It's not something you'd normally do, really. It's only useful in the manner they're proposing it- the process is hideously energy hungry and it's only useful in the sense of taking a bunch of solar thermal energy that'd go unused, wasted, and apply it aggressively to the limestone from the area.
This dumps reagent pure CO2 into the environment, which could be used to help enrich certain agricultural aspects in arid areas, and produces quicklime. From there, you cart the stuff out to the ocean, where the shift of acidity back to more of an alkaline nature and the absorption of part of the CO2 from the water to re-make limestone eats nearly twice the amount of CO2 dumped into the environment because of a stacked-deck condition that's only applicable for a while. IF your transportation emissions cost is negligible or reasonable, this whole thing works rather well, actually, so long as you're being cautious with the process.
If you'd have RTFA, you'd see they're proposing doing this in places where they've raftloads of SOLAR energy in a situation that's impractical to utilize it for our needs right now- that, amazingly, have raftloads of limestone to convert to Quicklime.
They're not proposing doing it akin to the Lime industry...
You actually need both things... Because all of it has an impact.
That bicycle? It produced as much or more pollution as the car burning the gasoline to produce it unless you're making it entirely out of wood. The same goes for most of the other ones you brought up.
By themselves, they don't accomplish much of anything- and actually in some cases are worse than the "fixes" we've done in the past (Something else you mentioned...).
You've got to take in an even bigger picture than you're doing- otherwise you're no better than the people you're tarring with that brush of yours.
Heh... Because of the CO2 we already have in the atmosphere, it's too acid right now. All they're doing is a process mother nature already does (Much like Thermal Depolymerization does with biomass and plastics to break it down into natural gas and sweet crude...). Strange as it seems, it might actually do some good- but it's a bold thing they're proposing.
Galinstan can be pumped via magneto-hydrodynamic action throughout the sealed system- no moving parts and intrinsically nothing to wear out. Oh, and you very definitely do not want to use Aluminum in the system. It alloys away aluminum like Mercury does- disintegrates it FAST.
I don't think you'd want to use flex hoses, but a pre-built, rigid cooling system, using glass or certain copper alloys known to not be directly attacked by Galinstan like aluminum is and purge the air out and charge what few air gaps you have with argon, you SHOULD have a gem of a system. While it's thermal capacity is lower than water or mineral oil (Yes, I've done my own tinkering- including toying with an idea or two with Galinstan; unfortunately the stuff's just insanely expensive to have the volume of metal I'd have needed to do the idea- something on the order of about $1500 or so in the stuff...) it's thermal conductivity is right on up there with Copper and it effectively yanks the heat right on out if you've got enough heat exchange surface to dump the heat to. If you've got extremely high density heat dissipation, this might actually be an answer.
However, if they are in the "security industry" or if they perform an "investigation" (and I couldn't find specific definitions of those) then they would need to be licensed.
Therein lies the rub- the definitions aren't rigidly defined and it's my understanding that there's shops being told they need to get a PI's license because of what they're doing; when in reality if you had them defined properly, they probably don't.
What I am trying to get funding for requires a PI's license or to operate under the auspices of one- not a problem for me, my business partner HAS that. Moreover, companies like MediaSentry, if they're going to do their thing, they're going to need one too- problem is for them, many of the things they do would get their license yanked pretty quickly when they got found out. Now, the shops doing virus sweeps, rescuing data off of a dead machine, that's where the people enforcing the laws here are telling them they're needing a PI's license- which is a bit over the top; but covered by the way the law is worded if you read it in the way that it's currently being read by law enforcement in Texas.
The problem lies in that they're conflating professions.
There's no issue in requiring a PE license (Professional Engineer) for a business- though it raises the bar a bit in running a PC repair business.
There's no issue in requiring a PI license for someone wanting to run a security consulting business.
The problem lies in requiring a PI license for a PC repair business as the jobs are not analogous, etc. It's like requiring a Doctor to retain a PI license.
