Global warming is like suspecting that you have a pair of 'loaded' dice.-- loaded for 6es and against 1's. You can't just roll once and accurately say "I rolled 2. They must not be loaded. or "I rolled 12 they ARE loaded". both 2 and 12 will still occur, but you'll have MORE 12s and LESS 2's. and your rolls will be generally higher. You can only say something by examining dozens, or even hundreds of rolls and examining the the trends .
Asking if this single event is attributable to global warming is
the wrong question. The best answer to (misguided) journalists who insist on asking this question (usually because they've been forced to talk to too many global warming deniers) is:
"Global warming is a trend , not an incident, and this incident is something that we'll see {more/less} of as time goes on.".
es, I'm serious. He's a freind of mine, and he's had the name since long before the show went on air.
My point is that having the name 'Maggie Simpson' means nothing -- unlike the bogus content. I don't know if they did this, butit seems that a properly juried work should have the name removed from it during the review process.
Isn't that what status messages and timeline posts are for??
Status message: "I'm in Liberia and I don't have a fever (yet)..."
On Sarah's timeline: I just got a text from Sarah... Her hotel in Bermuda is OK, but power is out.
What does Facebook's great addition do that this doesn't (other than give them an excuse to track where I am)?
Hmm... It seems like Aneutronic fusion is actually a light-weight fission process. -- splitting Barium into 3 Helium by adding a Proton (as opposed to a Neutron for most fission processes).
By safe, I mean it can't be used to blow things up -- either by accident or on purpose. This makes it bad for nuclear Proliferation -- Including making bombs for the US military. That's why it never got as much funding as Uranium-based reactors... they couldn't figure out how to use Thorium reactors to make bombs. Remember that this was in the 60's and 70's and at the height of the cold war// arms race.
As a side point of not being useful for making bombs, it's also harder to have a (semi) critical accident -- i.e. a Chernobyl / 3-mile-island / China-syndrome type accident.
That's a big problem when you're trying to get the civilian population to accept bomb-making, but (and) much more dangerous Uranium - based reactors... Which would you rather have in your back yard? A Thorium reactor that pretty much can't have a meltdown, or a Uranium one that is one (albeit unlikely) step from being a bomb.
The other problem is that it's too cheap.... from a commercial vantage point, Uranium-based fuels are incredibly hard to make properly -- and their exact format varies from reactor to reactor... That means that reactors that aren't sufficiently profitable to make (even with military^w government subsidies) can make (more) profits because the plant manufacturer has an effective monopoly on making fuel pellets.... kinda like the way that printer manufacturers sell you the printer for cheap, then ding you on ink refils. LFTR plants, on the other hand, just need an occasional addition of Thorium, and a little bit of the salts (to make up for any evaporation).
That means that there's less likely to be a commercial proponent for LFTR Thorium reactors. Why spend billions researching a reactor that will never get Military/Government subsidies... and then -- once built -- won't be a lucrative source of fuel sales? It's really good for the utility using the reactor (and their customers), but it sucks for the plant manufacturer.
So there you have it.. LFTR is unlikely to be created because it's.
Too safe (can't be used to make bombs), and
to cheap (nobody can corner the market on fuel refills
That's why LFTR may never find a good backer -- unless we can find a billionaire willing to fund the development on a lark (and to save mankind from our own greed/hatred).
You have a bunch of pictures that are KNOWN to have been taken by and stolen from people with enough money to launch some (for anybody else) seriously espensive lawsuits. With a functioning (if often moot) DMCA policy, 4chan is arguably immune from most of those lawsuits.
If the people posting the offending images are willing to defend those lawsuits, it's got nothing to do with 4chan any more.
Versata claiming GPL protection for a Closed-Source product is as obscene as them claiming to be protected by the commercial license, even though they refused to ever write a cheque. The principle is quite simple: If you refuse to abide by the central theme of a license (be it code relicensing or cheque writing), then that license won't protect you.
You misunderstand: The plaintif's argument is that you are only protected from the patent if the software is distributed via the GPL. Since Versata's customers did NOT get the software under the terms of the GPL, they are not protected by the GPL license that Versata refused to abide by The alternative was to pay for a commercial patent license, but nobody bothered to do that, either.
