The GPL is a set of restrictions placed on the redistribution of
software source code.
No, it is not. Copyright law is a set of restrictions placed on
the redistribution of (among other things) software source code. The GPL
is a set of limited exemptions from those restrictions, granted by
the copyright holder (who is the only one in a position to grant such
exemptions). As the GPL says:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if
you do not accept this License.
Note also that the GPL doesn't restrict the use of a program ("The
act of running the Program is not restricted [...]"). In fact, it can't --
copyright law doesn't give the copyright holder the authority to restrict
the use of the program. Which is why the EULA has to go through the
motions of allegedly entering the user into a "contract", in which the user
"agrees" to the restrictions on use. That's the key difference between the
two: the GPL is based on copyright law, while EULAs are (or purport to be)
based on contract law.
That's because you didn't address the real point, which was that you
might not have a convenient list of those files in electronic format. In
that case selecting them all via a command line is much more tedious than
just a few clicks/drags with a mouse.
You're making the unwarranted assumption that these supposedly unrelated
files are somehow related spatially in your GUI's file selector
window, such that "just a few clicks/drags with a mouse" will be able to
catch all of them. If that's the case, then a couple judiciously chosen
wildcard patterns will catch them all too; if not, then you're gonna have
to tediously click on each and every one of those fifty file icons
separately (or wait, should that be shift-click? control-click? I forget
[not to mention that if the file selector window is small, you're probably
gonna have to scroll around to catch all the files]), and with those
wildcard patterns and a bit of filename completion, I'll probably
still have them all covered before you can click on them all.
Choose any command line shell. Change to a directory/folder. Copy the
following list of 50 files with completely unrelated names to the/temp_cd
folder ready to burn a backup CD. Stop when you get tired.
mv `cat list_of_files`/temp_cd
Gosh, that was a lot easier than you made it sound...
I was always taught to start out with a positive comment [...]
A laudable practice, though if you'll forgive me for saying so, your
"positive comment" in this case bears the whiff of overweening politeness
intended as mockery (or "damning with faint praise"), which I doubt your
instructor would have approved of.
Unfortunately, I can not find a shred of evidence to support any of
your claims.
Then you didn't read
my
reference (beyond looking for quotes to yank out of context), as it
provided its own references.
IMHO the only way you could make the statements you have quite an
emotional investment in the issue and I doubt any rational discussion would
change this.
I concluded much the same of you, but I figured I should answer you anyway
for the benefit of our other readers.
For those to lazy to follow the link, here are some exerpts from this
in-depth "analysis":
Ooh, quoting out of context, there's a winning strategy. Here are a few
more relevant quotes:
[...] You see, I have a law practice to attend to. (Yes, I exist. Yes,
I'm a practicing lawyer in Los Angeles. I graduated Yale Law School
in 1992, and I am a member of the Calfornia Bar. My practice consists
entirely of litigation, with a strong appellate practice.) [...]
[...] All of the facts in my Q&A are well-documented, either in the US
Supreme Court opinion, Federal Law (3 USC Sec. 5), former Supreme
Court case-law, the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida courts
below, or, occasionally, press accounts. [...]
[...] While there are humorous aspects to the Q&A, it is indeed serious.
The illogical opinion of the Supreme Court, one of the worst and
ill-reasoned opinions in US history is, unfortunately, no joke. [...]
(And just in case it wasn't clear, I am not the author of the site I'm
referring to.)
Of course, this is all moot as Bush would have won the election no
matter how many times your recounted, even under the most Gore-favorable
criteria.
No,he wouldn't.
[These are, unfortunately, from pay-to-read archives, so I can only cite
the summaries. Relevant quotes below:
While the vast majority of Florida's overvotes could never have been
assigned legally to any presidential candidate, experts say there are some
clues in the ballots that offer at least evidence of, if not proof, for
whom voters meant to vote. And that evidence suggests Al Gore was preferred
by more voters than George W. Bush. Among the clues: 71,548 overvote ballots
had a vote for Gore, but not Bush. There were 25,082 overvote ballots that
had a vote for Bush, but not Gore.
1) Bush won every single count and recount in Florida
No, he didn't; Gore won the full statewide recount that the Florida Supreme
Court had ordered. Again, you can be forgiven for not knowing this, since
the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media tended to bury this important
fact on page 37J.
