The GPL says I do not have to accept it to receive or use the software licensed under it - so if there was no copyright, there is nothing stopping me distributing that software outside of the terms of the license.
It's copyright which gives every OSS license their teeth. Without copyright, they aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.
Everyone who distributes the file infringes copyright as a separate infringement - just because person A gets sued for their infringement doesnt mean persons B through Z are immune to the same charge for their own separate infractions.
In other words, if 1 person distributes to 10,000 people, then sure, only one person is liable, but if those 10,000 also distribute then they are also liable. Pursuing one of those infringements doesn't invalidate the other infringements happening.
No, you didn't "FTFY" - I really wish people would stop using that pathetic meme.
I'd rather take a report that was presented to a house committee as a starting point over the reports from those who are looking to secure billions of dollars of investment and purchase orders for a product which is questionable to say the least.
By all means, invest in R&D to make a better product, but don't use fraud to try and push that investment. Admit the shortcomings of a system, don't claim that its successful at something it really isn't and demand further investment...
The Patriots success is highly overstated, with accuracy and hit rate being heavily fudged during the first Gulf War by Raytheon and the US DoD - they stated figures from 80% upward, while actual figures as researched after the conflict was over (and after the Patriots moment in the lime light faded) put the success rate and accuracy at more like 10%.
Raytheon still got a significant budget to produce further versions of the Patriot however...
Asking for a citation is reasonable, calling him a "fucking troll" because he didn't provide one originally is not reasonable. It would seem that some people can't even politely request a citation these days before resorting to insults to try and make their point.
The 200 mile limit is the exclusive economic zone I referred to in my post, and if you look at Australias, it's nowhere near as big as you think it us.
The waters they are fishing in are waters claimed by Australia but not recognised by Japan - Australia claim control over most of the southern ocean, well outside of the normal economic zone limits, and thus Japan has a valid reason to not recognise Australian control. Japan also doesn't recognise the economic area Australia claim off the coast of Antarctica, so once again the claim is in dispute.
It's hardly as black and white as you put it - and I support the abolition of whaling.
The value of the US $ is in the fact that it's accepted at millions of places, not just in the US but around the world. Yes, it might only have a set value because we allow it to, but the real difference between it and BitCoin is the number of people willing to allow that set value. Personally i wouldnt accept any payment in BitCoin today, because i have no reasonable use for it as-is, and the exchange rate to another currency is nowhere near stable enough to be sure my balance doesnt become worthless overnight.
BitCoin doesn't have the momentum to be a viable fiat currency yet - look at the problems the Euro is currently suffering, and that's bing pushed by governments and huge financial institutions, did anyone really think BitCoin had a better chance?
Just as with slashdot moderation, it will be possible to game the system, if you respond rationally everywhere except one issue where you feel strongly about. And it would be nice if your reputation could be classified so that you can have a good reputation on some subjects, but automatically junkpiled on other topics.
The problem with that, which is also the main problem with slashdots moderation system, is that it largely depends on the group of people taking part in the moderation, and it completely depends on their opinions. You can be completely rational on topics, backed with facts, and still be modded to oblivion because other people simply don't like your view, it isn't what they want to hear.
Many topics on slashdot suffer from such, including copyright issues, negative views on android etc.
Just because you have a good or bad reputation with one group doesn't mean that reputation is automatically of value to anyone else.
Equally, the MMR-causes-autism outcry a few years ago - the report had long been discredited, but for some reason it suddenly became a huge thing for many groups, causing massive public anger.
Same goes for the recent UEA climategate - nothing the scientists did was wrong, everything in the emails was almost deliberately taken out of context and much hilarity ensued.
Not being a C or C++ developer, I'm not sure who to believe - in the Firefox compilation story a few days ago, there were a fair few highly modded up posts extoling the virtues of the quality and speed of binaries output by the MS C and C++ compiler over GCC.
Are you aware that the P-51 was actually built in the first place for the British? The MoD approached North American for them to license build another manufacturers aircraft, and NA responded that they could design and build a better aircraft in the same timeframe - the P-51 was born. The USAAF originally attempted to block actual sales to the RAF, until the RAF gave them several examples as a test batch - and thus the massive US usage of the P-51 was born.
Without the British contribution to the P-51, it would never have been born at all, let alone a footnote in history.
When Rolls Royce had to make their Merlin engine reliable enough fr long range bombing missions, they took every 10th engine off the production line and ran it constantly until it broke, took it apart and made whatever piece that failed stronger.
By the end of the war they had one of the most reliable piston engines the world has ever seen.
