"If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then simply don't. If you don't LIKE the GPL, then don't use GPL code, it's as simple as that. Or, are you pissed that you can't just do whatever you want with someone else's work?"
If the code is as free as it is supposed to be, the issue of who's "work" it is should be irrelevant. If the GPL code is so good, there should be no way I could use it in a for-profit project since I couldn't add any value to it. The GPL restricts people with a good idea (and not me personally) from building something worthwhile on a larger body of work by removing the profit motive. Really, that may be the only way a small shop can afford to open up.
Big companies pushing Linux make money from support, which is a much different business model for a large corporation than a small one. Linux support is a good business to be in because a) people mistakenly believe that since Linux is "free" it will cost them nothing to run, and b) there are a lot of bugs and/or opportunities for enhancement.
"The GPL, in fact, does allow a lot more freedom for the code you write then general copyright laws allow for. It's obviously a lot more open then closed-source. Why must you compare it to the BSD license?"
The fact that the GPL offers more freedom than general copyright law is interesting, but I think the the comparison the the BSD license is more relevant since it is another open source license. BSD licensing allows everybody to improve their products (look at the current MS TCP/IP stack) and has the possibility of making all products better. The GPL only makes a subset of products better.
"Extra Points: If the BSD License worked so well, why did it take the GPL to bring open source software to the forefront?"
I think there's a fundamentally incorrect assumption in that question. The GPL has been around a fairly long time, much longer than most people have been paying attention to it (V1 was 1989). I think Linux pushed open source into more of the spotlight since it was GPL'd and was released around the time that computing became a commodity item. I've been aware of and installed GPL'd software for quite a while, before Linux was really on the radar screen of the general population. Linux distributions came with a huge number of pre-compiled GPL'd applications, most of which were required for getting anything actually done with the machine. That caused people to really pay attention to the GPL more than anything else.
Actually, you're wrong. Replace the word "freedom" in your post with "resources" and you would be correct.
The GPL does not grant additional "freedom" no matter how many people repeat the same tired bullshit. It takes away the freedom to use somebody else's code in your proprietary, for profit, application. Unlike the BSD license, for example.
Also, simply because the BSD license allows people to incorporate code and close the source, the original source doesn't simply disappear. Nobody is at a disadvantage because the code became part of a closed source product.
The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about being selfish in the guise of supporting the community. If you aren't going to profit off the code, you don't want anybody else to be able to either.
Even if your statements about Open Source are true, this isn't a good idea. It's a pointless, immature rant which will serve no purpose whatsoever. In fact, any people reading it probably come away with the sense that Open Source advocates are whiny, fairly illiterate children.
Are there really patent infringements? Probably, if the patents were awarded for methods. Open Source rewrites other people's ideas fairly often, assuming that if it's all new code it's perfectly fine. Software is a tricky thing since there are so many ways to accomplish the same task.
Right, which is kinda why I thought the algorithm was patentable as a "construct". Yes, it's based on math. But, all the physical inventions that we use and would agree should be patentable are combinations of wheels, axles, inclined planes, etc, etc, which are generally unpatentable.
So, where does the line get drawn? I believe that it should be drawn at the "construct", and short of the implementation. I can patent an engine design, but shouldn't be able to patent uses of it, for example.
The main problem is that the patent process *is* valid and IMO needed, but it needs lots of intelligent people managing it. Not working with time limits, quotas, etc, etc. Smacking down companies that file obvious patents wouldn't hurt either.
Why couldn't you patent the algorithm? The algorithm isn't the software, it's a genuinely something that you have created. A real invention. The implementation of that invention shouldn't be patentable tho, ie. you shouldn't be able to patent is the software that implements the algorithm.
If it's a compression algorithm, you can't patent "A digital means of conserving internal disk storage on home computers via file compression". That's a patent on a concept, not an invention. That's what should be under argument, and should ultimately be disallowed (like Amazon's One-Click, etc).
