Good quality data - you mean the stuff the FBI doesn't have because polic departments self-select not to report the majority of cases? You're full of it if you don't think that is GIGO.
Maybe you should have read the article, or at least the summary. Teachers are obliged to report such incidents, same as they are obliged to report anything that might be a case of child abuse.
Studying overfishing is done by scientists, not fishermen. That should cover the STEM part. With better data on overfishing, we can make better policies, based on science, to try to reverse the problem. It was technological advances (sonar, etc) that allowed the cod fishery in eastern canadian waters to be overfished to the point that it collapsed.
"pre-crime"? Are you serious? 50 years ago, if you had written that you had a bomb in your house it would have been investigated. If you had written that you had forcibly had sex with a minor, or a press to print counterfeit bills, or that you had a cache of stolen goods, same thing. This is not pre-crime.
Could you have at least read the summary? "The 2015 Counter Terrorism and Security Act means that teachers have been legally obliged to report any suspected extremist behavior to police since July."
They would investigate anyone. The UK has a LONG history of dealing with non-muslim, non-arab terrorists.
2000 1 June: Real IRA bomb on Hammersmith Bridge, London.
2000 20 September: Real IRA fired an RPG-22 at the MI6 HQ in London.
2001 4 March: Real IRA detonated a car bomb outside the BBC's main news centre in London. One London Underground worker suffered deep cuts to his eye from flying glass and some damage was caused to the front of the building.[21] (See 2001 BBC bombing)
2001 16 April: Hendon post office bombed by the Real IRA.
2001 6 May: Real IRA detonated a bomb in a London postal sorting office. One person was injured.
2001 3 August: Real IRA bomb explodes in Ealing, West London, injuring seven people. (See 2001 Ealing bombing)
2001 4 November: Real IRA car bomb in Birmingham.
If you want, you can go back to the beginning of the '70s - just a bunch of white terrorists until July 2005.
Nope - I can charge whatever I deem is reasonable for 3rd party source code copies - and I can take my sweet time doing so. BTW, since both what defines a "reasonable charge" and there is no time limit specified, so good luck with that. The GPL, because of it's lack of specificity, can be challenged under the laws of many countries (including mine), and that portion excised, without affecting the other rights:-) And any clause that says otherwise will also be held invalid. See "contract of adhesion." The GPL is a "take it or leave it" license, and as such, is always interpreted against the offerer and and in favour of the recipient - at least that's what the law says here. So good luck with that.
Really? I point out that this guy hasn't got a business model, just a hope for one. Look at their site - NO CUSTOMERS, just an "early adopter program" for those who want to PAY to help work out the bugs. This whole thing is as big a piece of shite.
They didn't take the chromebook model. They want to take a standard dell laptop (priced between $800 and $1100 depending on configuration) and stick linux on it. For users that need standard Windows apps, they can just use the Windows that comes standard with the machine. Or they can run linux (or windows) in a vm.
Also, since they're pushing SaaS and "Teh Cloud!" your privacy problems are huge. So what's the point? Nobody's going to buy his "solution" for a business, and home users can do it themselves for less, same as always.
The kid's background doesn't come into it - if any kid had written that they live in a terrorist house, it would be checked out. This is not a case of profiling, no matter how much the Muslim Council of Britain tries, without actually saying so, that it was targeted at a Muslim.
You don't know what you're talking about. You only have to give the source to people YOU gave the binary to. So I can freely distribute modified source, distribute the binaries, and only give the recipients the source if/when they ask. Anyone else who gets the binary from a third party is sh*t out of luck, since I would have zero responsibility to them, since they didn't receive the binary from me.
That's a blatant lie. The BSD license does NOT say "All Rights Reserved."
The license is very simple, especially when compared to ANY of the GPL licenses:
Preamble - not part of the license, just a template for applying your own copyright.
The following is a BSD 2-Clause license template. To generate your own license, change the values of OWNER and YEAR from their original values as given here, and substitute your own.
OWNER = Regents of the University of California
YEAR = 1998
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
That's it. You get the code, you can do anything you want with it, including customizing it and charging per copy without giving the source. Unlike the GPL, you decide the conditions of redistribution of your work. If the user doesn't like that, let them write their own code. Nobody's forcing them to pay for software.
It's not about "some right to expect." It's simply a fact - the GPL license is far more restrictive than the MIT license. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, the GPL is restrictive. It's also pretty toxic as far as a business model is concerned. Now, that is the author's right, but FreeBSD (via OSX) is the #2 desktop - linux never will be. FreeBSD is also the #2 gaming system OS (Sony Playstation) - linux will never be.
