If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
You do know that the British courts have already decided to extradite him to Sweden, don't you? He didn't run off to the embassy until his appeal of the extradition failed.
they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy
I was referring to the fallout from the giant bomb that hit GameSpot
Doesn't that support my claim? That is, GameSpot did adjust its editorial policy just to make one advertiser happy, and it imploded. Hence no *rational* company would do that.
If the newspaper has more than one subscriber, it has a conflict of interest. Your interests won't match the other subscriber's.
They aren't going to publish things just to make you happy; they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy. We're talking about the NYT, not some trade magazine that depends for all its revenue on one sponsor.
You said you pay for the NYT. Do they let you determine what articles to include? Only to the extent that if they do a bad job, you won't renew your subscription. If advertisers were paying, the same would be true: they won't get eyeballs if they don't have content that attracts them.
But coming back to the beginning of the thread: Even though the GPL2 is perfectly valid, the FSF has declared in GPL3 that it is not a compatible license. Through their required copyright transfer, they are able to change the license on their projects from GPL2 to GPL3, thereby putting pressure on other GPL2 projects to relicense as well. That's not promoting freedom, that's promoting control.
GPL2 code is not GPL3 compatible. That's inconvenient. If a copyright holder of something that is GPL2 licensed doesn't agree to relicense it, then you can't use any GPL3 code in it. That's a GPL3 rule, not a GPL2 rule.
Canonical vs the FSF is a matter of degree, it's not incomparable.
If the FSF didn't require copyright assignment, then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier. Moglen says they need the copyright assignment in order to defend the copyright, but really it has mainly been used as a club to try to force people to switch to GPL3. It's about power, not about freedom.
Okay, so I read the story there about flooding in Somerset. The article itself is pretty reasonable, but many of the replies to it met the characterization of "only one cause":
"The EA was taken over by environmentalists years ago."
"The UK EA... was created by Blair to promote the myth of CAGW."
There's no possibility that the lack of dredging is due to budget cutting or a lack of a need for dredging now that the rivers aren't used for barges any more (I don't know if they ever were), it's the AGW proponents who caused it. And there's no possibility that the floods have multiple causes, not just the lack of dredging. For example, places that used to be swamps tend to subside as the water is taken out.
Not at all. Blackmail is where you threaten to reveal something that the victim doesn't want to be known. The USA is quite open about the fact that it executes people.
This is more like shunning. You're doing something I don't like, so I won't deal with you.
No, it seems like an effective way to apply pressure. If you're going to use our drugs to murder people, we won't sell them to you, even if you also use them for good purposes. All you need to do is to agree not to murder people.
I don't understand why the court is using assumptions (i.e. "we have no evidence of this person using Glass while driving"), when they can simply figure out the truth by sending a subpoena to Google to request that information (given that Glass is surely phoning home all the time).
It's not the court's job to collect evidence. If no evidence of use was presented, then there's no evidence, and the ticket is dismissed.
So why didn't the investigating officer collect this data? It's a distracted driving ticket, not a murder investigation.
The password he used was the same as one that he had previously divulged, but the incompetent investigators at GCHQ and the police didn't think to try it.
US territory is tainted in the eyes of the world now.
That's the main point. The article is about Canada trying to convince companies to move, but it's pretty unlikely that Canada is the only country doing that.
The cars are labelled and in most cases the fire departments can quickly determine the range of product that might be inside and should be able to deal with it.
In the case of the Lac Megantic accident, the cars were labelled to be less volatile than they really were. If they had been correctly labelled, maybe someone would have objected to leaving the train unmanned at the top of a hill on the main line overnight.
Wacko environmentalists made it virtually impossible to trim trees and/or cut them down in their advanced age and/or deceased state
That's an interesting twist on it. I would have said it was budget cutters who decimated the urban forestry budget. The trees on private land were in much better shape than the ones on public land.
Slashdot Mirror
If he'd really thought that he wouldn't have run off to hide in an embassy - he'd have waited for any indictment then played it out in court THEN gone to an embassy if things looked bad.
You do know that the British courts have already decided to extradite him to Sweden, don't you? He didn't run off to the embassy until his appeal of the extradition failed.
or, how about stop hiding like a baby
... said the anonymous coward.
Its not their mess, its tanks owned by third parties:
So why would they receive insurance settlements?
they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy
I was referring to the fallout from the giant bomb that hit GameSpot
Doesn't that support my claim? That is, GameSpot did adjust its editorial policy just to make one advertiser happy, and it imploded. Hence no *rational* company would do that.