Excuse my cynicism, but a late-middle aged paralegal with who claims to have no exposure to open source prior to the IBM/SCO case suddenly becomes passionate about open source? Enough to run a website with detailed analysis of every court proceeding? Just out of the newfound admiration for the open source movement? That's a hard one for me to buy. I use / fight with / modify some open source stuff just about every day and I'm not that passionate about it, either for or against.
Maybe you're right. Maybe we're both wrong. My original point was that whether she is or isn't a front for IBM makes no difference in the validity of her legal analysis, especially when cross-checked by hundreds or thousands of others. Ultimately her motivation isn't relevant even though some others seem offended by the notion that her motive may not be unadulterated altruism.
Thanks for the opposing viewpoints, and I apologize if I gave any offense.
5 posts over a month constitutes a "ridiculous amount of time"? Heck, I'm only slightly more ridiculous than yourself in that respect then. And while I'm not going to bother to rehash any of my other positions here, I do feel compelled to point out that I don't feel Global Warming is a hoax or isn't happening. I do believe that the reasons are not fully understood and running around shouting "the sky is falling" is inappropriate.
As for Groklaw, I see your logic and I understand where you're coming from. You're saying "I don't believe that PJ is a front, and until I see an IBM paycheck with her name on it I will remain convinced of that". I'm saying "Nobody would devote the time and effort to extensive coverage of a legal battle between IBM and SCO over something as absurd as the SCO case unless there was an ulterior motive". Obviously, you believe that your opinion carries more weight than mine. So do the moderators, which is unsurprising given that this is/.
And while some "open source people" do sound like "ignorant assholes", thanks for Ostiary anyway. It's a nifty piece of work.
Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"?
on
Groklaw No Front for IBM
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I find your comment misses the point entirely. First, I don't base any of my conclusions on where she lives. Instead I look at her actions and see that there could be a correlation. The fact that she is a "front for IBM" is supported by where she lives, not created by it.
As to where you live, you don't operate a web site that actively promotes one of the Big-3 over all other automakers, do you? Are you spending ridiculous amounts of time on a court case the most of the world doesn't even know about, and also going into "hiding", fearing for your life due to your actions?
PJ is related to IBM in some way. Whether you call her a front, a shill, or a terraformer, she is a bogus "grassroots" movement by IBM _in my opinion_. Still, that doesn't make any of the logic presented wrong, but there may be things left out of the discussion. Groklaw is a PR campaign, and apparently it is so well done that most people don't even realize it.
Re:What's wrong with being "a front for IBM"?
on
Groklaw No Front for IBM
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Of course being paid by IBM or associated with IBM doesn't change the validity or logic of any of her arguments.
What is _does_ do, however, is undermine the idea that she is just a single person who is altruistically "fighting the good fight" to protect Open Source. That is the persona she works hard to present and garners a lot of support from the Open Source community by being "one of the little guys", ie. just like them. A valliant crusader fighting evil wherever it may be, etc, etc, etc.
Even if she isn't paid directly by IBM, I'm sure that she is either a former employee or has some other tight ties to the company. If I remember correctly, she lives in a part of New York state where it is pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting and IBM employee. She's there to collect information and pass anecdotes of interest on to the actual IBM lawyers. In a way, they've open sourced their defense. They've put millions of eyes and brains to work on their behalf and then skim the cream off the Groklaw comments.
Frankly, it's brilliant. It hardly matters that IBM doesn't need Groklaw to win their case. What matters is that they are wining it faster, decisively, and able to gauge the OS community reaction nearly instantly.
This is about people believing that they should be able to illegally download shitty music. It isn't about economic survival or basic human rights. Illegally downloading music isn't 'civil disobedience', and just because you don't like their business model doesn't make you some kind of hero.
