Unfortunately climate change does not work "gradually over hundreds of years".
We're talking about sea level rise, not climate change. Sea level rise necessarily is slow and gradual.
We in NY/NJ getting hit with hurricanes the likes of which we have not been seen before. Prime real estate at ocean front either got swept away and what is left of it lost all value. Even in my far from ocean town the houses close to river cannot be sold any longer.
The only reason "ocean front real estate" is "prime" is because of massive government subsidies. Prior to those, people avoided the ocean front because they would be regularly subject to storms and other natural disasters.
They're not responding to sea level rise, they are responding to the expiration of the federal flood insurance program.
As long as the federal flood insurance program was in place, people whose houses got flooded simply could rebuild a shiny new house at taxpayer expense again and again.
As for sea level rise, it is happening and going to continue at roughly the same rate for a couple of centuries at least, no matter what we do, so that can't be the cause of sudden changes in coastal real estate prices. Whatever the threat may or may not be, it has been priced in for years.
Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.
Its only use is to transform the kernel source. Who owns the coyright on the transformed source that results after the patch is applied?
Original Linux Kernel: Linux kernel authors hold the copyright and define copy terms for the kernel. Since that's the GPL, you can redistribute it under the GPL.
Patch: patch authors hold the copyright and define copy terms for the patch itself. If that prohibits redistribution, it can't be redistributed.
Patched kernel: both the Linux kernel authors and the patch authors hold a copyright in the result. When copying the combined work, you must comply with the terms of both the Linux kernel authors and the patch authors. One license permits redistribution, the other one doesn't, so the combined work can't be redistributed.
Keep in mind that the GPL allows for proprietary modifications; that is, if you modify and deploy GPL software in-house, you are not required to share your modifications. This was the express intent of the authors of the GPL. Furthermore, if you are a company and you have employees modify GPL software as part of their job, they can't just take the modified software and publish it; they are still bound by their employment agreements. Proprietary patches like this really are not all that different.
The problem is that companies are not sharing the cost benefits of technology, period. Case in point, eBooks are less expensive to produce, yet they usually cost more than the real book.
While socialists and fascists tend to believe that the price of a good is "cost of production + markup" (and they can save the markup if they nationalize), that's not how prices actually work.
eBooks have brought the cost of books down tremendously. You can get free or near free books on just about any subject. When books cost more than that, it's because people are willing to pay more for it.
Software doesn't work like this. Microsoft might spend a lot of money to develop the first unit of a new program, but every unit after that is virtually free to produce.
Yes, and this "a lot of money to develop the first unit" is what is risky and what capitalists actually invest in.
But the premise is false too, because much of the software industry is a service industry, meaning that after the initial sale, there is support and maintenance. This may be a foreign concept to Microsoft, but it is a business necessity to other software companies.
And let's not kid ourselves why Bill Gates is starting to hate the market: it's kicking his ass and destroying the little monopoly he thought he had locked up in perpetuity. And like so many wannabe monopolists before him, he embraces unsavory ideologies and runs to government and politics for validation and help.
they know it is a derivative work, and their work is released under the GPL
Notice how you say "their work is released"? Thanks for proving my point.
This isn't even a point grsecurity disputes:
Well, obviously they do, otherwise they wouldn't be applying the extra terms, since they obviously can't apply extra terms to someone else's GPL'ed code, but they can apply it to their own.
I find it fascinating how you people put blind partisanship ahead of common sense. It's such a deeply ingrained part of your thinking, you don't even notice it.
You sound like a conspiracy "theorist"...a plot behind every grain of sand.
Oh, do tell: who do you think Bezos conspired with to buy the WaPo?
I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that commentary is "protected" as fair use
The commentary itself is a new work with a new copyright; it is neither a copy of the original work nor a transformation of it.
As part of writing the commentary, you are allowed to copy parts of the work you are commenting on under the "fair use" doctrine. That is the sense in which "fair use" applies to commentary.
With the grsecurity patches, the entire reason they exist is to modify the Linux kernel. If the kernel didn't exist, they wouldn't either. It's hard to argue they are not a derivative work.
So your criterion is that "if X wouldn't exist without Y then Y's copyright applies to X"? If that's the principle, then you can kiss FOSS goodbye.
Suing him for stating an opinion even it's wrong is like me suing you for what you just posted.
I agree. I said so in my original posting. Do you find it hard to follow a couple of English sentences? Or do you go out of your way of inventing strawmen?
I suspect it's because that they couldn't win on any copyright claim as Perens (as is anyone) can voice an opinion about copyright just like you just did above.
You're stating the obvious. I mean, Perens can obviously bloviate as much as he wants to on things he doesn't know anything about; god knows he's been doing that a lot throughout his career.
