"And in fact might need to keep any modifications that it keeps confidential. (Not that I really think that the GPL would deter anyone in the Bush Administration from doing something for "national security" -- I mean the Constitution doesn't.)"
The GPL does not restrict the US (or any other) government (or any company, for that matter) from keeping modifications confidential. As long as the government does not distribute the software outside of itself, it can do whatever it wants. The GPL only requires source distribution to those who receive a binary - if the binary is kept in-house, the GPL does not require that the source be distributed to anyone else.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Check AeroPlayer or Pocket-Tunes; they don't work on OS5 Clies and their developers can't get them to work because Sony isn't publishing the API.
But, hey, if you can prove me wrong by posting a pointer to Sony's audio API documentation for OS5 (note that they have some documentation for some audio API on their site, but that's not what goes with their OS5 Clies; I think that's for their OS4 stuff, which is yet different), then I, as well as the developers of AeroPlayer and Pocket-Tunes would be really happy.
Will the Sony Sound Developer Kit suffice for your needs? According the the Sound SDK faq, it supports all Clies with enhanced sound support, including but not limited to the PEG-T400/T415/T425,
PEG-T600C/T615C/T625C,
PEG-NR70/NR70V,
PEG-T650C/T665C/T675C,
PEG-SJ33,
PEG-NX60/PEG-NX70V,
PEG-NZ90, and
PEG-TG50.
I also checked the Sony SDK 3.0 (for Sony Clie using Palm OS 4) for audio APIs, which appeared to be present in the Programmers Companion, unless my eyes deceive me and functions such as SndPlaySmfResource with parameters like volumeSelector are for something besides sound?
>I develop Palm apps for a living.
What a depressing thought.
Given your desire to use AeroPlayer and Pocket-Tunes , you appear to use Palm apps for entertainment. Would that be considered pathetic by your standards?
I have heard stories of leaving gloves dusted with dye powder (same stuff used in money shipments) in your locker, just for the glove-thief on drilling rig crews. You always know who is stealing your gloves, but the bright red hands of the thief let everyone else know, too. If you are feeling a little bit nastier, you dust the inside of the glove with caustic, and then leave it in your locker for the glove thief. The caustic is a bit more dangerous, because if he rubs his eyes just before his fingers start burning, it could cause severe eye damage.
The lunch thief in my drilling crew was the motorman, who did five years in Kingston pen for armed robbery. Claimed he was "reformed", so I guess he didn't really consider sandwich theft to be much of a crime. I was tempted to add ex-lax or something worse just for him, but never got around to it.
My mother-in-law delivers mail in a small town of about 5,000 people. My favourite post-office story is from a few years ago, when they received an envelope with a child's handwriting on the outside. The envelope contained only two words on the outside - "Mom", and the name of the small town.
The post office staff figured it out, and the mail went through. I think they used the postmark, which identified the city from which it was sent, and successfully guessed which divorced / separated woman had children living in that city.
Suburbs beyond walking distance from work have existed for less than 100 years. Cities have existed for several thousand years. Most responses to my comment assume that just because suburbs and urban sprawl are the norm today, they cannot be changed.
Absolute bullshit. There are zoning laws, and it just so happens most people work in commercial or industrial zones and live in residential zones.
Yes, and laws can be changed. Not overnight, certainly. I pointed at possible solutions, you only raise problems without attempting to resolve them.
If you don't like the outdoors, I guess you don't need a lawn
Actually, I quite like the outdoors, and would like to see less of it under asphalt. I would like to have real parks within walking distance, which are closer to the 'outdoors' than a back lawn ever could be. I don't think things will change instantly, but you have to start somewhere.
While I would not care to live in a medieval city, for example, there are many factors in historical city design which could help to improve today's cities. Today's cities are socially stratified. They have lifeless centres. They are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists. People hate and fear their neighbours.
However, you make it sound like a point blank choice of whether to drive a car or not. In most parts of the United States it is necessary to function.