2) Gore wanted the standards change to include the undefinable "clear
intent of the voter" votes
Um, the standards already included the "clear intent of the voter"
standard, as specified in Florida law, and as used in Florida without
problem for more than a century.
3) Gore then took the case to the Supreme Court , not Bush
Um, notice the case title is BUSH v. Gore? Bush was the plaintiff;
therefore, by definition, Bush took it to court first.
And bonus points to you for continually pointing to your "fair"
webpage.
Read: "I cannot refute any of the facts presented on that site, so instead
I'll resort to ad hominem and demonize the site as liberally
biased."
Gore lost. He kept dragging it through the court system in an attempt
to steal the election. First to change the counting standards, then when
they weren't manipulated to his liking, he took it to the Supreme
Court.
Yes, you keep repeating that over and over, like a mantra. Maybe if you
say it often enough, it will come true.
Anyone who actually took time to *read* about the election troubles in
Florida would know the facts.
Yes, they would; clearly you didn't, because you don't. The
reference
I cited for the previous poster also neatly demolishes your "facts":
1) Gore is the one that took the battle to the courts after Florida was
ready to declare Bush the winner.
Nope. Bush's lawyers went to court to stop the recounts before Gore filed
a single lawsuit, on the (justified) fear that Bush's miniscule apparent
lead would evaporate and reverse if the recounts were completed.
2) The Gore campaign wanted votes counted differently for areas where
they felt they didn't get the vote they expected.
The Gore campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, wanted votes counted
according to existing Florida election law, including the well-established
"clear intent of the voter" standard.
The Supremes ruled simply that if there was to be a recount, ALL votes
in the entire state would have to be recounted using the same standards
(i.e. was a hanging "chad" a vote).
The Supremes ruled that the Florida Supreme Court should have somehow
changed Florida's election laws to correct this supposed "equal
protection" problem --- except that the FSC doesn't have the authority to
do that, and if they had tried to, the USSC would have ruled against them
for doing so.
3) Gore won the popular vote but not the electoral votes.
No, Gore won the electoral vote, too, because he won Florida. You can be
forgiven for not knowing about this, because the supposedly "liberal"
mainstream media quietly memory-holed the massive election fraud involved.
Think, people. Don't just believe tin-hat stories because they fall in
line with your hatred of the president.
Funny, that's what we kept saying to Republicans during the Clinton years,
but they wouldn't listen. Project much?
Well, yours is clearly on tight. Apparently you followed the 2000 election
by way of Fox "News". I humbly submit a
handy
summary of what actually happened.
The law of the land was followed to the "T".
Yes, until the US Supreme Court stepped in.
The Democrats tried to force an unconstitutional recount to ensure that
Gore would win the election.
Read: The Florida Supreme Court tried to enforce existing Florida
election law, as it had been interpreted via precedent extending back more
than a century; the US Supreme Court then unconstitutionally intervened, to
ensure that Bush "won" the election.
In fact, there were two legal, certified recounts in Florida, and Bush
won them both.
Those are the ones the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media emphasized.
There was also a full statewide recount (which, for reference, is what the
Florida Supreme Court had ordered, and what would have happened if the
Scalia Five had not intervened); Bush lost that one.
The Democrats employed judicial activism at its worst to change the
standards of for recounting ballots after the election [...]
The Florida Supreme court did not change the rules of the
election; the US Supreme Court even acknowledged as much. They then
employed judicial activism at its worst by ruling that the FSC should
have changed the election rules, to alleviate the supposed "equal
protection" problems you dutifully parrot below --- except, of course, that
if the FSC had done that, the USSC would have ruled against them
because they had done so. Neat scam, huh?
[...] in such a way that certain citizens votes would weigh more heavily
than others.
Yes; specifically, such that votes whose intent was clear would weigh more
heavily than votes whose intent was not clear. That's why they call it the
"clear intent of the voter" standard, after all.
The US Supreme Court ruled that this recount violated the equal
protection rights of the citizens whose votes would not be recounted under
the new, heavily-biased standards.
I think my above cite skewers that better than I could:
The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 170,000 or 3% of
Democratic-leaning voters (largely African-Americans) disenfranchised. The
problem is that somewhat less than 0.01% of the ballots (less than 600
votes) may have been determined under ever-so-slightly different standards
by judges and county officials recording votes under strict public
scrutiny, as Americans have done for more than 200 years. The single judge
overseeing the entire process might miss a vote or two.
They did not even "stop" the recount.