Guess again, support and upgrade contracts can surpass construction contracts significantly - it's where most companies look to make the bulk of their profits in this arena.
For example, recently the USAF asked for $8billion to upgrade the F-22 fleet to be able to use the much vaunted datalink capability. That's more than 10% of the current program cost.
There's nothing cutting edge about the inboard oxygen system on the F-22, which is where they have had a lot of problems recently - it *should* be a solved problem, but seems not to be.
And it's been well established by black box data that the air speed disagree errors were not the ultimate reason 447 crashed - the only people still claiming it is are anti-Airbus people such as yourself. The final minutes of 447 are very well documented.
Sure - the flight in question was British Midland Flight 92.
The situation I mentioned came about because the pilots shut down the right engine due to vibration and presence of smoke in the cabin - up to the 737NG line cabin air was only taken from the right engine, so thus engine vibration and smoke in the cabin meant the right engine was at issue. However, in this case it was the left engine which had actually failed.
While the left engine was failing, the autothrottle automatically adjusted the fuel flow into it in order to maintain the thrust levels from it - this had the effect of causing an asymmetric thrust selection between the left and right engines - however, the throttle lever actuator only selected a physical position for the right hand engine at its lower thrust level, meaning the autothrottle was actually selecting a higher value which was not indicated in the positions of the throttles (the two throttle levers are linked by one actuator when under autothrottle control, thus they can actually only show the thrust level of one of the engines - in this case, the right engine).
When the pilots turned off the autothrottle to power down the right engine, the left engines selected thrust returned to that of the physical position of its thrust lever - which had the effect of reducing the vibration to the point where the flight crew thought they had indeed turned off the correct engine when they shut down the right engine.
When they were on approach to Midlands Airport, they increased thrust on the left engine, which caused it to fail completely and thus the aircraft crashed short on approach.
This system was highlighted in the crash report, along with a number of other issues with the 737NG design - Boeing did infact have to ground a large number of aircraft before the solution was deployed to the delivered fleet. It was not the sole cause of the crash, but it was something that was heavily highlighted in the chain of events.
Maybe if you actually read what I wrote, you could come up with some real objections, rather than your own uninformed bullshit. The 777 has a mechanical backup system, exactly as I stated. Look it up, bozo. All Boeings to date have. I did not state that Boeings were not "fly by wire", I said they had MECHANICAL BACKUPS. I meant as opposed to entirely (or nearly entirely) fly-by-wire only. It's right there in my comment, in plain English. Further, despite what I stated earlier, even the 787 has electrical/mechanical manual backup in case of computer failure. Of course, if you suffer a complete loss of electrical power (including even the turbine generator), you are SOL either way.
I'm afraid you are spouting pure shite - no aircraft would be certified by either the FAA or the EASA if your stance was correct...
There is a reason that there are so many independent power generation systems onboard a modern (1970s onwards) aircraft, and there is a reason that those systems are checked and certified - there has been zero incidents where an aircraft has completely and utterly lost power during any stage of flight.
And if you dispute that Airbus has been prone to crash due to computer failure, I invite you to look that up, too.
If you look up the Airbus laws yourself, you will see that the only manual control for pitch, for example, is the trim wheel. This is going to do you very little good unless your plane is already in stable horizontal flight... seldom the case when catastrophic failure occurs.
I am *very* familiar with the Airbus control systems, and your assertion that the trim wheel is useless unless in stable horizontal flight just screams that you know fuck all about what you are talking about. You can use the trim wheel to fully control the airframe in all circumstances where you would have to do so with the elevators, because the forces you have to exert during direct mechanical linkages to the elevators would break your arms on a large civil airplane and involve leverage forces that you could not exert from the tiny control columns on modern aircraft.
I'd love you to show us any cases of an Airbus crash that was attributed to computer failure - you won't find one. And I dare you to trot out the Habsheim A320 crash...
On the other hand, we have perfect examples such as the Air Transat flight 236, which lost both engines due to a fuel leak which exhausted the entire fuel supply (and once again missed by the pilots - they completely ignored all the warning signs), and had to glide for 65 miles without engines and only running on the Ram Air Turbine electrical generator. That aircraft landed perfectly safely.
But the main thing -- one I didn't see the point of going into until you decided to butt in -- is that in order to go into "Direct Law" in an Airbus, which is what you might consider your main "manual backup", you have to jump through a lot of hoops, which (as it turns out) pilots just do not have time to do in an emergency.
To put an Airbus aircraft into Direct Law takes precisely two button presses, both within reach of either pilot - but if you aren't in Direct Law, there's really no reason for you to manually put yourself into it, but its there if you want to.