"They did not look like bombs in any way shape or form" --- You're an expert in recognizing what a bomb "looks like"? Because they all follow a pattern, right? Maybe you watched too many episodes of MacGyver or something, but you can wrap an explosive in anything. It doesn't have to look like half a dozen road flares and an alarm clock held together with electrical tape. If you want to sow some real terror, make it bright and shiny so people want to touch it, move it, and maybe take it home with them. Then put it on a delay so that it explodes anywhere from 2 to 48 hours later. The psychological implications of an attack like that would be pretty effective.
In short, it was a stupid stunt and Boston chose to err on the side of caution rather than passing it off. Now the rest of the country is trying to cover their lack of caring by calling it an over-reaction. Menawhile they're all thinking "if even one of those was really a bomb we'd look like total assholes now". Remember, planes weren't really considered terrorist weapons before 9/11 either. Rules change.
And the other "bombs" weren't planted on the same day, they were discovered as part of the sweep. Maybe they should have been found before, but it's pretty much irrelevant. Bright, shiny electronics hidden under bridges send off the same message as the weird guy in the van with a lot of candy. Maybe nothing is wrong, but best to be careful.
"The only way we will ever be secure is to make people not want to harm us" --- That's just fucking naive and wrong. I'll let somebody else try to tell you why.
Perhaps it is your destiny to become a rat among the walls of steel and concrete. A Stainless Steel Rat. Possibly to keep the police entertained and the economy well-oiled though your various capers and mis-deeds.
One thing that I think people overlook is that it will be easier to spot less-than-perfect forgeries if there is a national ID in place. It is one standard with one format that everybody down to the lowliest liquor store clerk can remember.
Honestly, if I need to use a fake ID, it would be a lot easier to try to pass off a forgery of a NY driver's license in another state simply because they don't know what they _should_ look like. As long as it looks official enough, who cares?
Will it stop professional terrorists (if such a thing exists) or other people with a lot of available resources? Probably not. Will it stop or discourage wannabe terrorists? Probably.
Yes. Because they are the ones ultimately responsible when there are problems with it. They are the one who deal with the security breaches and all the other bullshit that the "elite" professors and "uber" students bring in. If you work in IT, and you have any professional integrity or even a decent work ethic, it is _your_ network.
And if you're planning on killing somebody, just leave a loaded gun on your front porch. Then anybody could have done it! An airtight defense if I ever saw one.
If it was even suspected that you were hosting an open WiFi point to engage in, or encourage others to engage in an illegal activity I think they could find many ways to make your life miserable. I'm fairly certain that giving others the tools to commit a crime and then standing idly by while they commit it is, in itself, illegal. Maybe harder to prove, seeing as how they would have to prove intent, but still enough to get you in trouble. Especially if they could show that you were knowledgable enough to know what an unsecured network could be used for.
The emphasis on "man-made" is to separate whether this is a controllable phenomenon or not. If it isn't something that is directly linked to our past actions, we may be modifying the wrong behaviors if we want to reverse the trend.
ex, if 80% of global warming is due to sunspot activity, changing our CO2 output will have a minimal effect compared to some other things we might do. (yeah, I don't know what, but you get the point)
I have plenty of understanding of the scientific community. I was part of it (certainly not a climatologist) and I got out because it sucked. Here's how it really works.
1. You survey what grant money exists and hope you can find something interesting to study. 2. You read all the available papers on the subject. 3. You research and write some papers of your own to be submitted to peer journals. This has different effects:
a) You agree with the majority, get your paper published, get more grant money. Rinse and Repeat.
b) You come up with some air-tight, irrefutable evidence that proves the majority wrong. You become an icon and get more grant money.
c) You disagree with the majority based on a disagreement with their fundamental assumptions. Your paper is rejected and you get no money.
That's how it works. This isn't cancer or pharma research where there is a clinical trial where your drug works or doesn't. It isn't engineering where you can build a prototype and show people that it's better. It's all theory, and everybody has one. To pick a similar example, look at string theory physicists. They go from being fashionable to being ignored and back again because none of their info is provable.
