have nothing to do with the failed flat earth theory the grandparent was referring to.
Are you deliberately misrepresenting the argument you are responding to, or do you really not know what the flat earth teachings are?
To continue the analogy, teaching ONLY creationism is like teaching geography/cartography ONLY with globes, and no flat maps or charts.
This is an interesting reversal (although, i doubt it was intentional). The grandparent post likened creationism to the failed idea of a flat earth, and you've "continued the analogy" by likening creationism to a spherical earth.