How is this an issue? If KDE2 uses the GPL2, it clearly says "or any future version", which makes it forward compatible with the GPL3, which means it can be mixed with other GPL3 software. I see nothing in the linked article that contradicts this.
"I found this funny since it was a picture of me, but I understand that the photographer, not the photographed, owns the rights to the photo." - true is some cases, but not in others.
Photographers would like you to believe they own the rights in all cases. (Wedding photographers are as guilty as sin of doing this) However, in the US and many other jurisdictions, if you pay a photographer to take a picture, it becomes a work for hire and the person who paid the photographer owns the copyright.
If the Do-Not-Call list were to never expire, eventually it will fill to all available U.S. phone numbers.
Except the people who intentionally remove their numbers. In other words, instead of being an opt-out system, it's opt-in. This is the way it should be.
I strongly object to the part that awards the patent at "first to file" rather than "first to invent".
The whole theory of the patent system is that it is a quid-pro-quo - the inventor releases what would otherwise-be trade secrets into the public domain; in return, society grants him 20-or-so years monopoly on that information. Rewarding the "first to invent" rather than the first to patent defeats this purpose.
Can someone please correctly summarize this - like mentioning what the suit is about, and what the counter suit about, before talking about a motion to dismiss the counter-suit.
If you accept that life exists (and other than a handful of philosophy majors, it's difficult to find anyone who would argue against this), and if you accept that at one point, it didn't (which, just for starters, is a necessary consequence of the big-bang, as well as everything we know about how the planet earth formed, both of which are supported by a mountain of evidence), then you have to conclude that abiogenesis is correct. It is a logical inference from known evidence, and it is used in science *all the time* and is a completely correct.
You are claiming in your GP post that: "We might have evidence that suggests evolution, but there is no evidence supporting the fact that life started." - this is false. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the subject, and especially about the Miller-Urey_experiment.
"but there is no evidence supporting the fact that life started." - Life exists now. We know there was a time when it didn't. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to get from there to concluding that life had to have started from lifelessness at some point.
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related to TFA: I'm in the process of writing my masters. I'm doing it on the NAS Conjugate Gradient (CG) benchmark to several exotic architecture. Now for those of you who haven't heard of CG, it's a very-commonly-used but extremely complicated algorithm. I wanted to have a section in my masters explaining how CG works, only I hit a snag - all of the explanations SUCK. I mean, REALLY SUCK.
I went to one of the profs in my department. He does numerical electromagnetism, so he is very good at math and CG is familiar to him. I asked him if he could recommend a "CG for dummies" book.
He told me, as a matter of fact, there is: An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain by Carnegie Mellon professor Jonathan Richard Shewchuk. My E&M prof said it was the best bit of technical writing he'd ever seen. I'm about halfway through, but I have to agree - though it's complicated, it's by far the most comprehensible explanation I have ever seen. It really is a perfect example of what technical writing should be like.
Fox deserves to be singled out because the other major news outlets, including CBS, make an honest effort to be objective and non-partisan. (The fact that CBS aired a false story is significant because it is a rare occurrence; on the other hand, Fox does it on a daily basis and it's become so commonplace that it barely even registers in the media) The major media outlets may not be perfect, but they do a pretty good job of making sure they report the truth. Fox, on the other hand, is quite transparently a front for the Republican National Committee, and make no effort to be objective or non-partisan.
"Partisanship, Fox-hatred and left v. right wing BS arguments aside, at least Fox News does go out of their way to provide two opposing viewpoints, and it seems rather popular."
This is bull shit of the most dangerous kind. It was Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, who said that the key to a successful propaganda campaign is to give the appearance of diversity, while at the same time making sure that all media venues convey the same basic message. This is the essence of framing the debate. You take a moderate, call him a liberal, and voilà - you've manufactured diversity where, in fact, none exists. Meanwhile, people who truly disagree never get heard. Nor is this just an accident. They intentionally select weak voiced, barely (if at all) left-of-center people.