Now answer me this: if this is a GPL violation, why don't the Linux kernel developers actually sue?
It doesn't "contain" the book per session, it's a transformation, an adaptation, of the book
A movie is a transformed version of the original novel.
A patched kernel is a transformed version of the original kernel.
A kernel patch is not a transformed version of the original kernel.
That's a derivative work. "Derived from" doesn't mean "contains".
Under your standard, a commentary on a movie is "derived from" the movie even if it doesn't contain any content at all from the movie. I consider that undesirable.
This was a defamation lawsuit. It didn't settle the issue of whether the copyright issue itself is prohibited.
Perens' argument on the legal issue itself strikes me as dubious. He's claiming that GPL copyright automatically extends to separately distributed patches that, themselves, do not contain any of the GPL'ed code. I'm not sure why that would be the case, and I'm not convinced that that would be a ruling that would be in the interest of open source software, because it seems to put a lot of other open source software at risk of being considered "derivative works" of proprietary software.
Actually, the halogen percentage I quoted is worldwide; it's probably even less in the US.
However, we really need to require high Lumen per watt bulbs when tenants or owners change.
Yeah, let's put in more useless laws to save 0.01% in carbon emissions and increase new housing costs!
Again, California screwed up.
California requires R13-R15 for walls, Spain requires about R9. So, regulations are already substantially stricter in the US.
Where we really need to focus in America is our HVAC. HVAC accounts for about 1/3-1/2 of a resident/commercial usage. Unlike Europe...
Unlike Europe, Americans are wealthier and therefore are willing to pay more for comfortable temperatures inside their homes and offices. That's the difference right there. It's also why we drive more, own more cars, have bigger homes, and generally consume more energy. In fact, the US is pretty much on the regression line for per capita energy use vs per capita gdp, which is pretty good given the climate extremes in the US and our substantially bigger homes.
Electricity is responsible for about 34% of US carbon emissions. Of those 34%, about 7% are residential and commercial lighting, with less than half of that being residential lighting. We're down to less than 1% of US carbon emissions due to residential lighting now. Halogen is less than 10% of that market, so we're down to less than 0.1% of US carbon emissions due to halogen bulbs. LEDs are a lot more efficient than those, saving you probably up to 75% of those carbon emissions, but the impact overall is negligible.
Furthermore, some of those savings may not be realized because in many situations, the lower heat output from LEDs needs to be made up for by more heating. It's also likely that the environmental impact of manufacturing LEDs is higher than for halogen bulbs. And although nominally LEDs last a long time, the electronics in them have significant failure rates in my experience.
Does that mean it's a bad thing to replace your halogen bulbs with LEDs? Not at all. I did that in my home years ago. But it won't "slash emissions and energy bills"; in fact, there are high up-front costs and the main effect of these laws is likely going to be to increase prices and compliance costs for new buildings a little.
When there is no clearly defined policy, things change with the prevailing winds in the Executive branch. That's what worries me.
Congress has clearly defined the policy. The problem is that the executive branch has been ignoring it. There are millions of people in the US who, under our immigration laws, have no right to be in the US and should be removed immediately.
As for the Afghanis, the news reports called it "asylum". Maybe they oversimplified for the audience, but that's what they called it, and until right now I didn't know there was something in between that and a permanent resident visa
There is nothing "in between". Under current US law, you are temporarily on asylum, then, after a year, you can apply for permanent residency. As I was saying, asylum is not a permanent status; people are supposed to move on to either immigration or resettlement. Afghani translators, however, get immigrant visas in a special category directly. That's also not "in between", it's just another form of immigrant visa.
As for "the news reports", you need to find better news sources.
If you've got an unemployed, 30-year-old adult child still living in the basement, fear not. A new large-data study of fossil and extant bivalves and gastropods in the Atlantic Ocean suggests laziness might be a fruitful strategy for survival of individuals, species and even communities of species.
Bivalves reproduce by releasing their sperm into the water. Masturbating in your basement, however, is not a good reproductive strategy in humans. In humans, females tend to select the male with the most resources and status, which you need to acquire through competition, intelligence, and brawn. It's why humans build civilizations and bivalves do not.
I'm speaking of various Afghanis who have been told they would receive asylum for their help in finding Osama... who were then stonewalled and left to their own devices.
They were promised permanent residency under a special visa category created for that purpose by Congress, not asylum; asylum isn't granted for "help in finding" anything.
And saying that asylum should not automatically imply permanent residency is different from saying that we should send everybody back to where they came from without exception. What is it with these ridiculous dichotomies with you?