And as far as smartphones are concerned - if there eventually turns out to be a licensing problem with linux, it will be replaced with FreeBSD. Networking, threaded code only needs 1 extra #include and a couple of #defines to run on both linux and bsd. More importantly, including the extra BSD header doesn't prevent the same binary from running under FreeBSD and linux.
The fact is the FBI says that the Guardian has better stats. They're the ones who should know. If you have a beef, you should take it up with the FBI and tell the director he doesn't know what he's doing. Great way to get on the watch list as a crackpot, but please, go ahead.
The "article" is a troll - the source is a wordpress blog that is really, really thin gruel that looks like it was written by someone with a high school hobbyist level of understanding of the scene. You'd get more information reading the -1 posts on slashdot.
Really? How are these any different from buying a Chromebook if all they're intended to be used for is web apps (I'm assuming you actually went to the web site and understand these are only to be used "in the cloud" with "SaaS")?
Oh, wait, they're (Dell Latitude E7450) several times more expensive than a Chromebook.... THAT's the difference. Silly me - businesses will always want to pay a premium to buy from an unproven "business" than a known-good configuration from an established supplier. That's why Linux is on the vast majority of desktops.... not!
The MIT/BSD style licenses don't reduce the user's freedom, whereas the GPL makes it a lot harder to get things right (binary blobs for drivers being a good example). So, if you're a user, the BSD license is much friendlier.
Also, if you give a copy to your friend, you don't have to worry about them coming up to you a couple of years later and demanding the source, which may prove to be hard for defunct code that "just works" for your case.
And the third advantage is you're not going to be accused by freetards who don't understand the meaning of the words free and restrictive, and try to make restrictions sound like they're really free. 1984 called and wants it's doublespeak back.
So THAT's how the Pentacostals come up with all their fake "speaking in tongues" languages... no wonder they're always looking like they're having fits.
Slashdot Mirror
And how many of them were real? Most? Some? None? My point stands - the UK has a LONG history of investigating white terrorist threats.
Good quality data - you mean the stuff the FBI doesn't have because polic departments self-select not to report the majority of cases? You're full of it if you don't think that is GIGO.
Maybe you should have read the article, or at least the summary. Teachers are obliged to report such incidents, same as they are obliged to report anything that might be a case of child abuse.
Studying overfishing is done by scientists, not fishermen. That should cover the STEM part. With better data on overfishing, we can make better policies, based on science, to try to reverse the problem. It was technological advances (sonar, etc) that allowed the cod fishery in eastern canadian waters to be overfished to the point that it collapsed.
The Christian bible is just as bad ...
"pre-crime"? Are you serious? 50 years ago, if you had written that you had a bomb in your house it would have been investigated. If you had written that you had forcibly had sex with a minor, or a press to print counterfeit bills, or that you had a cache of stolen goods, same thing. This is not pre-crime.
Could you have at least read the summary? "The 2015 Counter Terrorism and Security Act means that teachers have been legally obliged to report any suspected extremist behavior to police since July."
2000 1 June: Real IRA bomb on Hammersmith Bridge, London.
2000 20 September: Real IRA fired an RPG-22 at the MI6 HQ in London.
2001 4 March: Real IRA detonated a car bomb outside the BBC's main news centre in London. One London Underground worker suffered deep cuts to his eye from flying glass and some damage was caused to the front of the building.[21] (See 2001 BBC bombing)
2001 16 April: Hendon post office bombed by the Real IRA.
2001 6 May: Real IRA detonated a bomb in a London postal sorting office. One person was injured.
2001 3 August: Real IRA bomb explodes in Ealing, West London, injuring seven people. (See 2001 Ealing bombing)
2001 4 November: Real IRA car bomb in Birmingham.
If you want, you can go back to the beginning of the '70s - just a bunch of white terrorists until July 2005.
Nope - I can charge whatever I deem is reasonable for 3rd party source code copies - and I can take my sweet time doing so. BTW, since both what defines a "reasonable charge" and there is no time limit specified, so good luck with that. The GPL, because of it's lack of specificity, can be challenged under the laws of many countries (including mine), and that portion excised, without affecting the other rights :-) And any clause that says otherwise will also be held invalid. See "contract of adhesion." The GPL is a "take it or leave it" license, and as such, is always interpreted against the offerer and and in favour of the recipient - at least that's what the law says here. So good luck with that.