But don't take my word for it. Just read the transcript from Outfoxed. According to former Fox News producer Clara Frenk: And the first thing that I noticed was that I recognized all of the conservatives who were in the roster. They were very well known people who had come from, you know, talk radio or from some sort of political background, and so I knew all of those people, and they were very, very strong people... But when I looked at the liberal roster, there was only one person's name who I recognize, which I recognized, and that was Bob Shrum, who is a very well known speechwriter and political consultant in Washington. The other ones, though, were people I had never heard of. My entire background was in politics and political journalism, so I knew pretty much all the players in D.C. and I had never heard of these people... A lot of the times the liberals that they get to appear on are either, you know, faux-liberals, like, I would use Susan Estrich as an example of that, a person who was brought on, who essentially agrees with the person on the right in a lot of cases."
"Fox News' second most popular program is a show that features both a conservative and a liberal commentator debating current issues."
Fox's second most popular show is Hannity and Colmes. Calling it a liberal versus conservative show Fox's laughable disinformation.
Shawn Hannity is a loud-mouthed arch-conserative; Colms is a moderate. ("I think I'm quite moderate" - Alan Colmes to USA Today, 2/1/95). Or to paragraph Al Frankin, "Image a game of political see-saw with one person sitting on the far right end of the see-saw and someone sitting in the middle. See? That's fair and balanced on the Fox News channel"
If Daily Kos is considered subject to regulation, then someone explain to me how that is materially different from Fox News? At least Daily Kos isn't deceitful in their partisanship, unlike Fox's pretensions of objectivity.
Aren't these the same directors who (for Enron, Worldcom/MCI, Adelphia Communications, etc) claimed that they had no idea that their companies were operating deeply in the red and that their quarterly earnings reports weren't worth the paper they were printed on? These are the same people who go before congress and suddenly develop very bad memories.
How many thousands of people lost their life savings when Enron folded? (Days before the end, the CEOs and other higher ups were selling their stock like it was on fire, while other investors - mostly employees of the state of California - were locked-out and unable to sell their holdings). What about MCI/Worldcom? What about ValueJet, which had dozens of safety violations prior to the crash of Flight 592 and for which the company was later indicted on 100+ counts of murder? What about Power Fasteners, which did such a shoddy job of constructing the Big Dig that the roof collapsed and killed someone (they were also indicted). What about ExonMobile, which (as a result of its operations 1888-present) is responsible for something like 5-8% of all global warming and will almost certainly face future lawsuits about it? Corporations can and willingly cause massive destruction on a global scale. They destroy lives, but they are ultimately a legal fiction created for the purpose of shielding the true decision makers from the legal liability of their decisions.
Engineers are legally responsible for all of the design decisions that go into their work. I see no reason now to hold corporate shills - erm, CEOs and other board members - to the same standard.
The Discovery Institute has specificallytargeted Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article and the people who edit it (including me personally). So yes, when it comes to whitewashing, they are the first suspects on my list.
That's nonsense. It's no less anonymous than a having a logged-in account at Wikipedia is (which, for the record, is more anonymous than editing while logged out and having your TOR IP displayed).
Does anyone happen to know the IP address range used by the Discovery Institute? They're constantly complaining about Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article, and related articles. I'd love to find out if they've been editing.
The above comment is a troll, but I'll bite anyway. TOR is a huge time waster for Wikipedians. It basically gives vandals an unlimited stock of IP addresses from which to vandalize. The proximate reason that caused me to block TOR was that one particularly tenacious vandal (Enviroknot) was cycling through ranges of TOR IPs, vandalizing the Arbitration Committee page.
Roger Dingledine (the guy who invented TOR) came to Wikimania '06 and I was luckly enough to have dinner with him. We had a long talk about TOR - he explained the technical underpinnings of TOR to me and what he's doing next (to get around the Chinese firewall). His position was that he's not happy that TOR is blocked, but he understands why we do it, and he thinks we're going in the right direction. He also thinks that we need a trust metric - at which point, editing Wikipedia through TOR will become possible.
How percentage of people are so motivated to vandalize/whitewash Wikipedia that they'll actually go out of their way to go down to the local cafe to do it?
I submitted it to the Wired blog, but it's worth sharing here: in March, I caught two SCO editors whitewashing Wikipedia. One did a massive chop-and-run on the SCO article. The other was complaining about the article on SCO's CEO, Darl McBride. I have checkuser - the ability to find the IP addressed used by logged in users. I found out that both of those users originated from SCO corporate IP addresses.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this an issue? If KDE2 uses the GPL2, it clearly says "or any future version", which makes it forward compatible with the GPL3, which means it can be mixed with other GPL3 software. I see nothing in the linked article that contradicts this.