On the reverse side, putting a time limit on asylum
Where did I say anything about a "time limit"? I simply pointed out that, according to UDHR and international law, asylum per se is not necessarily a permanent condition. In the English language, does that mean a specific time limit? Does it mean sending people back to be beheaded?
because they know they'll end up back home (and beheaded) eventually. Even if the political situation stabilizes, snitches still get stitches.
Very funny. You have now left the ground of rational, open minded debate and entered the realm of false dichotomies, ridiculous hyperbole, and political advocacy.
will make it much less likely the locals will pitch in with us in any ground situation
Even funnier! Living in Southern California or NYC is apparently now a "ground situation" that requires "pitching in"!
As I was saying: It is also inadvisable because if asylum automatically implies permanent residency, countries will be far more reluctant to grant it. Americans and Europeans, at this point, realize that almost anybody they let in will simply stay, which is why there is such strong opposition to letting so many people in in the first place.
In addition, we have had discussions about how long to let people stay, for example with the temporary protected status and deferred deportations. It makes no sense to let people stay who could return home after conditions have improved in their country of origin.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about sea level rise, not climate change. Sea level rise necessarily is slow and gradual.
The only reason "ocean front real estate" is "prime" is because of massive government subsidies. Prior to those, people avoided the ocean front because they would be regularly subject to storms and other natural disasters.
It's interesting what straws you people grasp at to justify your crony capitalism.
They're not responding to sea level rise, they are responding to the expiration of the federal flood insurance program.
As long as the federal flood insurance program was in place, people whose houses got flooded simply could rebuild a shiny new house at taxpayer expense again and again.
As for sea level rise, it is happening and going to continue at roughly the same rate for a couple of centuries at least, no matter what we do, so that can't be the cause of sudden changes in coastal real estate prices. Whatever the threat may or may not be, it has been priced in for years.
Furthermore, homes depreciate over about 30 years, so anything beyond that horizon is not worth worrying about.
Original Linux Kernel: Linux kernel authors hold the copyright and define copy terms for the kernel. Since that's the GPL, you can redistribute it under the GPL.
Patch: patch authors hold the copyright and define copy terms for the patch itself. If that prohibits redistribution, it can't be redistributed.
Patched kernel: both the Linux kernel authors and the patch authors hold a copyright in the result. When copying the combined work, you must comply with the terms of both the Linux kernel authors and the patch authors. One license permits redistribution, the other one doesn't, so the combined work can't be redistributed.
Keep in mind that the GPL allows for proprietary modifications; that is, if you modify and deploy GPL software in-house, you are not required to share your modifications. This was the express intent of the authors of the GPL. Furthermore, if you are a company and you have employees modify GPL software as part of their job, they can't just take the modified software and publish it; they are still bound by their employment agreements. Proprietary patches like this really are not all that different.
While socialists and fascists tend to believe that the price of a good is "cost of production + markup" (and they can save the markup if they nationalize), that's not how prices actually work.
eBooks have brought the cost of books down tremendously. You can get free or near free books on just about any subject. When books cost more than that, it's because people are willing to pay more for it.
Yes, and this "a lot of money to develop the first unit" is what is risky and what capitalists actually invest in.
But the premise is false too, because much of the software industry is a service industry, meaning that after the initial sale, there is support and maintenance. This may be a foreign concept to Microsoft, but it is a business necessity to other software companies.
And let's not kid ourselves why Bill Gates is starting to hate the market: it's kicking his ass and destroying the little monopoly he thought he had locked up in perpetuity. And like so many wannabe monopolists before him, he embraces unsavory ideologies and runs to government and politics for validation and help.
Notice how you say "their work is released"? Thanks for proving my point.
Well, obviously they do, otherwise they wouldn't be applying the extra terms, since they obviously can't apply extra terms to someone else's GPL'ed code, but they can apply it to their own.
I find it fascinating how you people put blind partisanship ahead of common sense. It's such a deeply ingrained part of your thinking, you don't even notice it.
Oh, do tell: who do you think Bezos conspired with to buy the WaPo?
You don't have to come up with it, it has been around since V7 and since before context diffs: diff -e
If you wanted a context diff but didn't want to include the literal context, you could replace the context by a hash of the context.
"diff -e"
As I was saying:
Do you?
The commentary itself is a new work with a new copyright; it is neither a copy of the original work nor a transformation of it.
As part of writing the commentary, you are allowed to copy parts of the work you are commenting on under the "fair use" doctrine. That is the sense in which "fair use" applies to commentary.
So your criterion is that "if X wouldn't exist without Y then Y's copyright applies to X"? If that's the principle, then you can kiss FOSS goodbye.
Are you so inexperienced with UNIX that the only patch format you have ever seen is a context diff?
I agree. I said so in my original posting. Do you find it hard to follow a couple of English sentences? Or do you go out of your way of inventing strawmen?