It should be only where the professions sort of overlap that you should be requiring a PI or both a PE and a PI license- things like network/computer security audits. Dealing with a virus infection shouldn't require a CJ degree or a PI apprenticeship to do this. Therein lies the problem- the way the new law's worded, it's waaaay overbroad.
Actually, no. In the case of the example, the requirement for keeping source available for that instance is only for three years from the initial release of said binaries- of which, pretty much all the mainline distributions are in compliance.
Sorry, you didn't follow "b" closely. If you don't have an official relationship with that FTP site, you aren't even close to compliance- item "b" clearly states you have to provide the copy. Pointing someone to an FTP site that you have no official relationship (they don't know about you or haven't stated that they're providing the sources for you) isn't sufficient, even though it may "work" and is "convenient". It's not really compliance with that term of the GPL licensing grant.
The problem with your thinking is that GPL's only slightly more constraining than the BSD is in that regard. The price for the rights to make binary copies is to provide the source and the means unto which you accomplished the production of the binaries.
It's not a EULA. It's not a binding for end-users. It's for people distributing the stuff and making derivative works off of it.
If you're using it for the purpose it was designed for just yourself- or modifying it for yourself; why worry? It's when you distribute or make a derived work from it- and you'd have to concern yourself about this with ANY of it, even BSD has requirements in many instances (BSD has at least two variants, one which DOES impact distribution and derivative works, one that doesn't care at all about that or relicensing...some BSD licensed code uses the latter, much of it uses the former...); presuming one license allows you to not care about that sort of thing is FOLLY.
Unfortunately for them, this is a wee bit too late to dodge the consequences of their non-compliance and apparent unwillingness to work with the rights holder(s) with standing.
Simply put, the license is explicit and if you're in violation, you're no longer licensed and are infringing. Properly making it available to people upon being told you're breaking the rules is usually sufficient settlement and the rights holder(s) re-instates your licensing rights which were barred from the moment you violated the terms going forward. If you force them to go to court, it becomes a bit rougher for you as there isn't a single clause in the GPL that automatically gives you those rights back just by after-the-fact releasing the code per the terms.
The problem with this thinking is if it is compiled with the claimed non-in-house version, the binaries will compare the same- if they don't you show up as having cheated...
But dropping all of alt.* just because a few have had child porn floating about on them?
I'd still consider them to be overreacting more than the grandparent poster is on the subject as there's quite a bit more actual useful stuff in the alt.* branch as it was for anything that didn't fit into the normal comp.*, etc. branches of organization in USENET. As someone said, this is a convenient excuse to lose quite a bit of bandwidth consumption on their part.
And you don't need to worry... Either there will be a GPLed version, or the fork trigger set up by Trolltech to allay issues with KDE relying on their code will go off and it'll be a non-problem all the way around.
If the law's worded for as long as it is, you can bet your bottom dollar (Pound...whatever the currency is...) that it will get MISUSED. Just because they'll usually do what you're claiming, doesn't mean that the police won't use that power every so often, even if there is a unpopular uproar from it occasionally, until the law is changed- after all, it IS legal, it IS the law.
There is no hyperbole involved with the grandparent post whatsoever. You minimize that which will get misused- and with no more proof of this than anyone used with the DMCA or the PATRIOT Act over here in the States. And we all know precisely how "nowhere near as bad" those laws have panned out.
If your model doesn't account for a deviation, then your model is WRONG. I think you'll find that the direct measurements are being made nearby thermal accumulators (which the models have YET to account for as best as I can tell...) and the selfsame "indirect" measurements via satellite of the Earth don't show the same thing people keep parading about- and nothing that matches the "direct" measurements.
I'm not saying you or anyone saying what you're saying is wrong- but what you're using as a basis for your arguments and explanations doesn't match up to reality, or the scientific method, for that matter, any more than the people you're deriding right now.
Considering that many of the egregious driving by SUV owners seems to be when they have their cell-phone up to the head without a hands-free, I think it shouldn't be "aggressive" but "negligence" that they should be charged with. Most people don't seem to have the foggiest where the silly vehicle is when they're not on the phone- and it goes all the way out the window when they get on it while they're driving that behemoth.