`Fraid they did. They imposed a deadline of December 12 for the recount,
whereas under normal federal election law Florida would have had until
January 6 to complete the recount. Note that the ruling in which they
imposed this artificial deadline was issued at 10pm on December 12, giving
Florida less than two hours to complete any recount before a deadline they
wouldn't have had but for the USSC.
Exactly how is this an "appointment"?
I don't expect you to acknowledge any of these inconvenient facts, of
course; in fact, I suspect that by the second paragraph or so, you already
had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and were loudly
chanting, "La la la, George Bush was legitimately elected President, la la
la, I can't heeeear you..."
No, compatibility is generally two-way; you just don't understand
what license compatibility means. If I take some code distributed under
license A and some code distributed under license B and combine
them with some of my own code to make a new program, then when I distribute
that program, I'm required by copyright law to abide by the terms of
both license A and license B, or else I'm
infringing on the copyright of one of those two code pieces. If licenses A
and B conflict with each other, so that it's impossible to simultaneously
abide by the terms of both licenses, then the licenses are said to be
incompatible; otherwise, they are compatible. In other words,
saying that licenses A and B are compatible means that you can combine code
under license A and code under license B and distribute the
result; it does not mean that you can distribute the result under
the terms of just license A or just license B.
So in your example, if you take a GPLed program and add to it some
MIT-licensed code and then distribute the result, you must abide by, at a
minimum, the conjunction of the terms of the GPL and the MIT
license. Now, it happens that the terms of the GPL are a strict superset
of the terms of the MIT license, so that one can simultaneously abide by
the terms of both licenses simply by abiding by the terms of the GPL; but
this is not required of license compatibility in general.
Not to let the facts get in the way of you spouting nonsense or anything.
In 2000 the broadcast media claimed that Gore had won Florida nearly an
hour before the polls closed in the panhandle area (in the Central, rather
than Eastern, time zone.)
And shortly thereafter, they reversed this and called the state for Bush
-- which suggests that the effect was not nearly so large as you seem to
believe.
But despite the media's cheers (and slips like a major anchor referring
to Gore as "Our candidate"), [...]
It always mystifies me how so many people can believe that the same
mainstream media that spent most of the election making up lies that Gore
had supposedly told and mocking Gore for his every change in campaign
strategy somehow had this overwhelming pro-Gore bias.
And despite days of squirming - trying to exclude military absentee
votes in violation of Federal law, [...]
Um, I'm confused; how is it bad or "squirming" to exclude ballots
postmarked after the election that had been modified by Republican handlers
(since, as you rightly pointed out, counting them would have violated
Federal election law)?
[...] counting every dimple on a ballot, etc., [...]
Yeah, who did those recounters think they were, following existing Florida
election law by applying the "clear intent of the voter" standard mandated
therein? I mean, the nerve!
[...] the Democrats STILL weren't able to get the numbers to come out in
favor of Gore - either before the Supreme Court finally smacked them down
and made them adhere to their own laws, [...]
You mean, of course, smacked them down for adhering to their own
laws. The Florida Supreme Court had enforced existing election law,
following precedents dating back a hundred years. The SCotUS admitted that
the state court hadn't changed the election laws; their complaint was that
the existing laws somehow didn't provide "equal protection" for Bush, and
that the court therefore should have changed them to correct that
(except, of course, that if they had changed them, the SCotUS
would have dutifully smacked them down for that -- neat scam,
this). The "Florida court changed the election laws" canard was invented
afterward as a Republican talking point.
[...] or after months of after-the-election recounting.
Um, actually, what the recounts found was that in a full statewide recount
(which, recall, is what the Florida Supreme Court had ordered), Gore
did win Florida, and thus the nation. You, and most of our
readers, can be forgiven for not knowing this, since the media spun their
coverage as hard as they could trying to avoid admitting it, focusing
instead on other partial-count scenarios in which Bush won.
Yet the media, and certain Democratic politicians, STILL bury these
facts on back pages.
Well, it's always a pleasure to greet visitors from Bizarro World. Bear in
mind that here in the real world, all the headlines read "Bush Won
Recount", and what got buried on the back page was the fact (noted above)
that Gore had won the recount that mattered.
And even today they attempt to spin the Media/Democrat axis' failed
attempt to steal the election into a successful theft by the
Republicans.