Even your own example lends credence to that process. Until man-made global warming became a political agenda, the scientists trying to prove it were ignored and ostracized. Now their theory is fashionable and people are calling for the censure of people who disagree with them. Global cooling mentioned in the 70s and over-hyped. It's hard to separate the real science from what the media decides to push down our throats.
And my point about the hurricane season was that if they can't even get the short term predictions correct, how can they get the long term ones correct? (I don't think I shot myself in the foot with that one, but I may have grazed myself by being unclear.) They based the prediction of the 2006 hurricane season on the 2005 hurricane season, much like they are basing the predictions of the next 100 years on the last 100 years. If they're using the last 10,000 years (post ice age), why stop there? How warm was it millions of years ago when dinosaurs (reptiles for the most part) ruled the earth? How hot do crocodiles like it? I know we have ice core samples from Antarctica that go back a long time, but if it's less than 1,000,000 years does it accurately represent the "normal" state of the planet?
I just really hate the "OMG! Golbal Warming! Everybody Panic!" attitude. Could it just be part of an agenda to push Prius sales? Doubtful, but a 250cc motorcycle is a more efficient means of transportation for a single person and _nobody_ seems to be suggesting that we get more bikes on the road. They're only telling us which _cars_ to buy now.
I could go on a lot longer, because this stuff really is interesting, but lunch is over and I have to actually get back to work. Be well, and stock up on shorts both for the heat and the higher sea levels.:)
I don't think that anybody is implying that scientists are choosing a position based on celebrity or _personal_ wealth. But let's face reality here. They aren't going to risk being ostracized from the community by disagreeing with the MAN-MADE global warming hysteria. Being a scientific skeptic of MAN-MADE global warming effectively excommunicates them.
Yes, it's getting warmer. Is it natural or man-made? What will the overall effects be and how will we adapt? Those are the questions that nobody has any real answers to. I can't believe that climatologists have anything other than the foggiest idea of what will happen. Some ice will melt, some places will get drier, some will get wetter. These are the same people who predicted that the 2006 hurricane season would be the worst ever. The hard fact here is that no matter what the temperature is doing, people are afraid of change. Something different? Must be bad!
This is nothing more than fear mongering and taking advantage of fact that most people can't think of anything that encompasses a time-scale larger than a generation. If we were in the middle of the last ice age, I'm sure the same people would be telling us that we'd all drown or burn to a crisp.
Don't overlook that these are foreign companies ruling against a US based one. I'm sure that their motives are far less altruistic than you might think. Probably more along the lines of "What legislation can I pass that gets me positive PR *and* stops giving money to the Americans?".
Apple has a lock on the market and this is just a political move. The only difference is that the politicians involved aren't owned by the US government this time.
Everybody has stories like this. I have no problems with my Seagate drives, but I wouldn't put anything on a WD drive. Sure, it will be fast for 3 months until you lose it all. With most manufacturers it comes down to a particular model being a bit flaky, although all WD drives suck.
All of them if they're newer than about 3 years old. Most of the older ones have been retired or upgraded.
Also, I hacked together a DVD drive in an external drive bay (SCSI) which works fine one anything that gives you a SCSI connection (like most Sun hardware).
You're confusing open standards and open source. Cisco contributes regularly to RFCs and generally opens it's protocol standards... the ones _they_ developed to solve problems.
Open source people often miss the point of standards and interoperability, somehow thinking that having many "standards" that you can peruse the source of is somehow useful. That's why they sound like such ignorant assholes when they bash companies like Cisco (or Sun, etc).
However, the earth may be returning to a temperature that it has been at for a long time. Permafrost is left over from the last ice-age I think, so may not be the "normal" state for the climate.
Generally, I'm not on board with the people who are assuming that warming will be the end of the world. How a complex system reacts to something like that is completely unknown. Things will change, and humans as a species will have to adapt to the change if they can. Reptiles ruled this planet for millions of years. Mammals may just be a fad.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then simply don't. If you don't LIKE the GPL, then don't use GPL code, it's as simple as that. Or, are you pissed that you can't just do whatever you want with someone else's work?"