Moreover, most of the people driving them are driving them as status symbols. Much like the dualies and whatnot were back in earlier times.
I've found that for every one bad tool, there's at least another that's at least "good".
How many "bad" or "inferior" tools have you used, in reality?
How many of them were actually for-pay tools that was at that $200-500 price point?
The fact of the matter is...there's an unfortunate reality that you're MISSING in your analogy.
There is a type of thinking in the industry that management ends up having in many, many companies. Money comes out of "buckets". Buying your software you're talking to comes out of another bucket than your already budgeted wage or salary. Typically it comes out of the expense or capital purchases bucket, which usually has a limited amount for things like that unless you're in a forward thinking company (There's you a hint!).
So, it's "cheaper" in the short to medium term to waste 1-2 weeks of your productivity over a $200 purchase because you "blew" the other budget all to hell by buying it.
Labor's "cheap" within most medium to large sized companies. Maintenance is "free". I'm seeing it all the time. It's usually because you end up with a manager at one of the middle to upper levels that hasn't a damn clue about how things really get done and they think in terms of producing simple manufactured items and get it all wrong.
In your analogy, if you were working where I am right now, you'd have had two other choices...
1) Find a different tool that was FOSS that DID work. 2) Implement your own version that is proprietary to the employer.
Buying something isn't really an option unless you're in the EE group- unless there really is no other choice available and then there'll be hell to pay. (I'll leave it as a mental exercise for you as to what form the hell will take...)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not something you'd normally do, really. It's only useful in the manner they're proposing it- the process is hideously energy hungry and it's only useful in the sense of taking a bunch of solar thermal energy that'd go unused, wasted, and apply it aggressively to the limestone from the area.
This dumps reagent pure CO2 into the environment, which could be used to help enrich certain agricultural aspects in arid areas, and produces quicklime. From there, you cart the stuff out to the ocean, where the shift of acidity back to more of an alkaline nature and the absorption of part of the CO2 from the water to re-make limestone eats nearly twice the amount of CO2 dumped into the environment because of a stacked-deck condition that's only applicable for a while. IF your transportation emissions cost is negligible or reasonable, this whole thing works rather well, actually, so long as you're being cautious with the process.
If you'd have RTFA, you'd see they're proposing doing this in places where they've raftloads of SOLAR energy in a situation that's impractical to utilize it for our needs right now- that, amazingly, have raftloads of limestone to convert to Quicklime.
They're not proposing doing it akin to the Lime industry...
You actually need both things... Because all of it has an impact.
That bicycle? It produced as much or more pollution as the car burning the gasoline to produce it unless you're making it entirely out of wood. The same goes for most of the other ones you brought up.
By themselves, they don't accomplish much of anything- and actually in some cases are worse than the "fixes" we've done in the past (Something else you mentioned...).
You've got to take in an even bigger picture than you're doing- otherwise you're no better than the people you're tarring with that brush of yours.
Heh... Because of the CO2 we already have in the atmosphere, it's too acid right now. All they're doing is a process mother nature already does (Much like Thermal Depolymerization does with biomass and plastics to break it down into natural gas and sweet crude...). Strange as it seems, it might actually do some good- but it's a bold thing they're proposing.
Use a sealed system.
Galinstan can be pumped via magneto-hydrodynamic action throughout the sealed system- no moving parts and intrinsically nothing to wear out. Oh, and you very definitely do not want to use Aluminum in the system. It alloys away aluminum like Mercury does- disintegrates it FAST.