Canada, actually. A car is even more necessary here, due to colder, longer winters, and greater distances than in the US. I was trying to make the point that actions speak louder than words. That major change is the result of many small decisions. That each of us can do something if we want to see cities change.
I have kids and a dog. I would rather have a quarter the yard of my current house, so long as I had:
no useless front yard (currently 1/3 of my yard)
minimal driveway (currently 1/6 of my yard)
a nearby park to take the kids and dog to play, in some real open space
zero setback zoning bylaws, so that instead of two thin side yards, I might have one usable side yard (or none at all).
I think the above would give me a better lifestyle than the typical suburb. Less maintenance of the showy, useless stuff, more time to do the things I enjoy.
Thanks for the inflammatory response. Ooooh, a flamewar, what fun. Based on your above, here is how I view your initial comment: "I'd like to do more, but it's hard. If it were really really easy, I might make an effort." Basically, the reason that the city does not support walking is that you do not.
...I get more house for my money...
No, you get a bigger house for the money. Have you factored in the extra two hours of driving every day into your housing costs? Have you factored in the extra 80 miles round trip every day? Lifecycle costs on a car are approx $0.3-0.4/mile, so you pay $24 to $32 per day in gas, depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. I took my car off the road because I couldn't believe what it cost to run after I sat down and figured it out.
What I think you don't understand is that developments are built by corporations that determine what type of people they want to live in a particular area
Take an economics course, it will do you good. The whole point of my subject line "Make the market do it" was to reinforce the point that those corporations respond to our decisions. If enough people buy in those areas, prices rise. Developers are highly attuned to the smell of money - they will respond to rising prices with an increase in supply.
....without having to always drive to the park...
In a properly designed city, you could walk to the park, you know. You should check out the contrast between your initial comment and your above response. Which are your real attitudes? My guess is that they showed up in your response, sadly.
For someone like me, public transportation isn't even an option since the buses don't run anywhere near my home or office, let alone the rail lines.
Why do you live 50 miles from work? Is there no affordable accomodation within 10 miles? If you (and everyone else with similar desires for change) actively sought housing closer to your workplace, you would create a demand for a different type of housing supply, rather than the endless monotony of suburbia.
Everyone could live near work, but few are willing to change their lifestyle. There are a few things that would have to change from today's norm, including adapting to slightly smaller houses, much smaller yards, etc. Think of row housing, with enough yard for a small garden, and you get the idea. It would be much more sustainable, but most people want a freestanding house in the 'burbs, with a big driveway, and lots of useless lawn.
I live 25km from work, and commute via bike and bus. It takes about twice as long as a car, but I don't get to work frustrated from the traffic. Five or ten years from now, I expect that my next house will be closer to work, smaller, and better designed. Many poeple I know expect to keep upsizing to ever-larger houses on more land, further from work. Most environmental problems are not someone else's fault, they result from decisions we make every day, magnified by millions or billions of people.
I agree that all species are not benefitted by clearcutting. In fact, I agree with most of your comments. However, the perception of impacts are, I believe, based on whether you believe that the environment exists as some abstract, pristine concept, in which humans are an alien presence, or whether you believe that people are an integral part of the system, who have unavoidable impacts, and would be best served to understand, minimize, and mitigate our impacts wherever possible. Note that I did not say "eliminate impacts" - I do not believe that zero impact is possible.
People who love deer should be scandalized by the behaviour of wolves and coyotes, and tree huggers should be as shocked by the actions of the mountain pine beetle as they are by the actions of loggers. I take issue with those who feel that human impacts are intolerable, while similar actions of other inhabitants of this plantet ware accepted without comment (note - not accusing you of this, no interest in a flamewar).
As far as the difference between a tree harvester and a tree hugger - I recall seeing a license plate which read
I call bullshit on this one. Show some links and back up your statements.
The "BC dept. of forestry" is actually called the BC Ministry of Forests. For some information from them about wood density, you could start with this paper on hemlock density. From the summary (Page 39):
"This report describes the results of basic physical wood property analyses of 39- and 90-year-old coastal
western hemlock trees from British Columbia. The results of this study show that second-growth western
hemlock trees can produce stemwood densities equalling the old-growth standard of 0.42 even in relatively
open stands."