If the code is as free as it is supposed to be, the issue of who's "work" it is should be irrelevant. If the GPL code is so good, there should be no way I could use it in a for-profit project since I couldn't add any value to it. The GPL restricts people with a good idea (and not me personally) from building something worthwhile on a larger body of work by removing the profit motive. Really, that may be the only way a small shop can afford to open up.
Big companies pushing Linux make money from support, which is a much different business model for a large corporation than a small one. Linux support is a good business to be in because a) people mistakenly believe that since Linux is "free" it will cost them nothing to run, and b) there are a lot of bugs and/or opportunities for enhancement.
"The GPL, in fact, does allow a lot more freedom for the code you write then general copyright laws allow for. It's obviously a lot more open then closed-source. Why must you compare it to the BSD license?"
The fact that the GPL offers more freedom than general copyright law is interesting, but I think the the comparison the the BSD license is more relevant since it is another open source license. BSD licensing allows everybody to improve their products (look at the current MS TCP/IP stack) and has the possibility of making all products better. The GPL only makes a subset of products better.
"Extra Points: If the BSD License worked so well, why did it take the GPL to bring open source software to the forefront?"
I think there's a fundamentally incorrect assumption in that question. The GPL has been around a fairly long time, much longer than most people have been paying attention to it (V1 was 1989). I think Linux pushed open source into more of the spotlight since it was GPL'd and was released around the time that computing became a commodity item. I've been aware of and installed GPL'd software for quite a while, before Linux was really on the radar screen of the general population. Linux distributions came with a huge number of pre-compiled GPL'd applications, most of which were required for getting anything actually done with the machine. That caused people to really pay attention to the GPL more than anything else.
Actually, you're wrong. Replace the word "freedom" in your post with "resources" and you would be correct.
The GPL does not grant additional "freedom" no matter how many people repeat the same tired bullshit. It takes away the freedom to use somebody else's code in your proprietary, for profit, application. Unlike the BSD license, for example.
Also, simply because the BSD license allows people to incorporate code and close the source, the original source doesn't simply disappear. Nobody is at a disadvantage because the code became part of a closed source product.
The GPL isn't about freedom. It's about being selfish in the guise of supporting the community. If you aren't going to profit off the code, you don't want anybody else to be able to either.
Even if your statements about Open Source are true, this isn't a good idea. It's a pointless, immature rant which will serve no purpose whatsoever. In fact, any people reading it probably come away with the sense that Open Source advocates are whiny, fairly illiterate children.
Are there really patent infringements? Probably, if the patents were awarded for methods. Open Source rewrites other people's ideas fairly often, assuming that if it's all new code it's perfectly fine. Software is a tricky thing since there are so many ways to accomplish the same task.
Right, which is kinda why I thought the algorithm was patentable as a "construct". Yes, it's based on math. But, all the physical inventions that we use and would agree should be patentable are combinations of wheels, axles, inclined planes, etc, etc, which are generally unpatentable.
So, where does the line get drawn? I believe that it should be drawn at the "construct", and short of the implementation. I can patent an engine design, but shouldn't be able to patent uses of it, for example.
The main problem is that the patent process *is* valid and IMO needed, but it needs lots of intelligent people managing it. Not working with time limits, quotas, etc, etc. Smacking down companies that file obvious patents wouldn't hurt either.
Why couldn't you patent the algorithm? The algorithm isn't the software, it's a genuinely something that you have created. A real invention. The implementation of that invention shouldn't be patentable tho, ie. you shouldn't be able to patent is the software that implements the algorithm.
If it's a compression algorithm, you can't patent "A digital means of conserving internal disk storage on home computers via file compression". That's a patent on a concept, not an invention. That's what should be under argument, and should ultimately be disallowed (like Amazon's One-Click, etc).
Of course, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV.