I don't think you'd want to use flex hoses, but a pre-built, rigid cooling system, using glass or certain copper alloys known to not be directly attacked by Galinstan like aluminum is and purge the air out and charge what few air gaps you have with argon, you SHOULD have a gem of a system. While it's thermal capacity is lower than water or mineral oil (Yes, I've done my own tinkering- including toying with an idea or two with Galinstan; unfortunately the stuff's just insanely expensive to have the volume of metal I'd have needed to do the idea- something on the order of about $1500 or so in the stuff...) it's thermal conductivity is right on up there with Copper and it effectively yanks the heat right on out if you've got enough heat exchange surface to dump the heat to. If you've got extremely high density heat dissipation, this might actually be an answer.
Low user id? Heh... I guess when you've got a 790000 series id number, a 22000 series id would seem "low"... ;-)
Heh... If you're doing engineering work in the State of Texas (as opposed to some classes of consulting...), technically you already NEED one.
Therein lies the rub- the definitions aren't rigidly defined and it's my understanding that there's shops being told they need to get a PI's license because of what they're doing; when in reality if you had them defined properly, they probably don't.
What I am trying to get funding for requires a PI's license or to operate under the auspices of one- not a problem for me, my business partner HAS that. Moreover, companies like MediaSentry, if they're going to do their thing, they're going to need one too- problem is for them, many of the things they do would get their license yanked pretty quickly when they got found out. Now, the shops doing virus sweeps, rescuing data off of a dead machine, that's where the people enforcing the laws here are telling them they're needing a PI's license- which is a bit over the top; but covered by the way the law is worded if you read it in the way that it's currently being read by law enforcement in Texas.
Engineers design. Mechanics repair.
A mechanic doesn't need to have a license- why should the PC equivalent of one need a license, pray tell?
The problem lies in that they're conflating professions.
There's no issue in requiring a PE license (Professional Engineer) for a business- though it raises the bar a bit in running a PC repair business.
There's no issue in requiring a PI license for someone wanting to run a security consulting business.
The problem lies in requiring a PI license for a PC repair business as the jobs are not analogous, etc. It's like requiring a Doctor to retain a PI license.
It should be only where the professions sort of overlap that you should be requiring a PI or both a PE and a PI license- things like network/computer security audits. Dealing with a virus infection shouldn't require a CJ degree or a PI apprenticeship to do this. Therein lies the problem- the way the new law's worded, it's waaaay overbroad.
Actually, no. In the case of the example, the requirement for keeping source available for that instance is only for three years from the initial release of said binaries- of which, pretty much all the mainline distributions are in compliance.
Sorry, you didn't follow "b" closely. If you don't have an official relationship with that FTP site, you aren't even close to compliance- item "b" clearly states you have to provide the copy. Pointing someone to an FTP site that you have no official relationship (they don't know about you or haven't stated that they're providing the sources for you) isn't sufficient, even though it may "work" and is "convenient". It's not really compliance with that term of the GPL licensing grant.
And that's a good start, really.
The problem with your thinking is that GPL's only slightly more constraining than the BSD is in that regard. The price for the rights to make binary copies is to provide the source and the means unto which you accomplished the production of the binaries.
It's not a EULA. It's not a binding for end-users. It's for people distributing the stuff and making derivative works off of it.
If you're using it for the purpose it was designed for just yourself- or modifying it for yourself; why worry? It's when you distribute or make a derived work from it- and you'd have to concern yourself about this with ANY of it, even BSD has requirements in many instances (BSD has at least two variants, one which DOES impact distribution and derivative works, one that doesn't care at all about that or relicensing...some BSD licensed code uses the latter, much of it uses the former...); presuming one license allows you to not care about that sort of thing is FOLLY.
Apparently, you've not read any number of legal filings in your lifetime.
Compared to things like divorce filings, employment agreements, and the like, the GPL is refreshingly simple to read- even V3.
Unfortunately for them, this is a wee bit too late to dodge the consequences of their non-compliance and apparent unwillingness to work with the rights holder(s) with standing.
Simply put, the license is explicit and if you're in violation, you're no longer licensed and are infringing. Properly making it available to people upon being told you're breaking the rules is usually sufficient settlement and the rights holder(s) re-instates your licensing rights which were barred from the moment you violated the terms going forward. If you force them to go to court, it becomes a bit rougher for you as there isn't a single clause in the GPL that automatically gives you those rights back just by after-the-fact releasing the code per the terms.