Well, again, by contrast, the non-Bizarro mainstream media has been doing
everything they could to prop up W's legitimacy and has bent over backwards
to portray him as a True Statesman(TM). Gore, when he's even mentioned at
all, is generally portrayed as some has-been kook who's drifted too far to
the left to be taken seriously any more, and the 2000 election is portrayed
as yesterday's news that only the so-called "angry Left" still cares about.
One thing I have consistently observed: Whenever someone in the public
"all(<<your base>>) are Belong("to us");" is now a
legal Perl 6 statement. I'm fairly certain that's one of the signs of the
impending Apocalypse (umm... pun not intended).
People who call a celeron 400 with some perl scripts and a tv-out a tivo
aren't going to be willing to pay $3/mo for legal guide data, when they
could just steal it instead.
I'd pay it, in a heartbeat. Because what I'd be paying for is:
Getting the data in a fully-documented, non-proprietary format that I can
parse and manipulate the way I want, with programs I write myself.
Not having to reverse-engineer HTML layouts that may change without warning
and has data scattered about in disparate places and split across several
pages.
The surety that two months from now you won't suddenly get pissy and decide
that my legitimate personal use of your copyrighted data is somehow
"stealing" and sic the DMCA Attack Squad(TM) on me.
One feature of IE that I really like is how previous entries in text
boxes can be selected from a drop down list (like the list of previously
loaded URLs in the browser location bar).
Phoenix 0.4 (and possibly earlier) has this, so I imagine the latest
Mozilla does as well.
Um, the episode made perfect sense; you just weren't paying attention.
Apparently the NX-01 "bumps into" an alien ship. This is the cause of the
debris field that Trip and Reed find.
No. The debris was caused by the microsingularity things hitting
Enterprise (or hitting the other ship and screwing up the docking
procedure, I forget which).
See, Trip and Reed are off testing the weapons on the shuttlepod, which
needs to be done a long long long long long way away (out of
communications, no doubt).
No. The shuttlepod's comm systems got blown out by another of the
microsingularities. They mentioned several times that the comm was down;
didn't you notice?
By the time the two finish their tests and reach the 'meeting point'
[...]
No, that's the point; they didn't finish their tests. They had to
return to the rendezvous point early because of the damage to the comm
systems. Again, they mentioned this at least once.
[...] the NX-01 isn't there anymore because it is so damn important for
Archer to ferry the de-shipped aliens home that they strand a
warp-incapable shuttlepod out in the middle of nowhere.
*sigh* Archer doesn't know the shuttlepod is stranded. He
fully expects to be there and back long before the shuttlepod returns to
the rendezvous point, and he fully expects to be within comm range of the
shuttlepod the entire time (remember, Enterprise doesn't
know the shuttlepod's comm systems are down) and to be able to get
back in plenty of time if a problem does arise. As far as Archer knew,
there was no reason why he shouldn't take the aliens home, or why
he should need to retrieve the shuttlepod before doing so.
He just leaves the meeting point without so much as a "bbiam" message,
nor collecting the spare hull plating (what do they patch the hole with?
hmm??).
With the hull fragments that they came back and collected after
dropping off the aliens, of course. Why make the aliens wait for days
while they patched up the hull? It's not like those hull fragments
wouldn't be there when they got back.
That, combined with blatant scientific errors like using fingers and
mashed potato as hull sealant, [...]
The "fingers and mashed potatoes" were temporary patches until they could
get to the proper hull sealant. They even said as much IIRC. And
remember, these were micro-breaches, caused by a
micro-singularity; fingers and mashed potatoes would have been
enough for a short time.
[...] body hair growth after death [...]
(shrug) How many people without medical training would have made the same
mistake? Besides, weren't they half-drunk by that point?
[...]
and the supposed "drop your impulse engine and you slow down even
in space"...
Um, didn't they come to a full stop before jettisoning the impulse
drive?
[And yes, I fully expect to be mocked as a "squealing fanboy loser" for
correcting all this. Look, this was all explained right on screen; it's
not my fault you weren't paying attention.]
Re:Political Agendas In Science Nothing New
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
FAIR - folks who feature Ritter a former inspector who openly admits to
being financed by Iraqi government ($400 000) talking about Iraq.
Riiiiight. Your source for this?
Oh, and can I interpret your decision to lead with an ad hominem
attack (and an off-topic one at that) as an admission that you cannot
refute either the evidence in the article I cited or Mr. Ritter's evidence?
Re:Political Agendas In Science Nothing New
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but that brings us to the agendas of both organizations like the
Washington Times and of FAIR.