Excuse my cynicism, but a late-middle aged paralegal with who claims to have no exposure to open source prior to the IBM/SCO case suddenly becomes passionate about open source? Enough to run a website with detailed analysis of every court proceeding? Just out of the newfound admiration for the open source movement? That's a hard one for me to buy. I use / fight with / modify some open source stuff just about every day and I'm not that passionate about it, either for or against.
Maybe you're right. Maybe we're both wrong. My original point was that whether she is or isn't a front for IBM makes no difference in the validity of her legal analysis, especially when cross-checked by hundreds or thousands of others. Ultimately her motivation isn't relevant even though some others seem offended by the notion that her motive may not be unadulterated altruism.
Thanks for the opposing viewpoints, and I apologize if I gave any offense.
5 posts over a month constitutes a "ridiculous amount of time"? Heck, I'm only slightly more ridiculous than yourself in that respect then. And while I'm not going to bother to rehash any of my other positions here, I do feel compelled to point out that I don't feel Global Warming is a hoax or isn't happening. I do believe that the reasons are not fully understood and running around shouting "the sky is falling" is inappropriate.
/.
As for Groklaw, I see your logic and I understand where you're coming from. You're saying "I don't believe that PJ is a front, and until I see an IBM paycheck with her name on it I will remain convinced of that". I'm saying "Nobody would devote the time and effort to extensive coverage of a legal battle between IBM and SCO over something as absurd as the SCO case unless there was an ulterior motive". Obviously, you believe that your opinion carries more weight than mine. So do the moderators, which is unsurprising given that this is
And while some "open source people" do sound like "ignorant assholes", thanks for Ostiary anyway. It's a nifty piece of work.
I find your comment misses the point entirely. First, I don't base any of my conclusions on where she lives. Instead I look at her actions and see that there could be a correlation. The fact that she is a "front for IBM" is supported by where she lives, not created by it.
As to where you live, you don't operate a web site that actively promotes one of the Big-3 over all other automakers, do you? Are you spending ridiculous amounts of time on a court case the most of the world doesn't even know about, and also going into "hiding", fearing for your life due to your actions?
PJ is related to IBM in some way. Whether you call her a front, a shill, or a terraformer, she is a bogus "grassroots" movement by IBM _in my opinion_. Still, that doesn't make any of the logic presented wrong, but there may be things left out of the discussion. Groklaw is a PR campaign, and apparently it is so well done that most people don't even realize it.
Of course being paid by IBM or associated with IBM doesn't change the validity or logic of any of her arguments.
What is _does_ do, however, is undermine the idea that she is just a single person who is altruistically "fighting the good fight" to protect Open Source. That is the persona she works hard to present and garners a lot of support from the Open Source community by being "one of the little guys", ie. just like them. A valliant crusader fighting evil wherever it may be, etc, etc, etc.
Even if she isn't paid directly by IBM, I'm sure that she is either a former employee or has some other tight ties to the company. If I remember correctly, she lives in a part of New York state where it is pretty much impossible to swing a cat without hitting and IBM employee. She's there to collect information and pass anecdotes of interest on to the actual IBM lawyers. In a way, they've open sourced their defense. They've put millions of eyes and brains to work on their behalf and then skim the cream off the Groklaw comments.
Frankly, it's brilliant. It hardly matters that IBM doesn't need Groklaw to win their case. What matters is that they are wining it faster, decisively, and able to gauge the OS community reaction nearly instantly.
This is about people believing that they should be able to illegally download shitty music. It isn't about economic survival or basic human rights. Illegally downloading music isn't 'civil disobedience', and just because you don't like their business model doesn't make you some kind of hero.
Are you really serious?
"They did not look like bombs in any way shape or form" --- You're an expert in recognizing what a bomb "looks like"? Because they all follow a pattern, right? Maybe you watched too many episodes of MacGyver or something, but you can wrap an explosive in anything. It doesn't have to look like half a dozen road flares and an alarm clock held together with electrical tape. If you want to sow some real terror, make it bright and shiny so people want to touch it, move it, and maybe take it home with them. Then put it on a delay so that it explodes anywhere from 2 to 48 hours later. The psychological implications of an attack like that would be pretty effective.
