Try downloading just about any binary installer of free software on Windows, and you'll be asked to agree to the license before you install it. For example, the GTK+ library, available here, is LGPL licensed. But if you don't click "I agree" to agree to the LGPL, no install. That looks to me like a requirement for use, even though the LGPL doesn't apply to use.
I think the silly MS license has the same sort of logical error in it. It has boilerplate language that says it applies to use, but it places no restrictions on use. If it's not free, then GTK+ is not free.
Oh - and Open Source? Pah-lease. A license that governs USE of the software sounds neither permissive nor open:
Exactly what restrictions are they putting on your use of it? It looks more like a GPL click-through license agreement (which is pretty common) than something with any teeth.
Was this accidentally posted as a reply to the wrong message? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with "usufruct", or the message it replies to.
In fact, it doesn't even have much to do with the whole issue being discussed:
- Nobody is putting all the blame on the US, they're just saying that on a per capita basis, it's one of the highest producers of greenhouse gases. But Australia and Canada and a number of smaller countries are just about as bad (or worse, in a few cases).
- Nobody is denying that Hansen's predictions were wrong before.
- His previous graph was not "so completely off". It was barely changed by the correction.
- It doesn't really matter how many articles were published based on the flawed data, because there were no material changes to it.
I think I could probably run up a quick sanity check as regards global average temperatures over the last century, for instance.
That's actually much harder than you'd think. The problem is that people build weather stations out in the country where urban heat isn't an influence, and then cities grow, and they have to be moved. It was in correcting for this effect that Hansen's software was wrong for a while.
And do you think it is working fine? It doesn't seem to be; the intensity of the argument here on Slashdot stands as testimony to that, I feel.
I haven't seen anyone posting here who I'd trust to estimate global averages. Not anyone.
I'm a strong believer in reproducible science, so I would like it if Hansen's procedures and the data he used were published and available for anyone to review. But as far as I know from what I read (and trust) on Slashdot, they are.
I agree that colourful prose makes it easier to spot someone's biases, but I think it's naive to think that boring writing is free of them. It's not much of a litmus test when it misses so much.
And I agree that climate scientists shouldn't be believed when they talk about economics, but I think their climate science should be judged on its own merits, not based on what they say in other areas.
Is Hansen a good scientist? I don't know, but one sign in his favour is that he didn't hide the programming error that led to the change in post-2000 estimates. Did he cook the data in some other way? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.
Usufruct is the legal right to derive profit or benefit from the property of others.
You left out the most important part: "as long as the property is not damaged." He's saying we have a right to use the Earth, but we don't have a right to damage it.
You must work in a really boring field. If someone makes a deceitful argument, I would hope they would be exposed as a liar, not simply contradicted. And I don't mind reading colourful prose, rather than the dead academic passive voice.
They're asking the judge to compel the university to do something, without having the university present to present objections. They know who the university is.
The GPL removes no freedoms. It grants you a right to copy licensed works in certain limited situations; you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to copy those works.
Not hard drives, and not to make up for piracy: as compensation to the artists for the right to make private copies. You can't legally pirate music in Canada, but you can legally make copies for your own use. (Piracy would be making copies to sell.)
And CRIA doesn't get the levy (though its members get a small proportion of it). Mostly it goes to the artists' collectives, such as SOCAN, etc., and some proportion of it is eventually distributed to the artists.
Mod this redundant, because I've posted it before.
CRIA doesn't get the loot, CPCC does. They report on how it is distributed. About 15 percent of it is distributed to record companies, but most goes to authors and publishers. You can see the mechanics of it here.
Should they be forced to sit back and watch as everyone in the world downloads for free what they invested a lot of hard work into producing?
They should receive fair compensation, as the Canadian record companies do based on the levy on blank media. The levy is far from perfect: it penalizes people who use CDRs for something other than recording copyrighted music, it doesn't apply to media built in to MP3 players, etc., but I'd still say it's a fair compromise.
By the way, this is only going to last a year or two more, but right now it's a real sweet spot: most people have CD players that can't play music from DVDs, but DVD recorders are cheap, so anyone who just wants backup can record to DVDs instead of CDRs, and not pay the levy.
You said that someone who doesn't follow protocol should be fired. I said that someone who learns that the protocol is almost always a waste of time will likely not follow protocol. This may be because they are lazy and think they'll get away with it (in which case they should be fired), or it may be because they are far more likely to make an error when working with a broken system.
Try this: take a few words you type every day out of your spell checker's dictionary, so that every time you type them they get falsely marked as spelling errors. Then tell me you won't sometimes allow a real spelling error to slip by, because it's hidden in the mass of garbage reports.