Actually, if you have to resort to the ad hominem dodge right off
the bat, you've already lost.
FAIR is not high on my list of "objective" organizations. Now maybe the
Washington Times isn't either.
You certainly weren't offering any such provisos when you quoted them to
support your position.
...well, I'll take a conservative editorial slant and exercise my
judgement with it over the liberal slant from nearly every other news
organization and groups like FAIR.
Except, of course, that the myth that most of the media have a liberal slant
hasitselfbeenthoroughlydebunked.
[You will, no doubt, dismiss all this evidence out of hand as coming from
"liberal" sources, a neatly circular argument. Exercising judgment,
indeed.]
Re:Political Agendas In Science Nothing New
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Published on April 23, 2002, The Washington Times
Biologists' roles in lynx-hair fraud under review
I remember when Atari was reduced to/ desperate enough to say the jaguar
constituted a 64-bit machine. It had two 32 bit processors, and they pawned
that off as meaning it was 64 bit.
Yes, I do vaguely recall various jealous naysayers at the time parroting
that particular canard -- always carefully avoiding mention of the
64-bit object processor, the 64-bit
blitter, the 64-bit system bus, the
64-bit memory interface... You could do a
modicum
of research before spouting off on things like this, ya know.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not. Copyright law is a set of restrictions placed on the redistribution of (among other things) software source code. The GPL is a set of limited exemptions from those restrictions, granted by the copyright holder (who is the only one in a position to grant such exemptions). As the GPL says:
Note also that the GPL doesn't restrict the use of a program ("The act of running the Program is not restricted [...]"). In fact, it can't -- copyright law doesn't give the copyright holder the authority to restrict the use of the program. Which is why the EULA has to go through the motions of allegedly entering the user into a "contract", in which the user "agrees" to the restrictions on use. That's the key difference between the two: the GPL is based on copyright law, while EULAs are (or purport to be) based on contract law.
Um, you are aware that even Colin Powell has admitted that those trucks weren't mobile weapons labs, yes?
You're making the unwarranted assumption that these supposedly unrelated files are somehow related spatially in your GUI's file selector window, such that "just a few clicks/drags with a mouse" will be able to catch all of them. If that's the case, then a couple judiciously chosen wildcard patterns will catch them all too; if not, then you're gonna have to tediously click on each and every one of those fifty file icons separately (or wait, should that be shift-click? control-click? I forget [not to mention that if the file selector window is small, you're probably gonna have to scroll around to catch all the files]), and with those wildcard patterns and a bit of filename completion, I'll probably still have them all covered before you can click on them all.
mv `cat list_of_files` /temp_cd
Gosh, that was a lot easier than you made it sound...
Well, it'd certainly make chartered accountancy a much more interesting job...
A laudable practice, though if you'll forgive me for saying so, your "positive comment" in this case bears the whiff of overweening politeness intended as mockery (or "damning with faint praise"), which I doubt your instructor would have approved of.
Then you didn't read my reference (beyond looking for quotes to yank out of context), as it provided its own references.
I concluded much the same of you, but I figured I should answer you anyway for the benefit of our other readers.
Ooh, quoting out of context, there's a winning strategy. Here are a few more relevant quotes:
(And just in case it wasn't clear, I am not the author of the site I'm referring to.)
No, he wouldn't. [These are, unfortunately, from pay-to-read archives, so I can only cite the summaries. Relevant quotes below:
AGAIN, even more slowly this time:
No, he didn't; Gore won the full statewide recount that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered. Again, you can be forgiven for not knowing this, since the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media tended to bury this important fact on page 37J.
Um, the standards already included the "clear intent of the voter" standard, as specified in Florida law, and as used in Florida without problem for more than a century.
Um, notice the case title is BUSH v. Gore? Bush was the plaintiff; therefore, by definition, Bush took it to court first.
Read: "I cannot refute any of the facts presented on that site, so instead I'll resort to ad hominem and demonize the site as liberally biased."
Yes, you keep repeating that over and over, like a mantra. Maybe if you say it often enough, it will come true.
Yes, they would; clearly you didn't, because you don't. The reference I cited for the previous poster also neatly demolishes your "facts":
Nope. Bush's lawyers went to court to stop the recounts before Gore filed a single lawsuit, on the (justified) fear that Bush's miniscule apparent lead would evaporate and reverse if the recounts were completed.