In short, it was a stupid stunt and Boston chose to err on the side of caution rather than passing it off. Now the rest of the country is trying to cover their lack of caring by calling it an over-reaction. Menawhile they're all thinking "if even one of those was really a bomb we'd look like total assholes now". Remember, planes weren't really considered terrorist weapons before 9/11 either. Rules change.
And the other "bombs" weren't planted on the same day, they were discovered as part of the sweep. Maybe they should have been found before, but it's pretty much irrelevant. Bright, shiny electronics hidden under bridges send off the same message as the weird guy in the van with a lot of candy. Maybe nothing is wrong, but best to be careful.
"The only way we will ever be secure is to make people not want to harm us" --- That's just fucking naive and wrong. I'll let somebody else try to tell you why.
Perhaps it is your destiny to become a rat among the walls of steel and concrete. A Stainless Steel Rat. Possibly to keep the police entertained and the economy well-oiled though your various capers and mis-deeds.
Apologies to Harry Harrison.
One thing that I think people overlook is that it will be easier to spot less-than-perfect forgeries if there is a national ID in place. It is one standard with one format that everybody down to the lowliest liquor store clerk can remember.
Honestly, if I need to use a fake ID, it would be a lot easier to try to pass off a forgery of a NY driver's license in another state simply because they don't know what they _should_ look like. As long as it looks official enough, who cares?
Will it stop professional terrorists (if such a thing exists) or other people with a lot of available resources? Probably not. Will it stop or discourage wannabe terrorists? Probably.
"So, is it the IT folks network?"
Yes. Because they are the ones ultimately responsible when there are problems with it. They are the one who deal with the security breaches and all the other bullshit that the "elite" professors and "uber" students bring in. If you work in IT, and you have any professional integrity or even a decent work ethic, it is _your_ network.
And if you're planning on killing somebody, just leave a loaded gun on your front porch. Then anybody could have done it! An airtight defense if I ever saw one.
If it was even suspected that you were hosting an open WiFi point to engage in, or encourage others to engage in an illegal activity I think they could find many ways to make your life miserable. I'm fairly certain that giving others the tools to commit a crime and then standing idly by while they commit it is, in itself, illegal. Maybe harder to prove, seeing as how they would have to prove intent, but still enough to get you in trouble. Especially if they could show that you were knowledgable enough to know what an unsecured network could be used for.
The emphasis on "man-made" is to separate whether this is a controllable phenomenon or not. If it isn't something that is directly linked to our past actions, we may be modifying the wrong behaviors if we want to reverse the trend.
ex, if 80% of global warming is due to sunspot activity, changing our CO2 output will have a minimal effect compared to some other things we might do. (yeah, I don't know what, but you get the point)
I have plenty of understanding of the scientific community. I was part of it (certainly not a climatologist) and I got out because it sucked. Here's how it really works.
:)
1. You survey what grant money exists and hope you can find something interesting to study.
2. You read all the available papers on the subject.
3. You research and write some papers of your own to be submitted to peer journals. This has different effects:
a) You agree with the majority, get your paper published, get more grant money. Rinse and Repeat.
b) You come up with some air-tight, irrefutable evidence that proves the majority wrong. You become an icon and get more grant money.
c) You disagree with the majority based on a disagreement with their fundamental assumptions. Your paper is rejected and you get no money.
That's how it works. This isn't cancer or pharma research where there is a clinical trial where your drug works or doesn't. It isn't engineering where you can build a prototype and show people that it's better. It's all theory, and everybody has one. To pick a similar example, look at string theory physicists. They go from being fashionable to being ignored and back again because none of their info is provable.