Hmm, one coastal species down. You could look here next.
Here is some info on biodiversity
Disturbance is a natural part of succession, and any removal of trees interferes with the forest ecosystem. Many forest systems depend on a major disturbance such as fire for regeneration, which is why properly managed clear cuts can actually be beneficial for some species (hint - look at the age distribution of trees within old growth stands - they are often within a few years of age for species such as fir).
Biodiversity is greatly impacted by succession, and while poor forest management (guided by short-term economic goals such as unemployment rates) will screw things up, it is only a question of degree.
As I understand it, the critical factors in managing the forest are how much impact a given management practice will have:
what type of harm would cutting the trees do?
what are the extents of the impact, and what are the consequences to the forest ecosystem?
whow much environmental impact is the community (those people impacted by the loss of habitat / ecosystem structure / diversity) comfortable with for a given economic return?
what are the impacts on forest succession?
It is a gross simplification to say that clearcuts are bad, let alone to say that clearcuts are bad for all tree species in every biogeoclimatic zone.
From your link, it only has a half-life of 138.39 days. It would not pose much of a long-term problem, unlike concerns around depleted uranium. Deliberate short term, high level radioactive contamination could be a handy, if rather unethical and likely illegal strategy. Imagine dusting an enemy division with ground-up power unit from a few dozen laser rifles.
There is a difference between a capsule and a rocket. An expendable rocket is only a delivery system. A capsule is what an astronaut rides in on an expendable rocket. Skylab and Mir were launched on rockets, and they were a lot more useful than the ISS. Commerical satellites are launched on rockets. Saturn V reportedly had a payload of 120 tons, which is about 6 shuttle launches. Of course, if you want to launch a single object weighing 30 tons or 80 tons, the shuttle is absolutely useless.
One problem with shuttle is that it costs a lot more to operate than a rocket per ton of mass into orbit. The design was a poor compromise, with conflicting goals. Reusable launch vehicles appear to have some advantages over rockets, unfortunately, the shuttle shares few of these advantages. There are lots of people who appear more knowledgable than I do on this topic, such as, oh, say, Jerry Pournelle. Do a google search for others.
Too true. I weigh 225, and am 6'3" or so. It's a good thing I am not a runner or a jogger, lest I also be banned from the sidewalks for being a real safety hazard.
That's why my first sentence ended "....at least in England". If you read the links, it appears to have been subject to Crown copyright in the United States only until your revolution in 1776.
The last link is to 'A Brief Guide to Liturgical Copyright' by the Church of England. If anyone knows about copyright on the AV (KJV), the Church of England certainly should:
Authorized Version (AV), also known as the King James Version (KJV) Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building Shaftesbury Road Cambridge CB2 2RU Tel: (01223) 312393 Fax: (01223) 315052. (Applications should be addressed to The Permissions Controller.) Application not required for liturgical use up to a maximum of 500 verses (not including a complete biblical book).
Acknowledgement: From The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown's patentee, Cambridge University Press.
Wow. Thanks for regurgitating the SciAm article about the Skeptical environmentalist.
Please reconfirm your "facts" on desalination. There is not a lot of info online, but I managed to scrape up a few costs.
In the Sept 14, 1999 Trinidad Express, they refer to two bids at US$0.536 and US$0.736 per m3 of industrial water (water for drinking is a tiny proportion of what we actually use)
In Cyprus in 2000, desalination unit costs were 0.997 USD (0.54 Cyprus pound, which is divided into cents, not pence)
Membrane technology is still improving significantly. While there is a thermodynamic limit to efficiency, there is still a lot of room to lower unit costs by producing reverse osmosis (RO) membranes with a longer life, lower cost, greater tolerance for contaminants (ie, less pre-treatment before hitting the RO membrane), less frequent backwash cycles, and so on. As for "well out of reach of most water users", well, whatever. A person drinks 1-4 litres of water a day, which is around $2 / year, even with your gloomy estimates.