You're stating the obvious. I mean, Perens can obviously bloviate as much as he wants to on things he doesn't know anything about; god knows he's been doing that a lot throughout his career.
Now answer me this: if this is a GPL violation, why don't the Linux kernel developers actually sue?
A movie is a transformed version of the original novel.
A patched kernel is a transformed version of the original kernel.
A kernel patch is not a transformed version of the original kernel.
Under your standard, a commentary on a movie is "derived from" the movie even if it doesn't contain any content at all from the movie. I consider that undesirable.
I see Bezos' purchase of the Pravda on the Potomac is paying dividends.
This was a defamation lawsuit. It didn't settle the issue of whether the copyright issue itself is prohibited.
Perens' argument on the legal issue itself strikes me as dubious. He's claiming that GPL copyright automatically extends to separately distributed patches that, themselves, do not contain any of the GPL'ed code. I'm not sure why that would be the case, and I'm not convinced that that would be a ruling that would be in the interest of open source software, because it seems to put a lot of other open source software at risk of being considered "derivative works" of proprietary software.
Actually, the halogen percentage I quoted is worldwide; it's probably even less in the US.
Yeah, let's put in more useless laws to save 0.01% in carbon emissions and increase new housing costs!
California requires R13-R15 for walls, Spain requires about R9. So, regulations are already substantially stricter in the US.
Unlike Europe, Americans are wealthier and therefore are willing to pay more for comfortable temperatures inside their homes and offices. That's the difference right there. It's also why we drive more, own more cars, have bigger homes, and generally consume more energy. In fact, the US is pretty much on the regression line for per capita energy use vs per capita gdp, which is pretty good given the climate extremes in the US and our substantially bigger homes.
Electricity is responsible for about 34% of US carbon emissions. Of those 34%, about 7% are residential and commercial lighting, with less than half of that being residential lighting. We're down to less than 1% of US carbon emissions due to residential lighting now. Halogen is less than 10% of that market, so we're down to less than 0.1% of US carbon emissions due to halogen bulbs. LEDs are a lot more efficient than those, saving you probably up to 75% of those carbon emissions, but the impact overall is negligible.
Furthermore, some of those savings may not be realized because in many situations, the lower heat output from LEDs needs to be made up for by more heating. It's also likely that the environmental impact of manufacturing LEDs is higher than for halogen bulbs. And although nominally LEDs last a long time, the electronics in them have significant failure rates in my experience.
Does that mean it's a bad thing to replace your halogen bulbs with LEDs? Not at all. I did that in my home years ago. But it won't "slash emissions and energy bills"; in fact, there are high up-front costs and the main effect of these laws is likely going to be to increase prices and compliance costs for new buildings a little.
Congress has clearly defined the policy. The problem is that the executive branch has been ignoring it. There are millions of people in the US who, under our immigration laws, have no right to be in the US and should be removed immediately.
There is nothing "in between". Under current US law, you are temporarily on asylum, then, after a year, you can apply for permanent residency. As I was saying, asylum is not a permanent status; people are supposed to move on to either immigration or resettlement. Afghani translators, however, get immigrant visas in a special category directly. That's also not "in between", it's just another form of immigrant visa.
As for "the news reports", you need to find better news sources.
Bivalves reproduce by releasing their sperm into the water. Masturbating in your basement, however, is not a good reproductive strategy in humans. In humans, females tend to select the male with the most resources and status, which you need to acquire through competition, intelligence, and brawn. It's why humans build civilizations and bivalves do not.
They were promised permanent residency under a special visa category created for that purpose by Congress, not asylum; asylum isn't granted for "help in finding" anything.
And saying that asylum should not automatically imply permanent residency is different from saying that we should send everybody back to where they came from without exception. What is it with these ridiculous dichotomies with you?
Where did I say anything about a "time limit"? I simply pointed out that, according to UDHR and international law, asylum per se is not necessarily a permanent condition. In the English language, does that mean a specific time limit? Does it mean sending people back to be beheaded?
Very funny. You have now left the ground of rational, open minded debate and entered the realm of false dichotomies, ridiculous hyperbole, and political advocacy.
Even funnier! Living in Southern California or NYC is apparently now a "ground situation" that requires "pitching in"!
As I was saying: It is also inadvisable because if asylum automatically implies permanent residency, countries will be far more reluctant to grant it. Americans and Europeans, at this point, realize that almost anybody they let in will simply stay, which is why there is such strong opposition to letting so many people in in the first place.
In addition, we have had discussions about how long to let people stay, for example with the temporary protected status and deferred deportations. It makes no sense to let people stay who could return home after conditions have improved in their country of origin.