"I found this funny since it was a picture of me, but I understand that the photographer, not the photographed, owns the rights to the photo." - true is some cases, but not in others.
Photographers would like you to believe they own the rights in all cases. (Wedding photographers are as guilty as sin of doing this) However, in the US and many other jurisdictions, if you pay a photographer to take a picture, it becomes a work for hire and the person who paid the photographer owns the copyright.
If the Do-Not-Call list were to never expire, eventually it will fill to all available U.S. phone numbers.
Except the people who intentionally remove their numbers. In other words, instead of being an opt-out system, it's opt-in. This is the way it should be.
I strongly object to the part that awards the patent at "first to file" rather than "first to invent".
The whole theory of the patent system is that it is a quid-pro-quo - the inventor releases what would otherwise-be trade secrets into the public domain; in return, society grants him 20-or-so years monopoly on that information. Rewarding the "first to invent" rather than the first to patent defeats this purpose.
If they opened up the archives, their website would instantly become *A LOT* more useful.
Can someone please correctly summarize this - like mentioning what the suit is about, and what the counter suit about, before talking about a motion to dismiss the counter-suit.
Big brother has nothing on Ceiling cat
If you accept that life exists (and other than a handful of philosophy majors, it's difficult to find anyone who would argue against this), and if you accept that at one point, it didn't (which, just for starters, is a necessary consequence of the big-bang, as well as everything we know about how the planet earth formed, both of which are supported by a mountain of evidence), then you have to conclude that abiogenesis is correct. It is a logical inference from known evidence, and it is used in science *all the time* and is a completely correct.
You are claiming in your GP post that: "We might have evidence that suggests evolution, but there is no evidence supporting the fact that life started." - this is false. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the subject, and especially about the Miller-Urey_experiment.
"but there is no evidence supporting the fact that life started." - Life exists now. We know there was a time when it didn't. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to get from there to concluding that life had to have started from lifelessness at some point.
Isn't the correct response to a false DMCA take-down notice to file a DMCA counterclaim? Was that done in this case?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related to TFA: I'm in the process of writing my masters. I'm doing it on the NAS Conjugate Gradient (CG) benchmark to several exotic architecture. Now for those of you who haven't heard of CG, it's a very-commonly-used but extremely complicated algorithm. I wanted to have a section in my masters explaining how CG works, only I hit a snag - all of the explanations SUCK. I mean, REALLY SUCK.
I went to one of the profs in my department. He does numerical electromagnetism, so he is very good at math and CG is familiar to him. I asked him if he could recommend a "CG for dummies" book.
He told me, as a matter of fact, there is: An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain by Carnegie Mellon professor Jonathan Richard Shewchuk. My E&M prof said it was the best bit of technical writing he'd ever seen. I'm about halfway through, but I have to agree - though it's complicated, it's by far the most comprehensible explanation I have ever seen. It really is a perfect example of what technical writing should be like.
Fox deserves to be singled out because the other major news outlets, including CBS, make an honest effort to be objective and non-partisan. (The fact that CBS aired a false story is significant because it is a rare occurrence; on the other hand, Fox does it on a daily basis and it's become so commonplace that it barely even registers in the media) The major media outlets may not be perfect, but they do a pretty good job of making sure they report the truth. Fox, on the other hand, is quite transparently a front for the Republican National Committee, and make no effort to be objective or non-partisan.
"Partisanship, Fox-hatred and left v. right wing BS arguments aside, at least Fox News does go out of their way to provide two opposing viewpoints, and it seems rather popular."
This is bull shit of the most dangerous kind. It was Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister, who said that the key to a successful propaganda campaign is to give the appearance of diversity, while at the same time making sure that all media venues convey the same basic message. This is the essence of framing the debate. You take a moderate, call him a liberal, and voilà - you've manufactured diversity where, in fact, none exists. Meanwhile, people who truly disagree never get heard. Nor is this just an accident. They intentionally select weak voiced, barely (if at all) left-of-center people.