That's a good solution, if you're the one who designed the broken system: Yes, my system generates hundreds of false alarms, but anyone who learns that it is unreliable will be immediately fired.
Good at reducing complaints about the system, at least. Maybe not good at keeping intelligent employees.
No, not from just this system, from "this system and all the other watchlist systems he has to work with".
If the border agent gets lots of false alarms from other watchlists, then he's not going to read any of them carefully, and he's not going to trust them.
Are the alarms he gets rated on a simple severity scale (e.g. 1 to 10)? How many alarms does the agent get that received the same rating or higher as this one did?
You're missing one important piece of information in your description: how many false alarms does the border agent get from this system and all the other watchlist systems he has to work with? If the agent is getting hundreds of warnings that all turn out to be crap, why would he believe one good one?
This creates a double bounce, which puts the problem right back on the incompetent email admin that accepted the forged spam or virus laden mail to begin with!
As long as you reject at the RCPT stage (before you can see the body) it's okay to refuse, but if you're basing the bounce on the headers put together by an incompetent email admin, you're just adding to the problem: you may not be bouncing to the right place. Just send it into a black hole, don't bounce.
The main problem for me is that my outgoing mail currently goes through a server operated by my cable provider.
Why is this a problem? Does your cable provider not provide an SPF record? If they do, one of the variations on the SPF record ("include:") for your domain is basically a pointer to theirs.
Most Americans don't really care, until their wallets or possessions enter the mix. We're more concerned with rising taxes than we are with the erosion of those freedoms that previous generations fought to protect. We care more about "American Idol" than the American ideal.
You say:
We live in a two-party system where one side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the welfare programs, prisons, and the poor" and the other side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the oil companies, airlines, and the telecoms". Either way, they've taken all your money.
You prove his point. You're more concerned about your possessions than your freedoms.
I definitely agree with you, from the point of view of a cardholder. The question is about who is left on the hook, and there are three possibilities: the merchant, the bank from which the merchant got their merchant account, or VISA/MC. My suspicion is that in most cases it's the merchant, but others have expressed faith that the kindly bank or generous VISA company will step forward and absorb the loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Try downloading just about any binary installer of free software on Windows, and you'll be asked to agree to the license before you install it. For example, the GTK+ library, available here, is LGPL licensed. But if you don't click "I agree" to agree to the LGPL, no install. That looks to me like a requirement for use, even though the LGPL doesn't apply to use.
I think the silly MS license has the same sort of logical error in it. It has boilerplate language that says it applies to use, but it places no restrictions on use. If it's not free, then GTK+ is not free.
Oh - and Open Source? Pah-lease. A license that governs USE of the software sounds neither permissive nor open:
Exactly what restrictions are they putting on your use of it? It looks more like a GPL click-through license agreement (which is pretty common) than something with any teeth.
Was this accidentally posted as a reply to the wrong message? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with "usufruct", or the message it replies to.
In fact, it doesn't even have much to do with the whole issue being discussed:
- Nobody is putting all the blame on the US, they're just saying that on a per capita basis, it's one of the highest producers of greenhouse gases. But Australia and Canada and a number of smaller countries are just about as bad (or worse, in a few cases).
- Nobody is denying that Hansen's predictions were wrong before.
- His previous graph was not "so completely off". It was barely changed by the correction.
- It doesn't really matter how many articles were published based on the flawed data, because there were no material changes to it.
I think I could probably run up a quick sanity check as regards global average temperatures over the last century, for instance.
That's actually much harder than you'd think. The problem is that people build weather stations out in the country where urban heat isn't an influence, and then cities grow, and they have to be moved. It was in correcting for this effect that Hansen's software was wrong for a while.
And do you think it is working fine? It doesn't seem to be; the intensity of the argument here on Slashdot stands as testimony to that, I feel.
I haven't seen anyone posting here who I'd trust to estimate global averages. Not anyone.
I'm a strong believer in reproducible science, so I would like it if Hansen's procedures and the data he used were published and available for anyone to review. But as far as I know from what I read (and trust) on Slashdot, they are.
Okay, I'll rephrase:
If someone makes a deceitful argument, I would hope they would be exposed as a deceitful arguer, not simply contradicted.
Happy?
I agree that colourful prose makes it easier to spot someone's biases, but I think it's naive to think that boring writing is free of them. It's not much of a litmus test when it misses so much.
And I agree that climate scientists shouldn't be believed when they talk about economics, but I think their climate science should be judged on its own merits, not based on what they say in other areas.
Is Hansen a good scientist? I don't know, but one sign in his favour is that he didn't hide the programming error that led to the change in post-2000 estimates. Did he cook the data in some other way? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.
Usufruct is the legal right to derive profit or benefit from the property of others.