It still amounts to the pilots not being able to control their aircraft when the computer fails.
Again, the same utter shite from yourself.
There's a lot of bullshit touted on the internet about Airbus aircraft - I suggest you actually educate yourself. And I suggest staying away from Wikipedia - there is so much wrong information on there, and so many trolls willing to spend their lives pushing their own warped view through articles such as the ones linked to this, that I no longer consider Wikipedia worth time or effort at all.
Boeings situation is potentially worse, as their auto throttles move both levers equally, not based on the actual throttle levels of each of the engines. This directly led to crew shutting down then wrong engine on a 737, resulting in a crash in 1989 in the UK.
What a load of uninformed bullshit - Airbus has several levels of computer control, called laws, one of which is Direct Law which passes all inputs directly to the control surfaces. And if that isn't enough, they have mechanical backup controls for all surfaces on the flight deck, so even with a completely dead computer the aircraft is still flyable.
You sir, are talking complete shit, but that seems to be normal when someone wants to put Boeing on a pedestal over Airbus.
Let's go over some of your "mistakes"...
The 787 isn't Boeings first FBW aircraft, they have had one flying since the mid 1990s with the 777. The 787s system is an evolution of the 777s.
AF447 didn't crash because of a computer problem, it crashed because of poor crew relationships in the cockpit - three pilots in that cockpit and not one was interested in what the others were doing. They didn't run basic check lists, they ignored other information, and the pilot flying did completely the wrong thing - the situation was completely survivable if they had carried out the correct procedures, except they didn't. The crash wasn't caused by the computer, it was caused by the pilot taking a stable aircraft and stalling it badly when nothing about the computer error forced him to do that.
Yours sincerely, Pretty much every sysadmin anywhere that's been tasked with providing IT services to keep a business running as productively and profitably as possible, in spite of people like yourself.
Also, the use of the viral video is a little off, since the baby never actually does anything with the account (as the Google spokesman says) - the father signs up for the account and agrees to the terms, the father then composes messages and sends them, the father reads messages received etc etc. Its the father doing things in the babies name, which is a whole different ball game to the kid signing up and using it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL says I do not have to accept it to receive or use the software licensed under it - so if there was no copyright, there is nothing stopping me distributing that software outside of the terms of the license.
It's copyright which gives every OSS license their teeth. Without copyright, they aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.
Everyone who distributes the file infringes copyright as a separate infringement - just because person A gets sued for their infringement doesnt mean persons B through Z are immune to the same charge for their own separate infractions.
In other words, if 1 person distributes to 10,000 people, then sure, only one person is liable, but if those 10,000 also distribute then they are also liable. Pursuing one of those infringements doesn't invalidate the other infringements happening.
And that is how bit torrent works.
No, you didn't "FTFY" - I really wish people would stop using that pathetic meme.
I'd rather take a report that was presented to a house committee as a starting point over the reports from those who are looking to secure billions of dollars of investment and purchase orders for a product which is questionable to say the least.
By all means, invest in R&D to make a better product, but don't use fraud to try and push that investment. Admit the shortcomings of a system, don't claim that its successful at something it really isn't and demand further investment...
The Patriots success is highly overstated, with accuracy and hit rate being heavily fudged during the first Gulf War by Raytheon and the US DoD - they stated figures from 80% upward, while actual figures as researched after the conflict was over (and after the Patriots moment in the lime light faded) put the success rate and accuracy at more like 10%.
Raytheon still got a significant budget to produce further versions of the Patriot however...
Asking for a citation is reasonable, calling him a "fucking troll" because he didn't provide one originally is not reasonable. It would seem that some people can't even politely request a citation these days before resorting to insults to try and make their point.
The Visual Express versions have no "can't sell" limitation.
The 200 mile limit is the exclusive economic zone I referred to in my post, and if you look at Australias, it's nowhere near as big as you think it us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone#Australia
200 miles isn't all that much in real terms.
The waters they are fishing in are waters claimed by Australia but not recognised by Japan - Australia claim control over most of the southern ocean, well outside of the normal economic zone limits, and thus Japan has a valid reason to not recognise Australian control. Japan also doesn't recognise the economic area Australia claim off the coast of Antarctica, so once again the claim is in dispute.
It's hardly as black and white as you put it - and I support the abolition of whaling.
Sure Start in the UK is the current pro-reading program, where kids get free books.
Not sure if you were being deliberately ironic, but thanks for proving my point.