Thus, both Versata and their customers are in the legal dog house.
Technically, Ximpleware doesn't even have to raise the GPL. All that they have to do is sue Versata and their customers for copyright and patent violations. If either tries to claim the GPL as a defense, then the response to that claim is that the GPL doesn't apply to this case because Versata didn't even try to abide by the terms of the GPL.
The code wasn't distributed for free. It was distributed under a choice of two separate licenses: One was the GPL, one was commercial. Clearly, the commercial license route wasn't taken, and the GPL license wasn't adhered to.
Irrelevant if the patent owners argument is accepted that the GPL license did not include a license to use the software because you also needed to obtain a license for the patent that the GPL'd source uses. It's like cops putting out a plate of free 'special' (unmarked as such) brownies next to a plate of $5-per regular brownies at back-to-school night and promptly arresting everybody who eats one of the 'free' brownies.
If Oracle pulled such a BS claim out in their Java lawsuits, everybody but the corporate lawyers would be puking in disgust at such a bold admission of intent to entrap users.
They can only say that about data that was clearly deleted.
If I was a criminal, I'd buy used drives in bulk, and see if there was any data on them worth using (or ransom). Using a drive in a way that allowed plausible deniability would take some effort and technical knowledge... Not the kine of thing that most thieves depend on.
physical destruction is only 'foolproof' if you're the fool doing it... Otherwise you're depending on the protocols of the people doing the destruction for you.
If you've got a number of drives to go through, wiping drives is a pretty simple process. Get a USB drive enclosure (or 5)... then plug in a drive, turn it on. Run the wipe and wait for the drive to finish wiping. switch off, switch drives and repeat. physical destruction is only called for if the writes fail.
Going beyond wiping a drive is only necessary if someone like the NSA is interested in your data.
It doesn't "prove" anything that the emails were destroyed. The legal principle is that it can be assumed that there was incriminating evidence in the emails. One of the questions, though, is whether due dilligence was done to secure the emails in question. It is quite possible that the drives really did all die. Manufacturers have bad batches of drives from time to time. It's possible that a bad batch was purchased by the IRS.
I haven't been following that particular escapade. All I will say is that culpability is suspected at this point -- but not entirely proven.
So, let's say a company (IBM) "donates" code that allows an Open Source software package support some unique (patented) feature on their hardware.
Is that charity, or a marketing expense to help the company sell more hardware?
Suppose that I give a group money to house homeless people so that they don't have to huddle around my air vents in the winter. Does that then make the homeless support group a commercial entity?? Charitable groups OFTEN support purposes beyond their direct purpose. That doesn't make them non-charitable... I mean how much do broadcastes make by broadcasting NCAA games?
You're splitting hairs here -- Most people give donations to charitable orginaizations because it, in some way or form, supports their goals. Rifle manufacturers give to the NRA. Drug manufacturers give to research groups at universities (I think that some of those agreements are VERY directly commercial -- especially when there are limits on how the results of the research can be used/disemminated).,,, etc. etc, etc.
I already pay Shaw (I'm in Canada) $60/month for a 10megabit connection. If I then have to pay Netflix extra money so that they can pay Shaw to allow the connection to run at 10Mb/s, then Shaw is double-dipping. If I've paid for 10Mb/s then I should GET 10Mb/s if it's technically feasible to do so.
Anything else is false advertising, contractual interference, and/or a Sherman Act violation.
If you don't have a problem with Hot Pockets, then you probably have a freezer section that borderline doesn't work. If a hot-pocket is nearly thawed when you throw it into the microwave, it will have pockets of semi-liquid that quickly heat up and help to thaw the internals which then heat up nicely. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with the power of your microwave.
The other solution is to run the thing on 'defrost' for a couple of minutes -- (a short blast of microwaves every 10 seconds or so, with time for the recently-heated liquids to thaw the area around them)... then follow the normal directions to get a properly hot hot-pocket.
Playing with large data sets is more of a pain in a spreadsheet... and if they have 10K records now, it's not a shock that they'll grow to 100K in a few years. If you're designing for growth, then putting the break, today, at 10K is reasonable.
