I understand what you're saying, but that's not what I understood the text to mean. (See jmv's sibling response to yours -- what he and AuMatar think it means is the same thing I do, despite the fact that one is trying to argue with me and the other with him.)
If your reading is the intended one, they need to state it more clearly.
They may impose software patent retaliation, which means permission for use of your added parts terminates or may be terminated, wholly or partially, under stated conditions, for users closely related to any party that has filed a software patent lawsuit (i.e., a lawsuit alleging that some software infringes a patent).
As I understand that, it is now consistent with the GPL to add a clause to the license, even to derivatives of code licensed under the base GPL, barring individuals from using software if they're pursuing a completely unrelated patent lawsuit. Am I missing something?
There is a proposal in it that would discourage or disable the use of GPL software for DRM, by stating that software under the new GPL cannot constitute an "effective technological protection measure".
I'd be curious to see what an objective lawyer has to say about the enforceability of that clause. Being an "effective technological protection measure" seems like a matter that can't be waived, any more than my signing a stipulation that I wasn't born in August affects my birthday.
So "freedom for users" has now been redefined to "freedom for users, except for one group of users that we don't like". I'm curious to see who the second group is going to be...
I think one of the benefits of a duct tape and aluminum foil wallet is that it will eliminate pretty much all female-related complexities from your life...
Of course there's no genuine GPL violation there. But most of the "___ Is Violating Teh GPL!!!" stories we get around here don't involve genuine violations, just failure to comply to the widespread misunderstandings of what the license requires. That's why I specified idiots as the complainants.
Sure, they've made some incremental improvements since GPS was specced in, IIRC, 1973. The satellite coverage is better at high latitudes and the atomic clocks are a little better.
Nonetheless, if I were going to make the OP's point (which, again, I'm not interested in arguing) I'd point to, say, Nokia or Philips instead. Honestly, if you look at the Galileo site, even they don't present it as anything especially novel.
This Galileo system launched by Europe also demonstrates that Europe continues to be technologically competent and that slightly socialistic economic policies have not diminished Europe's ability to compete...you do not need a huge military budget to spur innovation.
Whatever the merits of these points, I'm not sure how reimplementing GPS 27 years after the analogous US satellite was launched demonstrates them.
The only thing releasing the full Subversion history is going to get you is complaints from idiots that you're violating the GPL by not open-sourcing the dependencies. I applaud your concern for thorughness but just go with the current version.
I think his point is that he's still fighting with Eclipse, and is wondering if switching to something simpler might require less effort than continuing with Eclipse is going to demand.
I was thinking more along the lines of from the editors-on-crack dept. Although, at least this one didn't have every "fi" substring deleted from the text, like yesterday's book excerpt.
I'm outraged with the rest (Gee, it's certainly a shame we declined to hand the Internet over to these people!) but what the hell kind of "thesis" grinds to a halt without Wikipedia? These "intellectuals" sound like my elementary school classmates when a necessary volume of the encyclopedia was missing from the shelf.
Reading Truveo's site, it looks like a) it gets all its metadata from the context in which it's found, not from examining the video itself and b) their real accomplishment is being able to fish through the different layers behind which most news sites put their video. It doesn't sound super-imprressive to me, but AOL seems to disagree.
As for your question -- presumably you could pipe the audio portion to a speech-to-text tool and parse that, no?
I completely concur. My objection has always been to stories that are pointlessly inflammatory, wildly redundant or flat-out wrong. I've never understood why people seem untroubled by those but flip out over worthwhile submissions by an interested party. Or dupes, for that matter.
On the other hand, most of Roland's summaries fall into the "flat-out wrong" category.
Patents are (supposed) to protect a novel way of doing something. If you can watch that something occur and come up with the same thing, how novel was it?
Generally, I get the impression that most of you people literally don't understand what "innovate" (or in this case "novel") means, but you've provided the most obvious example yet.
You're talking about the Drake equation, presumably? Sorry to burst your bubble, but those numbers are for the most part wild guesses. We're still speculating about how our own biochemistry arose, let alone any other planet's version -- how could there possibly be a firm number on that?
Shoehorning a bunch of legitimately interesting work into "Evolution!" is just heavy-handed politicking, that cheapens both science and Science. What they don't seem to get is that the ID people have no long-term investment in science and don't care if they bring the whole thing down; scientists need to be careful about drawing the line between research and politics.
Turns out the number of stars likely to have planets in the habital zone overwhelmed the probability by about 10,000 planets likely to have life of some form.
That's precisely my point -- once you're in the realm of multiplying an insanely large number pulled out of your ass by an insanely small number pulled out of your ass, it's arguably irrelevant that the number the OP is pulling out of his ass is even smaller.
Occam's Razor went by the boards long ago on this front, for the reasons you say.
Last I followed this (which was a while ago) the prevailing idea was that the sloshing around produced RNAs with catalytic activity, which enabled the cascade of new activities that eventually led to the DNA-RNA-protein system. In space, you might be able to get the same initial sequence but it's hard to see what it would then do out there.