But don't take my word for it. Just read the transcript from Outfoxed. According to former Fox News producer Clara Frenk: And the first thing that I noticed was that I recognized all of the conservatives who were in the roster. They were very well known people who had come from, you know, talk radio or from some sort of political background, and so I knew all of those people, and they were very, very strong people... But when I looked at the liberal roster, there was only one person's name who I recognize, which I recognized, and that was Bob Shrum, who is a very well known speechwriter and political consultant in Washington. The other ones, though, were people I had never heard of. My entire background was in politics and political journalism, so I knew pretty much all the players in D.C. and I had never heard of these people... A lot of the times the liberals that they get to appear on are either, you know, faux-liberals, like, I would use Susan Estrich as an example of that, a person who was brought on, who essentially agrees with the person on the right in a lot of cases."
"Fox News' second most popular program is a show that features both a conservative and a liberal commentator debating current issues."
Fox's second most popular show is Hannity and Colmes. Calling it a liberal versus conservative show Fox's laughable disinformation.
Shawn Hannity is a loud-mouthed arch-conserative; Colms is a moderate. ("I think I'm quite moderate" - Alan Colmes to USA Today, 2/1/95). Or to paragraph Al Frankin, "Image a game of political see-saw with one person sitting on the far right end of the see-saw and someone sitting in the middle. See? That's fair and balanced on the Fox News channel"
If Daily Kos is considered subject to regulation, then someone explain to me how that is materially different from Fox News? At least Daily Kos isn't deceitful in their partisanship, unlike Fox's pretensions of objectivity.
The GPL has never been tested in a US court.
False
Aren't these the same directors who (for Enron, Worldcom/MCI, Adelphia Communications, etc) claimed that they had no idea that their companies were operating deeply in the red and that their quarterly earnings reports weren't worth the paper they were printed on? These are the same people who go before congress and suddenly develop very bad memories.
How many thousands of people lost their life savings when Enron folded? (Days before the end, the CEOs and other higher ups were selling their stock like it was on fire, while other investors - mostly employees of the state of California - were locked-out and unable to sell their holdings). What about MCI/Worldcom? What about ValueJet, which had dozens of safety violations prior to the crash of Flight 592 and for which the company was later indicted on 100+ counts of murder? What about Power Fasteners, which did such a shoddy job of constructing the Big Dig that the roof collapsed and killed someone (they were also indicted). What about ExonMobile, which (as a result of its operations 1888-present) is responsible for something like 5-8% of all global warming and will almost certainly face future lawsuits about it? Corporations can and willingly cause massive destruction on a global scale. They destroy lives, but they are ultimately a legal fiction created for the purpose of shielding the true decision makers from the legal liability of their decisions.
Engineers are legally responsible for all of the design decisions that go into their work. I see no reason now to hold corporate shills - erm, CEOs and other board members - to the same standard.
The Discovery Institute has specifically targeted Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article and the people who edit it (including me personally). So yes, when it comes to whitewashing, they are the first suspects on my list.
That's nonsense. It's no less anonymous than a having a logged-in account at Wikipedia is (which, for the record, is more anonymous than editing while logged out and having your TOR IP displayed).
Does anyone happen to know the IP address range used by the Discovery Institute? They're constantly complaining about Wikipedia's Intelligent Design article, and related articles. I'd love to find out if they've been editing.
The above comment is a troll, but I'll bite anyway. TOR is a huge time waster for Wikipedians. It basically gives vandals an unlimited stock of IP addresses from which to vandalize. The proximate reason that caused me to block TOR was that one particularly tenacious vandal (Enviroknot) was cycling through ranges of TOR IPs, vandalizing the Arbitration Committee page.
Roger Dingledine (the guy who invented TOR) came to Wikimania '06 and I was luckly enough to have dinner with him. We had a long talk about TOR - he explained the technical underpinnings of TOR to me and what he's doing next (to get around the Chinese firewall). His position was that he's not happy that TOR is blocked, but he understands why we do it, and he thinks we're going in the right direction. He also thinks that we need a trust metric - at which point, editing Wikipedia through TOR will become possible.
How percentage of people are so motivated to vandalize/whitewash Wikipedia that they'll actually go out of their way to go down to the local cafe to do it?
I submitted it to the Wired blog, but it's worth sharing here: in March, I caught two SCO editors whitewashing Wikipedia. One did a massive chop-and-run on the SCO article. The other was complaining about the article on SCO's CEO, Darl McBride. I have checkuser - the ability to find the IP addressed used by logged in users. I found out that both of those users originated from SCO corporate IP addresses.