The problem with this thinking is if it is compiled with the claimed non-in-house version, the binaries will compare the same- if they don't you show up as having cheated...
It doesn't work QUITE the way you think it might.
But dropping all of alt.* just because a few have had child porn floating about on them?
I'd still consider them to be overreacting more than the grandparent poster is on the subject as there's quite a bit more actual useful stuff in the alt.* branch as it was for anything that didn't fit into the normal comp.*, etc. branches of organization in USENET. As someone said, this is a convenient excuse to lose quite a bit of bandwidth consumption on their part.
It's not about "casual piracy"- that's just the excuse they use to be "riled up" and do these things that no customer would ever want.
It's about control. Nothing else.
And you don't need to worry... Either there will be a GPLed version, or the fork trigger set up by Trolltech to allay issues with KDE relying on their code will go off and it'll be a non-problem all the way around.
If the law's worded for as long as it is, you can bet your bottom dollar (Pound...whatever the currency is...) that it will get MISUSED. Just because they'll usually do what you're claiming, doesn't mean that the police won't use that power every so often, even if there is a unpopular uproar from it occasionally, until the law is changed- after all, it IS legal, it IS the law.
There is no hyperbole involved with the grandparent post whatsoever. You minimize that which will get misused- and with no more proof of this than anyone used with the DMCA or the PATRIOT Act over here in the States. And we all know precisely how "nowhere near as bad" those laws have panned out.
All you'd have done is bent the crowbar, even from the orbital vantage point. PHB's are rather dense indeed.
If your model doesn't account for a deviation, then your model is WRONG. I think you'll find that the direct measurements are being made nearby thermal accumulators (which the models have YET to account for as best as I can tell...) and the selfsame "indirect" measurements via satellite of the Earth don't show the same thing people keep parading about- and nothing that matches the "direct" measurements.
I'm not saying you or anyone saying what you're saying is wrong- but what you're using as a basis for your arguments and explanations doesn't match up to reality, or the scientific method, for that matter, any more than the people you're deriding right now.
Does change up the story a bit, doesn't it? :-D
Considering that many of the egregious driving by SUV owners seems to be when they have their cell-phone up to the head without a hands-free, I think it shouldn't be "aggressive" but "negligence" that they should be charged with. Most people don't seem to have the foggiest where the silly vehicle is when they're not on the phone- and it goes all the way out the window when they get on it while they're driving that behemoth.
Moreover, most of the people driving them are driving them as status symbols. Much like the dualies and whatnot were back in earlier times.
I've found that for every one bad tool, there's at least another that's at least "good".
How many "bad" or "inferior" tools have you used, in reality?
How many of them were actually for-pay tools that was at that $200-500 price point?
The fact of the matter is...there's an unfortunate reality that you're MISSING in your analogy.
There is a type of thinking in the industry that management ends up having in many, many companies. Money comes out of "buckets". Buying your software you're talking to comes out of another bucket than your already budgeted wage or salary. Typically it comes out of the expense or capital purchases bucket, which usually has a limited amount for things like that unless you're in a forward thinking company (There's you a hint!).
So, it's "cheaper" in the short to medium term to waste 1-2 weeks of your productivity over a $200 purchase because you "blew" the other budget all to hell by buying it.
Labor's "cheap" within most medium to large sized companies. Maintenance is "free". I'm seeing it all the time. It's usually because you end up with a manager at one of the middle to upper levels that hasn't a damn clue about how things really get done and they think in terms of producing simple manufactured items and get it all wrong.
In your analogy, if you were working where I am right now, you'd have had two other choices...
1) Find a different tool that was FOSS that DID work.
2) Implement your own version that is proprietary to the employer.
Buying something isn't really an option unless you're in the EE group- unless there really is no other choice available and then there'll be hell to pay. (I'll leave it as a mental exercise for you as to what form the hell will take...)