You left out the most important part: "as long as the property is not damaged." He's saying we have a right to use the Earth, but we don't have a right to damage it.
would he be so kind as to show us "Global" maps?
Where would he show these, if putting them in the FA isn't the right place?
You must work in a really boring field. If someone makes a deceitful argument, I would hope they would be exposed as a liar, not simply contradicted. And I don't mind reading colourful prose, rather than the dead academic passive voice.
China should slap 200% duties on Windows. Microsoft dumping it at 33% of the US price is going to harm the Chinese piracy industry.
They're asking the judge to compel the university to do something, without having the university present to present objections. They know who the university is.
The GPL removes no freedoms. It grants you a right to copy licensed works in certain limited situations; you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to copy those works.
Not hard drives, and not to make up for piracy: as compensation to the artists for the right to make private copies. You can't legally pirate music in Canada, but you can legally make copies for your own use. (Piracy would be making copies to sell.)
And CRIA doesn't get the levy (though its members get a small proportion of it). Mostly it goes to the artists' collectives, such as SOCAN, etc., and some proportion of it is eventually distributed to the artists.
Mod this redundant, because I've posted it before.
CRIA doesn't get the loot, CPCC does. They report on how it is distributed. About 15 percent of it is distributed to record companies, but most goes to authors and publishers. You can see the mechanics of it here.
IANAL, but at least the levy ought to give you the right to copy stuff.
It does. Canadians have a right to copy for private use.
Should they be forced to sit back and watch as everyone in the world downloads for free what they invested a lot of hard work into producing?
They should receive fair compensation, as the Canadian record companies do based on the levy on blank media.
The levy is far from perfect: it penalizes people who use CDRs for something other than recording copyrighted music, it doesn't apply to media built in to MP3 players, etc., but I'd still say it's a fair compromise.
By the way, this is only going to last a year or two more, but right now it's a real sweet spot: most people have CD players that can't play music from DVDs, but DVD recorders are cheap, so anyone who just wants backup can record to DVDs instead of CDRs, and not pay the levy.
You said that someone who doesn't follow protocol should be fired. I said that someone who learns that the protocol is almost always a waste of time will likely not follow protocol. This may be because they are lazy and think they'll get away with it (in which case they should be fired), or it may be because they are far more likely to make an error when working with a broken system.
Try this: take a few words you type every day out of your spell checker's dictionary, so that every time you type them they get falsely marked as spelling errors. Then tell me you won't sometimes allow a real spelling error to slip by, because it's hidden in the mass of garbage reports.
That's a good solution, if you're the one who designed the broken system: Yes, my system generates hundreds of false alarms, but anyone who learns that it is unreliable will be immediately fired.
Good at reducing complaints about the system, at least. Maybe not good at keeping intelligent employees.
No, not from just this system, from "this system and all the other watchlist systems he has to work with".
If the border agent gets lots of false alarms from other watchlists, then he's not going to read any of them carefully, and he's not going to trust them.
Are the alarms he gets rated on a simple severity scale (e.g. 1 to 10)? How many alarms does the agent get that received the same rating or higher as this one did?
You're missing one important piece of information in your description: how many false alarms does the border agent get from this system and all the other watchlist systems he has to work with? If the agent is getting hundreds of warnings that all turn out to be crap, why would he believe one good one?
This creates a double bounce, which puts the problem right back on the incompetent email admin that accepted the forged spam or virus laden mail to begin with!
As long as you reject at the RCPT stage (before you can see the body) it's okay to refuse, but if you're basing the bounce on the headers put together by an incompetent email admin, you're just adding to the problem: you may not be bouncing to the right place. Just send it into a black hole, don't bounce.
If you have ssh access to a reliable server, you can also tunnel to them for outgoing mail.
The main problem for me is that my outgoing mail currently goes through a server operated by my cable provider.
Why is this a problem? Does your cable provider not provide an SPF record? If they do, one of the variations on the SPF record ("include:") for your domain is basically a pointer to theirs.
The GP says:
Most Americans don't really care, until their wallets or possessions enter the mix. We're more concerned with rising taxes than we are with the erosion of those freedoms that previous generations fought to protect. We care more about "American Idol" than the American ideal.
You say:
We live in a two-party system where one side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the welfare programs, prisons, and the poor" and the other side says "We'll take all your money and give it to the oil companies, airlines, and the telecoms". Either way, they've taken all your money.
You prove his point. You're more concerned about your possessions than your freedoms.
I definitely agree with you, from the point of view of a cardholder. The question is about who is left on the hook, and there are three possibilities: the merchant, the bank from which the merchant got their merchant account, or VISA/MC. My suspicion is that in most cases it's the merchant, but others have expressed faith that the kindly bank or generous VISA company will step forward and absorb the loss.