But desalination cannot yet be considered a reasonable solution to domestic water shortages
in most regions, even wealthy ones. Whether it will eventually become sufficiently cheap for large-scale use remains uncertain.(
Gleick, 2000)
Hmmm, not quite as gloomy - just uncertain.
Given that most domestic water gets flushed, high quality desalination is not even required for your toilet or shower - leaving some residual salt makes desalinated water cheaper to produce. But for drinking water, it is still inexpensive enough - you'll spend more money on distribution than on production.
kuro5hin had a better article on Lomborg a while ago. The Economist just had another one as well. And of course, you should read Lomborgs response to SciAm , which is posted in it's entirety on Patrick Moore's website. SciAm threatened legal action if Lomborg included their article in his line-by-line response, although they felt free to include Lomborg's response on their website with more SciAm comments - hypocrisy worthy of RIAA or MPAA. So, Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace posted Lomborgs response to SciAm, with the following comment:
"Scientific American did not give Lomborg any opportunity to respond to his critics, even though they gave him a copy of the editorial before it went to press. They said they would give Lomborg one page in a future edition to reply to 11 pages of full-on attack. Lomborg's response was to publish the text of the Scientific American article on his own website and to intersperse it with a detailed response to every point raised by his critics. Scientific American then threatened to sue Lomborg over copyright. In response to my complaint Scientific American wrote "This is an infringement of our copyright and interferes with our business of selling the article." Does Scientific American really think that they will lose readership because Lomborg has posted a response to a publication that is already off the newsstands? I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself. And I don't blame Lomborg for giving in to such a huge organization when threatened with legal action. (If you go to Lomborg's website www.lomborg.com and look under Critiques you will find he has removed the offending text, thus gutting the effectiveness of his response.)
"
I think we should defy Scientific American's blatant attempt to muzzle Lomborg. Anyone who reads his response to the Scientific American attack will have to agree that it is thoughtful and thorough. Here is a link to the entire response complete with Lomborg's comments."
People like you will eventually make me buy Lomborg's book, just so I can bitchslap you properly.
dschl
If you think hunting is barbaric, you should visit a chicken farm someday
Thanks. Given Bruce's background (former Debian leader, etc), he has a lot more credibility in this discussion, and if the FSF lawyer (ie, works on improving the GPL) can live with the current W3 recommendations, perhaps we should lay off with the/. flameburst this article will create.
While I am far from being a big fan of Windows, all your comment tells me is that Win 3.1 (which is what, a 12 year old DOS-based OS) could not be locked down.
Your comment would be a bit more relevant if you had a similar example for Win2k or XP.
Not to anybody - only to those you distributed a binary to. Modify to your heart's content, but you only have to make source available to those you sell a binary. Of course, they can then release it freely, but you still only have to provide a written offer to give source at cost (ie, CD reproduction plus shipping and handling) to anyone who receives a binary.
Crown copyright may be infinite. I have seendiscussion which indicates that the King James version of the Bible (commissioned by the crown, as was the Domesday Book) has an infinite copyright.
I wonder whether that would change if Britain became a republic?
If we had to rely on the space shuttle to launch communications satellites into orbit, we would still be running trans-Atlantic cables for our communications needs.
But we are. How long is the lag on your transatlantic calls? Fibre optic trumps satellite communications except for extremely remote locations.
Slashdot Mirror
I also checked the Sony SDK 3.0 (for Sony Clie using Palm OS 4) for audio APIs, which appeared to be present in the Programmers Companion, unless my eyes deceive me and functions such as SndPlaySmfResource with parameters like volumeSelector are for something besides sound?
Given your desire to use AeroPlayer and Pocket-Tunes , you appear to use Palm apps for entertainment. Would that be considered pathetic by your standards?I have heard stories of leaving gloves dusted with dye powder (same stuff used in money shipments) in your locker, just for the glove-thief on drilling rig crews. You always know who is stealing your gloves, but the bright red hands of the thief let everyone else know, too. If you are feeling a little bit nastier, you dust the inside of the glove with caustic, and then leave it in your locker for the glove thief. The caustic is a bit more dangerous, because if he rubs his eyes just before his fingers start burning, it could cause severe eye damage.