The Gore campaign, and the Florida Supreme Court, wanted votes counted according to existing Florida election law, including the well-established "clear intent of the voter" standard.
The Supremes ruled that the Florida Supreme Court should have somehow changed Florida's election laws to correct this supposed "equal protection" problem --- except that the FSC doesn't have the authority to do that, and if they had tried to, the USSC would have ruled against them for doing so.
No, Gore won the electoral vote, too, because he won Florida. You can be forgiven for not knowing about this, because the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media quietly memory-holed the massive election fraud involved.
Funny, that's what we kept saying to Republicans during the Clinton years, but they wouldn't listen. Project much?
Well, yours is clearly on tight. Apparently you followed the 2000 election by way of Fox "News". I humbly submit a handy summary of what actually happened.
Yes, until the US Supreme Court stepped in.
Read: The Florida Supreme Court tried to enforce existing Florida election law, as it had been interpreted via precedent extending back more than a century; the US Supreme Court then unconstitutionally intervened, to ensure that Bush "won" the election.
Those are the ones the supposedly "liberal" mainstream media emphasized. There was also a full statewide recount (which, for reference, is what the Florida Supreme Court had ordered, and what would have happened if the Scalia Five had not intervened); Bush lost that one.
The Florida Supreme court did not change the rules of the election; the US Supreme Court even acknowledged as much. They then employed judicial activism at its worst by ruling that the FSC should have changed the election rules, to alleviate the supposed "equal protection" problems you dutifully parrot below --- except, of course, that if the FSC had done that, the USSC would have ruled against them because they had done so. Neat scam, huh?
Yes; specifically, such that votes whose intent was clear would weigh more heavily than votes whose intent was not clear. That's why they call it the "clear intent of the voter" standard, after all.
I think my above cite skewers that better than I could:
`Fraid they did. They imposed a deadline of December 12 for the recount, whereas under normal federal election law Florida would have had until January 6 to complete the recount. Note that the ruling in which they imposed this artificial deadline was issued at 10pm on December 12, giving Florida less than two hours to complete any recount before a deadline they wouldn't have had but for the USSC.
I don't expect you to acknowledge any of these inconvenient facts, of course; in fact, I suspect that by the second paragraph or so, you already had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears and were loudly chanting, "La la la, George Bush was legitimately elected President, la la la, I can't heeeear you..."
No, it's George Bush.
No, compatibility is generally two-way; you just don't understand what license compatibility means. If I take some code distributed under license A and some code distributed under license B and combine them with some of my own code to make a new program, then when I distribute that program, I'm required by copyright law to abide by the terms of both license A and license B, or else I'm infringing on the copyright of one of those two code pieces. If licenses A and B conflict with each other, so that it's impossible to simultaneously abide by the terms of both licenses, then the licenses are said to be incompatible; otherwise, they are compatible. In other words, saying that licenses A and B are compatible means that you can combine code under license A and code under license B and distribute the result; it does not mean that you can distribute the result under the terms of just license A or just license B.
So in your example, if you take a GPLed program and add to it some MIT-licensed code and then distribute the result, you must abide by, at a minimum, the conjunction of the terms of the GPL and the MIT license. Now, it happens that the terms of the GPL are a strict superset of the terms of the MIT license, so that one can simultaneously abide by the terms of both licenses simply by abiding by the terms of the GPL; but this is not required of license compatibility in general.
Not to let the facts get in the way of you spouting nonsense or anything.
For reference, there's an updated version of your "George W Bush might not be President" link in the Red Rock Eater Digest. Good stuff.
And shortly thereafter, they reversed this and called the state for Bush -- which suggests that the effect was not nearly so large as you seem to believe.
It always mystifies me how so many people can believe that the same mainstream media that spent most of the election making up lies that Gore had supposedly told and mocking Gore for his every change in campaign strategy somehow had this overwhelming pro-Gore bias.
Um, I'm confused; how is it bad or "squirming" to exclude ballots postmarked after the election that had been modified by Republican handlers (since, as you rightly pointed out, counting them would have violated Federal election law)?
Yeah, who did those recounters think they were, following existing Florida election law by applying the "clear intent of the voter" standard mandated therein? I mean, the nerve!
You mean, of course, smacked them down for adhering to their own laws. The Florida Supreme Court had enforced existing election law, following precedents dating back a hundred years. The SCotUS admitted that the state court hadn't changed the election laws; their complaint was that the existing laws somehow didn't provide "equal protection" for Bush, and that the court therefore should have changed them to correct that (except, of course, that if they had changed them, the SCotUS would have dutifully smacked them down for that -- neat scam, this). The "Florida court changed the election laws" canard was invented afterward as a Republican talking point.