The value of the US $ is in the fact that it's accepted at millions of places, not just in the US but around the world. Yes, it might only have a set value because we allow it to, but the real difference between it and BitCoin is the number of people willing to allow that set value. Personally i wouldnt accept any payment in BitCoin today, because i have no reasonable use for it as-is, and the exchange rate to another currency is nowhere near stable enough to be sure my balance doesnt become worthless overnight.
BitCoin doesn't have the momentum to be a viable fiat currency yet - look at the problems the Euro is currently suffering, and that's bing pushed by governments and huge financial institutions, did anyone really think BitCoin had a better chance?
Just as with slashdot moderation, it will be possible to game the system, if you respond rationally everywhere except one issue where you feel strongly about. And it would be nice if your reputation could be classified so that you can have a good reputation on some subjects, but automatically junkpiled on other topics.
The problem with that, which is also the main problem with slashdots moderation system, is that it largely depends on the group of people taking part in the moderation, and it completely depends on their opinions. You can be completely rational on topics, backed with facts, and still be modded to oblivion because other people simply don't like your view, it isn't what they want to hear.
Many topics on slashdot suffer from such, including copyright issues, negative views on android etc.
Just because you have a good or bad reputation with one group doesn't mean that reputation is automatically of value to anyone else.
Equally, the MMR-causes-autism outcry a few years ago - the report had long been discredited, but for some reason it suddenly became a huge thing for many groups, causing massive public anger.
Same goes for the recent UEA climategate - nothing the scientists did was wrong, everything in the emails was almost deliberately taken out of context and much hilarity ensued.
Not being a C or C++ developer, I'm not sure who to believe - in the Firefox compilation story a few days ago, there were a fair few highly modded up posts extoling the virtues of the quality and speed of binaries output by the MS C and C++ compiler over GCC.
Any thoughts on that?
Are you aware that the P-51 was actually built in the first place for the British? The MoD approached North American for them to license build another manufacturers aircraft, and NA responded that they could design and build a better aircraft in the same timeframe - the P-51 was born. The USAAF originally attempted to block actual sales to the RAF, until the RAF gave them several examples as a test batch - and thus the massive US usage of the P-51 was born.
Without the British contribution to the P-51, it would never have been born at all, let alone a footnote in history.
When Rolls Royce had to make their Merlin engine reliable enough fr long range bombing missions, they took every 10th engine off the production line and ran it constantly until it broke, took it apart and made whatever piece that failed stronger.
By the end of the war they had one of the most reliable piston engines the world has ever seen.
Guess again, support and upgrade contracts can surpass construction contracts significantly - it's where most companies look to make the bulk of their profits in this arena.
For example, recently the USAF asked for $8billion to upgrade the F-22 fleet to be able to use the much vaunted datalink capability. That's more than 10% of the current program cost.
There's nothing cutting edge about the inboard oxygen system on the F-22, which is where they have had a lot of problems recently - it *should* be a solved problem, but seems not to be.
List those "catastrophes" please.
And it's been well established by black box data that the air speed disagree errors were not the ultimate reason 447 crashed - the only people still claiming it is are anti-Airbus people such as yourself. The final minutes of 447 are very well documented.
Sure - the flight in question was British Midland Flight 92.
The situation I mentioned came about because the pilots shut down the right engine due to vibration and presence of smoke in the cabin - up to the 737NG line cabin air was only taken from the right engine, so thus engine vibration and smoke in the cabin meant the right engine was at issue. However, in this case it was the left engine which had actually failed.
While the left engine was failing, the autothrottle automatically adjusted the fuel flow into it in order to maintain the thrust levels from it - this had the effect of causing an asymmetric thrust selection between the left and right engines - however, the throttle lever actuator only selected a physical position for the right hand engine at its lower thrust level, meaning the autothrottle was actually selecting a higher value which was not indicated in the positions of the throttles (the two throttle levers are linked by one actuator when under autothrottle control, thus they can actually only show the thrust level of one of the engines - in this case, the right engine).
When the pilots turned off the autothrottle to power down the right engine, the left engines selected thrust returned to that of the physical position of its thrust lever - which had the effect of reducing the vibration to the point where the flight crew thought they had indeed turned off the correct engine when they shut down the right engine.
When they were on approach to Midlands Airport, they increased thrust on the left engine, which caused it to fail completely and thus the aircraft crashed short on approach.
This system was highlighted in the crash report, along with a number of other issues with the 737NG design - Boeing did infact have to ground a large number of aircraft before the solution was deployed to the delivered fleet. It was not the sole cause of the crash, but it was something that was heavily highlighted in the chain of events.
Aha, yet more uninformed bullshit.
Maybe if you actually read what I wrote, you could come up with some real objections, rather than your own uninformed bullshit.