The lunch thief in my drilling crew was the motorman, who did five years in Kingston pen for armed robbery. Claimed he was "reformed", so I guess he didn't really consider sandwich theft to be much of a crime. I was tempted to add ex-lax or something worse just for him, but never got around to it.
My mother-in-law delivers mail in a small town of about 5,000 people. My favourite post-office story is from a few years ago, when they received an envelope with a child's handwriting on the outside. The envelope contained only two words on the outside - "Mom", and the name of the small town.
The post office staff figured it out, and the mail went through. I think they used the postmark, which identified the city from which it was sent, and successfully guessed which divorced / separated woman had children living in that city.
Suburbs beyond walking distance from work have existed for less than 100 years. Cities have existed for several thousand years. Most responses to my comment assume that just because suburbs and urban sprawl are the norm today, they cannot be changed.
Yes, and laws can be changed. Not overnight, certainly. I pointed at possible solutions, you only raise problems without attempting to resolve them. Actually, I quite like the outdoors, and would like to see less of it under asphalt. I would like to have real parks within walking distance, which are closer to the 'outdoors' than a back lawn ever could be. I don't think things will change instantly, but you have to start somewhere.While I would not care to live in a medieval city, for example, there are many factors in historical city design which could help to improve today's cities. Today's cities are socially stratified. They have lifeless centres. They are hostile to pedestrians and cyclists. People hate and fear their neighbours.
Canada, actually. A car is even more necessary here, due to colder, longer winters, and greater distances than in the US. I was trying to make the point that actions speak louder than words. That major change is the result of many small decisions. That each of us can do something if we want to see cities change.I have kids and a dog. I would rather have a quarter the yard of my current house, so long as I had:
- no useless front yard (currently 1/3 of my yard)
- minimal driveway (currently 1/6 of my yard)
- a nearby park to take the kids and dog to play, in some real open space
- zero setback zoning bylaws, so that instead of two thin side yards, I might have one usable side yard (or none at all).
I think the above would give me a better lifestyle than the typical suburb. Less maintenance of the showy, useless stuff, more time to do the things I enjoy.You actually meant to say "... a BIGGER house further from my work....", right? With a LONG, LONG, driveway.
Thanks for the inflammatory response. Ooooh, a flamewar, what fun. Based on your above, here is how I view your initial comment: "I'd like to do more, but it's hard. If it were really really easy, I might make an effort." Basically, the reason that the city does not support walking is that you do not.
No, you get a bigger house for the money. Have you factored in the extra two hours of driving every day into your housing costs? Have you factored in the extra 80 miles round trip every day? Lifecycle costs on a car are approx $0.3-0.4/mile, so you pay $24 to $32 per day in gas, depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. I took my car off the road because I couldn't believe what it cost to run after I sat down and figured it out. Take an economics course, it will do you good. The whole point of my subject line "Make the market do it" was to reinforce the point that those corporations respond to our decisions. If enough people buy in those areas, prices rise. Developers are highly attuned to the smell of money - they will respond to rising prices with an increase in supply.In a properly designed city, you could walk to the park, you know. You should check out the contrast between your initial comment and your above response. Which are your real attitudes? My guess is that they showed up in your response, sadly.
Everyone could live near work, but few are willing to change their lifestyle. There are a few things that would have to change from today's norm, including adapting to slightly smaller houses, much smaller yards, etc. Think of row housing, with enough yard for a small garden, and you get the idea. It would be much more sustainable, but most people want a freestanding house in the 'burbs, with a big driveway, and lots of useless lawn.
I live 25km from work, and commute via bike and bus. It takes about twice as long as a car, but I don't get to work frustrated from the traffic. Five or ten years from now, I expect that my next house will be closer to work, smaller, and better designed. Many poeple I know expect to keep upsizing to ever-larger houses on more land, further from work. Most environmental problems are not someone else's fault, they result from decisions we make every day, magnified by millions or billions of people.