(Honestly, once you've dismissed the creationism/ID crowd and declared that there must be some scientific explanation for life, it remains that the current theories demand some ludicrously improbable sequence of events, regardless of which one you choose. So who knows?)
Well of course, because Sally from Topeka's Brown Betty recipe, the weight of Susie from Hackensack's new baby boy, the measurements of Tony from Jersey City's new boss rims and Jennifer from Atlanta's belief that Britney Spears is "so cool and sexy" is information we all can't do without.
As a matter of fact, yeah. Welcome to 1995. People lost a lot of money on pathfinder.com, go.com and the like before they realized that the killer feature of the Internet is access to LunixBlogger's belief that Richard Stallman is "so cool and sexy".
Speaking of "information we all can't do without", I know this is a slow news day but are the top two current stories really "Details of Google - AOL deal not true" and "Rumors of Microsoft - Opera deal not true"?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the scenario you mentioned could cause some mild embarassment in court, but I'd still be very surprised if it were legally binding.
If your reading is the intended one, they need to state it more clearly.
I'd be curious to see what an objective lawyer has to say about the enforceability of that clause. Being an "effective technological protection measure" seems like a matter that can't be waived, any more than my signing a stipulation that I wasn't born in August affects my birthday.
So "freedom for users" has now been redefined to "freedom for users, except for one group of users that we don't like". I'm curious to see who the second group is going to be...
I think one of the benefits of a duct tape and aluminum foil wallet is that it will eliminate pretty much all female-related complexities from your life...
Of course there's no genuine GPL violation there. But most of the "___ Is Violating Teh GPL!!!" stories we get around here don't involve genuine violations, just failure to comply to the widespread misunderstandings of what the license requires. That's why I specified idiots as the complainants.
Nonetheless, if I were going to make the OP's point (which, again, I'm not interested in arguing) I'd point to, say, Nokia or Philips instead. Honestly, if you look at the Galileo site, even they don't present it as anything especially novel.
Whatever the merits of these points, I'm not sure how reimplementing GPS 27 years after the analogous US satellite was launched demonstrates them.
The only thing releasing the full Subversion history is going to get you is complaints from idiots that you're violating the GPL by not open-sourcing the dependencies. I applaud your concern for thorughness but just go with the current version.
I think his point is that he's still fighting with Eclipse, and is wondering if switching to something simpler might require less effort than continuing with Eclipse is going to demand.
Three guesses, in decreasing order of likelihood:
1) The guy isn't a molecular biologist and doesn't know how to do that, but does understand how to do selective breeding.
2) The alga used here isn't a common experimental system so you don't have the tools available that you do for mice.
3) The CO2 uptake is controlled by a pathway such that hitting one or two genes isn't enough to change it significantly.
Malware alert! These pants report intimate details of your anatomy back to Apple!
I was thinking more along the lines of from the editors-on-crack dept. Although, at least this one didn't have every "fi" substring deleted from the text, like yesterday's book excerpt.
I'm outraged with the rest (Gee, it's certainly a shame we declined to hand the Internet over to these people!) but what the hell kind of "thesis" grinds to a halt without Wikipedia? These "intellectuals" sound like my elementary school classmates when a necessary volume of the encyclopedia was missing from the shelf.
If I understood the Truveo site correctly -- yeah, it's similar to Google image search except with a supposedly better crawler.
As for your question -- presumably you could pipe the audio portion to a speech-to-text tool and parse that, no?
On the other hand, most of Roland's summaries fall into the "flat-out wrong" category.
Generally, I get the impression that most of you people literally don't understand what "innovate" (or in this case "novel") means, but you've provided the most obvious example yet.
You're talking about the Drake equation, presumably? Sorry to burst your bubble, but those numbers are for the most part wild guesses. We're still speculating about how our own biochemistry arose, let alone any other planet's version -- how could there possibly be a firm number on that?
And, hello -- how about the HapMap?
That's precisely my point -- once you're in the realm of multiplying an insanely large number pulled out of your ass by an insanely small number pulled out of your ass, it's arguably irrelevant that the number the OP is pulling out of his ass is even smaller.
Occam's Razor went by the boards long ago on this front, for the reasons you say.
(Honestly, once you've dismissed the creationism/ID crowd and declared that there must be some scientific explanation for life, it remains that the current theories demand some ludicrously improbable sequence of events, regardless of which one you choose. So who knows?)
In any case, though, the new AOL browser is IE-based.
As a matter of fact, yeah. Welcome to 1995. People lost a lot of money on pathfinder.com, go.com and the like before they realized that the killer feature of the Internet is access to LunixBlogger's belief that Richard Stallman is "so cool and sexy".
Speaking of "information we all can't do without", I know this is a slow news day but are the top two current stories really "Details of Google - AOL deal not true" and "Rumors of Microsoft - Opera deal not true"?