The 777 has a mechanical backup system, exactly as I stated. Look it up, bozo. All Boeings to date have.
I did not state that Boeings were not "fly by wire", I said they had MECHANICAL BACKUPS. I meant as opposed to entirely (or nearly entirely) fly-by-wire only. It's right there in my comment, in plain English. Further, despite what I stated earlier, even the 787 has electrical/mechanical manual backup in case of computer failure. Of course, if you suffer a complete loss of electrical power (including even the turbine generator), you are SOL either way.
I'm afraid you are spouting pure shite - no aircraft would be certified by either the FAA or the EASA if your stance was correct...
There is a reason that there are so many independent power generation systems onboard a modern (1970s onwards) aircraft, and there is a reason that those systems are checked and certified - there has been zero incidents where an aircraft has completely and utterly lost power during any stage of flight.
And if you dispute that Airbus has been prone to crash due to computer failure, I invite you to look that up, too.
If you look up the Airbus laws yourself, you will see that the only manual control for pitch, for example, is the trim wheel. This is going to do you very little good unless your plane is already in stable horizontal flight... seldom the case when catastrophic failure occurs.
I am *very* familiar with the Airbus control systems, and your assertion that the trim wheel is useless unless in stable horizontal flight just screams that you know fuck all about what you are talking about. You can use the trim wheel to fully control the airframe in all circumstances where you would have to do so with the elevators, because the forces you have to exert during direct mechanical linkages to the elevators would break your arms on a large civil airplane and involve leverage forces that you could not exert from the tiny control columns on modern aircraft.
I'd love you to show us any cases of an Airbus crash that was attributed to computer failure - you won't find one. And I dare you to trot out the Habsheim A320 crash...
On the other hand, we have perfect examples such as the Air Transat flight 236, which lost both engines due to a fuel leak which exhausted the entire fuel supply (and once again missed by the pilots - they completely ignored all the warning signs), and had to glide for 65 miles without engines and only running on the Ram Air Turbine electrical generator. That aircraft landed perfectly safely.
But the main thing -- one I didn't see the point of going into until you decided to butt in -- is that in order to go into "Direct Law" in an Airbus, which is what you might consider your main "manual backup", you have to jump through a lot of hoops, which (as it turns out) pilots just do not have time to do in an emergency.
To put an Airbus aircraft into Direct Law takes precisely two button presses, both within reach of either pilot - but if you aren't in Direct Law, there's really no reason for you to manually put yourself into it, but its there if you want to.
It still amounts to the pilots not being able to control their aircraft when the computer fails.
Again, the same utter shite from yourself.
There's a lot of bullshit touted on the internet about Airbus aircraft - I suggest you actually educate yourself. And I suggest staying away from Wikipedia - there is so much wrong information on there, and so many trolls willing to spend their lives pushing their own warped view through articles such as the ones linked to this, that I no longer consider Wikipedia worth time or effort at all.
Boeings situation is potentially worse, as their auto throttles move both levers equally, not based on the actual throttle levels of each of the engines. This directly led to crew shutting down then wrong engine on a 737, resulting in a crash in 1989 in the UK.
What a load of uninformed bullshit - Airbus has several levels of computer control, called laws, one of which is Direct Law which passes all inputs directly to the control surfaces. And if that isn't enough, they have mechanical backup controls for all surfaces on the flight deck, so even with a completely dead computer the aircraft is still flyable.
You sir, are talking complete shit, but that seems to be normal when someone wants to put Boeing on a pedestal over Airbus.
Let's go over some of your "mistakes"...
The 787 isn't Boeings first FBW aircraft, they have had one flying since the mid 1990s with the 777. The 787s system is an evolution of the 777s.
AF447 didn't crash because of a computer problem, it crashed because of poor crew relationships in the cockpit - three pilots in that cockpit and not one was interested in what the others were doing. They didn't run basic check lists, they ignored other information, and the pilot flying did completely the wrong thing - the situation was completely survivable if they had carried out the correct procedures, except they didn't. The crash wasn't caused by the computer, it was caused by the pilot taking a stable aircraft and stalling it badly when nothing about the computer error forced him to do that.
Dear GMGruman,
Go fuck yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Pretty much every sysadmin anywhere that's been tasked with providing IT services to keep a business running as productively and profitably as possible, in spite of people like yourself.
Also, the use of the viral video is a little off, since the baby never actually does anything with the account (as the Google spokesman says) - the father signs up for the account and agrees to the terms, the father then composes messages and sends them, the father reads messages received etc etc. Its the father doing things in the babies name, which is a whole different ball game to the kid signing up and using it themselves.