Also, if you've got over 10K records, chances are that you will (eventually) be answering yes to some of the other questions -- like having multiple people doing updates and/or queries on the data.
That's part of the 'invisible hand of the market'. If I don't like the fact that you're pissing on my color/orientation/clothing style, I can refuse to do business with you and discourage my friends from doing so.
It's called 'leverage'. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in the marketplace. ---- "rather than pissing and moaning about" people talking to their friends.
Touche. All European (and colonial) scientists shared latin. Scientists in other great cultures around the world just used their local 'universal' languages.
. Their operation purportedly cost Comcast $2.4 million, and Comcast claims that the loss has forced them to raise the rates on all their customersHowever, the allegedly huge financial loss.....
2.4million is 0.03% of their NET income in 2013. it's... what, $.01 per customer per month??
Who in their right mind would think that they could sneak in a clause that takes away already recognised rights, without VERY public and international comment.
10 or 15 years ago, that wouldn't have been something to take into account. A couple of people would have groused about it, and their friends might have paid attention, but the macro effect on the company would have been trivial.
Consider that Microsoft, for example, has gotten away with language like that in a piece of software that 90%+ of desktop computers are sold with, and that it's actually difficult to buy a computer without. Meaningful protests??? Roughly zero.
In this case, "legal' means "a court will rule that the clause as valid". Clauses that force you to go to arbitration rather than court (including class-action lawsuits) have been held as valid in the past -- including for things like software 'licenses' for purchased software.
This clause was pushing the envelope even further, and it's unlikely to have been held as valid (under these specific circumstances), but the fact that it's there might be enough to cause an unhappy customer to cave in and settle for less than (s)he might have in the absence of this clause.
The marketing debacle, on the other hand, isn't something that lawyers normally pay close attention to.
Anybody who states it that categorically is stupid, ignorant, full of hubris -- or setting up a straw-man.
The problem here is that people have been using the argument that Open Source is better because these issues can't happen "because" of the visibility.
Pretty much anything built by man is subject to errors. That includes source code -- open or closed. Any sane programmer knows this. The difference with open source is that the code is open to the users. Especially in the case of security, correctness is a high priority for many users, and those users can drive the bug-hunt process. As such, bugs tend to get found and fixed (sometimes proactively) faster with Free and Open Source code than with proprietary code.
For companies, on the other hand, security and correctness, in general, is a cost centre. It's often only pursued to the extent to which ignoring it affects profits. If it's considered better for the bottom line to ignore/hide a critical security bug than to fix it, then it may never get fixed. -- "Better for the bottom line" includes being paid to keep a bug open by the NSA/KGB/MOSAD/etc. The well-being of the customer base is only a (indirect) part of the profit calculation.
"Bad for the bottom line." Includes fixing code that you're no longer actively selling -- unless the bug hurts your public image too badly.
That's why, for example, XP is no longer going to be supported -- despite the fact that perhaps hundreds of millions of machines still use it.
Redhat 7.2 isn't officially supported by Red Hat, either -- but despite the fact that the current user base is probably in the range of hundreds or thousands, somebody who considers it critical infrastructure and can't/won't upgrade it can still arrange to get bug fixes because the source is legally available. RedHat isn't the gatekeeper for support the way that Microsoft is for Windows. RedHat is simply the (highly) preferred source of support.
Comcast has been messing with people's net feeds for a while now. People have been paying for N-Megabit connections and, to the extent to which those connections have been with NetFlix, those connections have been wilfully and needlessly degraded to well below N-Megabit.
TIme for a mass refund.
period.
(also time for some law firm to make megabucks litigating this issue)
Slashdot Mirror
Asking if this single event is attributable to global warming is the wrong question. The best answer to (misguided) journalists who insist on asking this question (usually because they've been forced to talk to too many global warming deniers) is:
es, I'm serious. He's a freind of mine, and he's had the name since long before the show went on air. My point is that having the name 'Maggie Simpson' means nothing -- unlike the bogus content. I don't know if they did this, butit seems that a properly juried work should have the name removed from it during the review process.