If the newspaper has more than one subscriber, it has a conflict of interest. Your interests won't match the other subscriber's.
They aren't going to publish things just to make you happy; they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy. We're talking about the NYT, not some trade magazine that depends for all its revenue on one sponsor.
if we don't pay for it, who will?
Advertisers?
who ever pays for it gets to decide what goes in
You said you pay for the NYT. Do they let you determine what articles to include? Only to the extent that if they do a bad job, you won't renew your subscription. If advertisers were paying, the same would be true: they won't get eyeballs if they don't have content that attracts them.
But coming back to the beginning of the thread: Even though the GPL2 is perfectly valid, the FSF has declared in GPL3 that it is not a compatible license. Through their required copyright transfer, they are able to change the license on their projects from GPL2 to GPL3, thereby putting pressure on other GPL2 projects to relicense as well. That's not promoting freedom, that's promoting control.
There is no "or later version" clause, nor does there need to be. The GPL2 license was perfectly valid at the time.
GPL2 code is not GPL3 compatible. That's inconvenient. If a copyright holder of something that is GPL2 licensed doesn't agree to relicense it, then you can't use any GPL3 code in it. That's a GPL3 rule, not a GPL2 rule.
Canonical vs the FSF is a matter of degree, it's not incomparable.
If the FSF didn't require copyright assignment, then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier. Moglen says they need the copyright assignment in order to defend the copyright, but really it has mainly been used as a club to try to force people to switch to GPL3. It's about power, not about freedom.
Okay, so I read the story there about flooding in Somerset. The article itself is pretty reasonable, but many of the replies to it met the characterization of "only one cause":
"The EA was taken over by environmentalists years ago."
"The UK EA ... was created by Blair to promote the myth of CAGW."
There's no possibility that the lack of dredging is due to budget cutting or a lack of a need for dredging now that the rivers aren't used for barges any more (I don't know if they ever were), it's the AGW proponents who caused it. And there's no possibility that the floods have multiple causes, not just the lack of dredging. For example, places that used to be swamps tend to subside as the water is taken out.
Why don't you link to a post in one of the major climate skeptic websites
Pick one.
Not at all. Blackmail is where you threaten to reveal something that the victim doesn't want to be known. The USA is quite open about the fact that it executes people.
This is more like shunning. You're doing something I don't like, so I won't deal with you.
No, it seems like an effective way to apply pressure. If you're going to use our drugs to murder people, we won't sell them to you, even if you also use them for good purposes. All you need to do is to agree not to murder people.
I don't understand why the court is using assumptions (i.e. "we have no evidence of this person using Glass while driving"), when they can simply figure out the truth by sending a subpoena to Google to request that information (given that Glass is surely phoning home all the time).
It's not the court's job to collect evidence. If no evidence of use was presented, then there's no evidence, and the ticket is dismissed.
So why didn't the investigating officer collect this data? It's a distracted driving ticket, not a murder investigation.
The password he used was the same as one that he had previously divulged, but the incompetent investigators at GCHQ and the police didn't think to try it.
96,000lbs = 48 tons, just a little less than 96,000 tons...
Feels the same when you drop it on your foot.
I very much doubt you know what 96,000lb "feels like" either.
It feels quite a bit like 96,000 tons, but quite a bit different from 96,000 grains.
Or in metric: it feels pretty much the same as 96,000 tonnes, but different from 96,000 mg.
US territory is tainted in the eyes of the world now.
That's the main point. The article is about Canada trying to convince companies to move, but it's pretty unlikely that Canada is the only country doing that.
The summary (and the report it quotes) is inaccurate. Car owners *can* demand that the companies destroy the data.
The only problem is, the companies will just ignore the demand.
Fiberoptics for data transmission: "Laser beams will have to be led through plastic pipes, to avoid material and atmospheric interference."
What a fraud. Fiberoptics use glass, not plastic.
Sure, and they could charge tolls to fix the potholes in the streets, too.
The cars are labelled and in most cases the fire departments can quickly determine the range of product that might be inside and should be able to deal with it.
In the case of the Lac Megantic accident, the cars were labelled to be less volatile than they really were. If they had been correctly labelled, maybe someone would have objected to leaving the train unmanned at the top of a hill on the main line overnight.
Wacko environmentalists made it virtually impossible to trim trees and/or cut them down in their advanced age and/or deceased state
That's an interesting twist on it. I would have said it was budget cutters who decimated the urban forestry budget. The trees on private land were in much better shape than the ones on public land.
If you own the data, you should be able to do what you want with it, right?
Sure, you can sell copies to other people, too. You've already sold a copy to them.