Even your own example lends credence to that process. Until man-made global warming became a political agenda, the scientists trying to prove it were ignored and ostracized. Now their theory is fashionable and people are calling for the censure of people who disagree with them. Global cooling mentioned in the 70s and over-hyped. It's hard to separate the real science from what the media decides to push down our throats.
And my point about the hurricane season was that if they can't even get the short term predictions correct, how can they get the long term ones correct? (I don't think I shot myself in the foot with that one, but I may have grazed myself by being unclear.) They based the prediction of the 2006 hurricane season on the 2005 hurricane season, much like they are basing the predictions of the next 100 years on the last 100 years. If they're using the last 10,000 years (post ice age), why stop there? How warm was it millions of years ago when dinosaurs (reptiles for the most part) ruled the earth? How hot do crocodiles like it? I know we have ice core samples from Antarctica that go back a long time, but if it's less than 1,000,000 years does it accurately represent the "normal" state of the planet?
I just really hate the "OMG! Golbal Warming! Everybody Panic!" attitude. Could it just be part of an agenda to push Prius sales? Doubtful, but a 250cc motorcycle is a more efficient means of transportation for a single person and _nobody_ seems to be suggesting that we get more bikes on the road. They're only telling us which _cars_ to buy now.
I could go on a lot longer, because this stuff really is interesting, but lunch is over and I have to actually get back to work. Be well, and stock up on shorts both for the heat and the higher sea levels.
I don't think that anybody is implying that scientists are choosing a position based on celebrity or _personal_ wealth. But let's face reality here. They aren't going to risk being ostracized from the community by disagreeing with the MAN-MADE global warming hysteria. Being a scientific skeptic of MAN-MADE global warming effectively excommunicates them.
Yes, it's getting warmer. Is it natural or man-made? What will the overall effects be and how will we adapt? Those are the questions that nobody has any real answers to. I can't believe that climatologists have anything other than the foggiest idea of what will happen. Some ice will melt, some places will get drier, some will get wetter. These are the same people who predicted that the 2006 hurricane season would be the worst ever. The hard fact here is that no matter what the temperature is doing, people are afraid of change. Something different? Must be bad!
This is nothing more than fear mongering and taking advantage of fact that most people can't think of anything that encompasses a time-scale larger than a generation. If we were in the middle of the last ice age, I'm sure the same people would be telling us that we'd all drown or burn to a crisp.
s/companies/countries/
*sigh*
Don't overlook that these are foreign companies ruling against a US based one. I'm sure that their motives are far less altruistic than you might think. Probably more along the lines of "What legislation can I pass that gets me positive PR *and* stops giving money to the Americans?".
Apple has a lock on the market and this is just a political move. The only difference is that the politicians involved aren't owned by the US government this time.
Everybody has stories like this. I have no problems with my Seagate drives, but I wouldn't put anything on a WD drive. Sure, it will be fast for 3 months until you lose it all. With most manufacturers it comes down to a particular model being a bit flaky, although all WD drives suck.
All of them if they're newer than about 3 years old. Most of the older ones have been retired or upgraded.
Also, I hacked together a DVD drive in an external drive bay (SCSI) which works fine one anything that gives you a SCSI connection (like most Sun hardware).
You're confusing open standards and open source. Cisco contributes regularly to RFCs and generally opens it's protocol standards... the ones _they_ developed to solve problems.
Open source people often miss the point of standards and interoperability, somehow thinking that having many "standards" that you can peruse the source of is somehow useful. That's why they sound like such ignorant assholes when they bash companies like Cisco (or Sun, etc).
At least we'll recognize them by their high /. ID numbers...
True, and I'm not debating that.
However, the earth may be returning to a temperature that it has been at for a long time. Permafrost is left over from the last ice-age I think, so may not be the "normal" state for the climate.
Generally, I'm not on board with the people who are assuming that warming will be the end of the world. How a complex system reacts to something like that is completely unknown. Things will change, and humans as a species will have to adapt to the change if they can. Reptiles ruled this planet for millions of years. Mammals may just be a fad.