What does Facebook's great addition do that this doesn't (other than give them an excuse to track where I am)?
Hmm... It seems like Aneutronic fusion is actually a light-weight fission process. -- splitting Barium into 3 Helium by adding a Proton (as opposed to a Neutron for most fission processes).
By safe, I mean it can't be used to blow things up -- either by accident or on purpose. This makes it bad for nuclear Proliferation -- Including making bombs for the US military. That's why it never got as much funding as Uranium-based reactors ... they couldn't figure out how to use Thorium reactors to make bombs. Remember that this was in the 60's and 70's and at the height of the cold war // arms race.
As a side point of not being useful for making bombs, it's also harder to have a (semi) critical accident -- i.e. a Chernobyl / 3-mile-island / China-syndrome type accident.
That's a big problem when you're trying to get the civilian population to accept bomb-making, but (and) much more dangerous Uranium - based reactors... Which would you rather have in your back yard? A Thorium reactor that pretty much can't have a meltdown, or a Uranium one that is one (albeit unlikely) step from being a bomb.
The other problem is that it's too cheap.... from a commercial vantage point, Uranium-based fuels are incredibly hard to make properly -- and their exact format varies from reactor to reactor... That means that reactors that aren't sufficiently profitable to make (even with military^w government subsidies) can make (more) profits because the plant manufacturer has an effective monopoly on making fuel pellets. ... kinda like the way that printer manufacturers sell you the printer for cheap, then ding you on ink refils. LFTR plants, on the other hand, just need an occasional addition of Thorium, and a little bit of the salts (to make up for any evaporation).
That means that there's less likely to be a commercial proponent for LFTR Thorium reactors. Why spend billions researching a reactor that will never get Military/Government subsidies ... and then -- once built -- won't be a lucrative source of fuel sales? It's really good for the utility using the reactor (and their customers), but it sucks for the plant manufacturer.
So there you have it.. LFTR is unlikely to be created because it's.
That's why LFTR may never find a good backer -- unless we can find a billionaire willing to fund the development on a lark (and to save mankind from our own greed/hatred).
If the people posting the offending images are willing to defend those lawsuits, it's got nothing to do with 4chan any more.
period.
Thus, both Versata and their customers are in the legal dog house. Technically, Ximpleware doesn't even have to raise the GPL. All that they have to do is sue Versata and their customers for copyright and patent violations. If either tries to claim the GPL as a defense, then the response to that claim is that the GPL doesn't apply to this case because Versata didn't even try to abide by the terms of the GPL.
The code wasn't distributed for free. It was distributed under a choice of two separate licenses: One was the GPL, one was commercial. Clearly, the commercial license route wasn't taken, and the GPL license wasn't adhered to.
Irrelevant if the patent owners argument is accepted that the GPL license did not include a license to use the software because you also needed to obtain a license for the patent that the GPL'd source uses. It's like cops putting out a plate of free 'special' (unmarked as such) brownies next to a plate of $5-per regular brownies at back-to-school night and promptly arresting everybody who eats one of the 'free' brownies.
If Oracle pulled such a BS claim out in their Java lawsuits, everybody but the corporate lawyers would be puking in disgust at such a bold admission of intent to entrap users.
If I was a criminal, I'd buy used drives in bulk, and see if there was any data on them worth using (or ransom). Using a drive in a way that allowed plausible deniability would take some effort and technical knowledge ... Not the kine of thing that most thieves depend on.
If you've got a number of drives to go through, wiping drives is a pretty simple process. Get a USB drive enclosure (or 5)... then plug in a drive, turn it on. Run the wipe and wait for the drive to finish wiping. switch off, switch drives and repeat. physical destruction is only called for if the writes fail.
Going beyond wiping a drive is only necessary if someone like the NSA is interested in your data.
Consider the high percentage of University/College grads who go on to work for companies.
I haven't been following that particular escapade. All I will say is that culpability is suspected at this point -- but not entirely proven.
So, let's say a company (IBM) "donates" code that allows an Open Source software package support some unique (patented) feature on their hardware.