Um, actually, what the recounts found was that in a full statewide recount (which, recall, is what the Florida Supreme Court had ordered), Gore did win Florida, and thus the nation. You, and most of our readers, can be forgiven for not knowing this, since the media spun their coverage as hard as they could trying to avoid admitting it, focusing instead on other partial-count scenarios in which Bush won.
Well, it's always a pleasure to greet visitors from Bizarro World. Bear in mind that here in the real world, all the headlines read "Bush Won Recount", and what got buried on the back page was the fact (noted above) that Gore had won the recount that mattered.
Well, again, by contrast, the non-Bizarro mainstream media has been doing everything they could to prop up W's legitimacy and has bent over backwards to portray him as a True Statesman(TM). Gore, when he's even mentioned at all, is generally portrayed as some has-been kook who's drifted too far to the left to be taken seriously any more, and the 2000 election is portrayed as yesterday's news that only the so-called "angry Left" still cares about.
"all(<<your base>>) are Belong("to us");" is now a legal Perl 6 statement. I'm fairly certain that's one of the signs of the impending Apocalypse (umm... pun not intended).
I'd pay it, in a heartbeat. Because what I'd be paying for is:
Biting Jar Jar's head off: Priceless
Phoenix 0.4 (and possibly earlier) has this, so I imagine the latest Mozilla does as well.
*chuckle* For maximum effect, though, you should have said, "we have better things to worry about then people who can't spel."
Um, the episode made perfect sense; you just weren't paying attention.
No. The debris was caused by the microsingularity things hitting Enterprise (or hitting the other ship and screwing up the docking procedure, I forget which).
No. The shuttlepod's comm systems got blown out by another of the microsingularities. They mentioned several times that the comm was down; didn't you notice?
No, that's the point; they didn't finish their tests. They had to return to the rendezvous point early because of the damage to the comm systems. Again, they mentioned this at least once.
*sigh* Archer doesn't know the shuttlepod is stranded. He fully expects to be there and back long before the shuttlepod returns to the rendezvous point, and he fully expects to be within comm range of the shuttlepod the entire time (remember, Enterprise doesn't know the shuttlepod's comm systems are down) and to be able to get back in plenty of time if a problem does arise. As far as Archer knew, there was no reason why he shouldn't take the aliens home, or why he should need to retrieve the shuttlepod before doing so.
With the hull fragments that they came back and collected after dropping off the aliens, of course. Why make the aliens wait for days while they patched up the hull? It's not like those hull fragments wouldn't be there when they got back.
The "fingers and mashed potatoes" were temporary patches until they could get to the proper hull sealant. They even said as much IIRC. And remember, these were micro-breaches, caused by a micro-singularity; fingers and mashed potatoes would have been enough for a short time.
(shrug) How many people without medical training would have made the same mistake? Besides, weren't they half-drunk by that point?
Um, didn't they come to a full stop before jettisoning the impulse drive?
[And yes, I fully expect to be mocked as a "squealing fanboy loser" for correcting all this. Look, this was all explained right on screen; it's not my fault you weren't paying attention.]
Riiiiight. Your source for this?
Oh, and can I interpret your decision to lead with an ad hominem attack (and an off-topic one at that) as an admission that you cannot refute either the evidence in the article I cited or Mr. Ritter's evidence?
Actually, if you have to resort to the ad hominem dodge right off the bat, you've already lost.
You certainly weren't offering any such provisos when you quoted them to support your position.
Except, of course, that the myth that most of the media have a liberal slant has itself been thoroughly debunked. [You will, no doubt, dismiss all this evidence out of hand as coming from "liberal" sources, a neatly circular argument. Exercising judgment, indeed.]
Sorry, already been debunked. Try again.
Which, around here, would be misread as "Windows-free sex", leading to at least a dozen variations of jokes involving BSODs and being "rooted".
Yes, I do vaguely recall various jealous naysayers at the time parroting that particular canard -- always carefully avoiding mention of the 64-bit object processor, the 64-bit blitter, the 64-bit system bus, the 64-bit memory interface... You could do a modicum of research before spouting off on things like this, ya know.
It does now, as of Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:37:12 +0200; at least, that's when the latest update was sent.