Really? I point out that this guy hasn't got a business model, just a hope for one. Look at their site - NO CUSTOMERS, just an "early adopter program" for those who want to PAY to help work out the bugs. This whole thing is as big a piece of shite.
They didn't take the chromebook model. They want to take a standard dell laptop (priced between $800 and $1100 depending on configuration) and stick linux on it. For users that need standard Windows apps, they can just use the Windows that comes standard with the machine. Or they can run linux (or windows) in a vm.
Also, since they're pushing SaaS and "Teh Cloud!" your privacy problems are huge. So what's the point? Nobody's going to buy his "solution" for a business, and home users can do it themselves for less, same as always.
Data is part of stats. You fail.
The kid's background doesn't come into it - if any kid had written that they live in a terrorist house, it would be checked out. This is not a case of profiling, no matter how much the Muslim Council of Britain tries, without actually saying so, that it was targeted at a Muslim.
You don't know what you're talking about. You only have to give the source to people YOU gave the binary to. So I can freely distribute modified source, distribute the binaries, and only give the recipients the source if/when they ask. Anyone else who gets the binary from a third party is sh*t out of luck, since I would have zero responsibility to them, since they didn't receive the binary from me.
That's a blatant lie. The BSD license does NOT say "All Rights Reserved."
The license is very simple, especially when compared to ANY of the GPL licenses: Preamble - not part of the license, just a template for applying your own copyright.
The following is a BSD 2-Clause license template. To generate your own license, change the values of OWNER and YEAR from their original values as given here, and substitute your own.
OWNER = Regents of the University of California
YEAR = 1998
That's it. You get the code, you can do anything you want with it, including customizing it and charging per copy without giving the source. Unlike the GPL, you decide the conditions of redistribution of your work. If the user doesn't like that, let them write their own code. Nobody's forcing them to pay for software.
It's not about "some right to expect." It's simply a fact - the GPL license is far more restrictive than the MIT license. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, the GPL is restrictive. It's also pretty toxic as far as a business model is concerned. Now, that is the author's right, but FreeBSD (via OSX) is the #2 desktop - linux never will be. FreeBSD is also the #2 gaming system OS (Sony Playstation) - linux will never be.
And as far as smartphones are concerned - if there eventually turns out to be a licensing problem with linux, it will be replaced with FreeBSD. Networking, threaded code only needs 1 extra #include and a couple of #defines to run on both linux and bsd. More importantly, including the extra BSD header doesn't prevent the same binary from running under FreeBSD and linux.
The fact is the FBI says that the Guardian has better stats. They're the ones who should know. If you have a beef, you should take it up with the FBI and tell the director he doesn't know what he's doing. Great way to get on the watch list as a crackpot, but please, go ahead.
Of course it's intentional - I pretty much said so ....
If you want it you'll buy it. Look at all the people who buy proprietary games.
The "article" is a troll - the source is a wordpress blog that is really, really thin gruel that looks like it was written by someone with a high school hobbyist level of understanding of the scene. You'd get more information reading the -1 posts on slashdot.
Oh, you'd rather drive? Then call up a Uber car - welcome to surge pricing since everyone else now has the same idea.
Whoosh. Clearly, whoosh.
Really? How are these any different from buying a Chromebook if all they're intended to be used for is web apps (I'm assuming you actually went to the web site and understand these are only to be used "in the cloud" with "SaaS")?
Oh, wait, they're (Dell Latitude E7450) several times more expensive than a Chromebook. ... THAT's the difference. Silly me - businesses will always want to pay a premium to buy from an unproven "business" than a known-good configuration from an established supplier. That's why Linux is on the vast majority of desktops .... not!
RMS is hard to understand because he has a LISP.
The MIT/BSD style licenses don't reduce the user's freedom, whereas the GPL makes it a lot harder to get things right (binary blobs for drivers being a good example). So, if you're a user, the BSD license is much friendlier.
Also, if you give a copy to your friend, you don't have to worry about them coming up to you a couple of years later and demanding the source, which may prove to be hard for defunct code that "just works" for your case.
And the third advantage is you're not going to be accused by freetards who don't understand the meaning of the words free and restrictive, and try to make restrictions sound like they're really free. 1984 called and wants it's doublespeak back.
So THAT's how the Pentacostals come up with all their fake "speaking in tongues" languages ... no wonder they're always looking like they're having fits.