Is that charity, or a marketing expense to help the company sell more hardware?
Suppose that I give a group money to house homeless people so that they don't have to huddle around my air vents in the winter. Does that then make the homeless support group a commercial entity?? Charitable groups OFTEN support purposes beyond their direct purpose. That doesn't make them non-charitable... I mean how much do broadcastes make by broadcasting NCAA games?
You're splitting hairs here -- Most people give donations to charitable orginaizations because it, in some way or form, supports their goals. Rifle manufacturers give to the NRA. Drug manufacturers give to research groups at universities (I think that some of those agreements are VERY directly commercial -- especially when there are limits on how the results of the research can be used/disemminated).,,, etc. etc, etc.
In other words, the anti-vac population may have yet anotther reason to tell people not to get their vaccination.
Anything else is false advertising, contractual interference, and/or a Sherman Act violation.
The other solution is to run the thing on 'defrost' for a couple of minutes -- (a short blast of microwaves every 10 seconds or so, with time for the recently-heated liquids to thaw the area around them)... then follow the normal directions to get a properly hot hot-pocket.
Playing with large data sets is more of a pain in a spreadsheet ... and if they have 10K records now, it's not a shock that they'll grow to 100K in a few years. If you're designing for growth, then putting the break, today, at 10K is reasonable.
Also, if you've got over 10K records, chances are that you will (eventually) be answering yes to some of the other questions -- like having multiple people doing updates and/or queries on the data.
It's called 'leverage'. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in the marketplace. ---- "rather than pissing and moaning about" people talking to their friends.
Touche. All European (and colonial) scientists shared latin. Scientists in other great cultures around the world just used their local 'universal' languages.
. Their operation purportedly cost Comcast $2.4 million, and Comcast claims that the loss has forced them to raise the rates on all their customersHowever, the allegedly huge financial loss .....
2.4million is 0.03% of their NET income in 2013. it's ... what, $.01 per customer per month??
Who in their right mind would think that they could sneak in a clause that takes away already recognised rights, without VERY public and international comment.
10 or 15 years ago, that wouldn't have been something to take into account. A couple of people would have groused about it, and their friends might have paid attention, but the macro effect on the company would have been trivial.
Consider that Microsoft, for example, has gotten away with language like that in a piece of software that 90%+ of desktop computers are sold with, and that it's actually difficult to buy a computer without. Meaningful protests??? Roughly zero.
This clause was pushing the envelope even further, and it's unlikely to have been held as valid (under these specific circumstances), but the fact that it's there might be enough to cause an unhappy customer to cave in and settle for less than (s)he might have in the absence of this clause.
The marketing debacle, on the other hand, isn't something that lawyers normally pay close attention to.
Pretty much anything built by man is subject to errors. That includes source code -- open or closed. Any sane programmer knows this. The difference with open source is that the code is open to the users. Especially in the case of security, correctness is a high priority for many users, and those users can drive the bug-hunt process. As such, bugs tend to get found and fixed (sometimes proactively) faster with Free and Open Source code than with proprietary code.
For companies, on the other hand, security and correctness, in general, is a cost centre. It's often only pursued to the extent to which ignoring it affects profits. If it's considered better for the bottom line to ignore/hide a critical security bug than to fix it, then it may never get fixed. -- "Better for the bottom line" includes being paid to keep a bug open by the NSA/KGB/MOSAD/etc. The well-being of the customer base is only a (indirect) part of the profit calculation.
"Bad for the bottom line." Includes fixing code that you're no longer actively selling -- unless the bug hurts your public image too badly.
That's why, for example, XP is no longer going to be supported -- despite the fact that perhaps hundreds of millions of machines still use it.
Redhat 7.2 isn't officially supported by Red Hat, either -- but despite the fact that the current user base is probably in the range of hundreds or thousands, somebody who considers it critical infrastructure and can't/won't upgrade it can still arrange to get bug fixes because the source is legally available. RedHat isn't the gatekeeper for support the way that Microsoft is for Windows. RedHat is simply the (highly) preferred source of support.
TIme for a mass refund. period.
(also time for some law firm to make megabucks litigating this issue)