Beware no more. Use the power of hosts.
127.0.0.1 www.osnews.comI associate her with osnews, to the point that I won't even go there.
I agree that all species are not benefitted by clearcutting. In fact, I agree with most of your comments. However, the perception of impacts are, I believe, based on whether you believe that the environment exists as some abstract, pristine concept, in which humans are an alien presence, or whether you believe that people are an integral part of the system, who have unavoidable impacts, and would be best served to understand, minimize, and mitigate our impacts wherever possible. Note that I did not say "eliminate impacts" - I do not believe that zero impact is possible.
People who love deer should be scandalized by the behaviour of wolves and coyotes, and tree huggers should be as shocked by the actions of the mountain pine beetle as they are by the actions of loggers. I take issue with those who feel that human impacts are intolerable, while similar actions of other inhabitants of this plantet ware accepted without comment (note - not accusing you of this, no interest in a flamewar).
As far as the difference between a tree harvester and a tree hugger - I recall seeing a license plate which read
I call bullshit on this one. Show some links and back up your statements.
The "BC dept. of forestry" is actually called the BC Ministry of Forests. For some information from them about wood density, you could start with this paper on hemlock density. From the summary (Page 39):
Hmm, one coastal species down. You could look here next.Here is some info on biodiversity Disturbance is a natural part of succession, and any removal of trees interferes with the forest ecosystem. Many forest systems depend on a major disturbance such as fire for regeneration, which is why properly managed clear cuts can actually be beneficial for some species (hint - look at the age distribution of trees within old growth stands - they are often within a few years of age for species such as fir). Biodiversity is greatly impacted by succession, and while poor forest management (guided by short-term economic goals such as unemployment rates) will screw things up, it is only a question of degree.
As I understand it, the critical factors in managing the forest are how much impact a given management practice will have:
It is a gross simplification to say that clearcuts are bad, let alone to say that clearcuts are bad for all tree species in every biogeoclimatic zone.
From your link, it only has a half-life of 138.39 days. It would not pose much of a long-term problem, unlike concerns around depleted uranium. Deliberate short term, high level radioactive contamination could be a handy, if rather unethical and likely illegal strategy. Imagine dusting an enemy division with ground-up power unit from a few dozen laser rifles.
There is a difference between a capsule and a rocket. An expendable rocket is only a delivery system. A capsule is what an astronaut rides in on an expendable rocket. Skylab and Mir were launched on rockets, and they were a lot more useful than the ISS. Commerical satellites are launched on rockets. Saturn V reportedly had a payload of 120 tons, which is about 6 shuttle launches. Of course, if you want to launch a single object weighing 30 tons or 80 tons, the shuttle is absolutely useless.
One problem with shuttle is that it costs a lot more to operate than a rocket per ton of mass into orbit. The design was a poor compromise, with conflicting goals. Reusable launch vehicles appear to have some advantages over rockets, unfortunately, the shuttle shares few of these advantages. There are lots of people who appear more knowledgable than I do on this topic, such as, oh, say, Jerry Pournelle. Do a google search for others.
Too true. I weigh 225, and am 6'3" or so. It's a good thing I am not a runner or a jogger, lest I also be banned from the sidewalks for being a real safety hazard.
That's why my first sentence ended "....at least in England". If you read the links, it appears to have been subject to Crown copyright in the United States only until your revolution in 1776.
The last link is to 'A Brief Guide to Liturgical Copyright' by the Church of England. If anyone knows about copyright on the AV (KJV), the Church of England certainly should:
Please reconfirm your "facts" on desalination. There is not a lot of info online, but I managed to scrape up a few costs.
- In the Sept 14, 1999 Trinidad Express, they refer to two bids at US$0.536 and US$0.736 per m3 of industrial water (water for drinking is a tiny proportion of what we actually use)
- In Cyprus in 2000, desalination unit costs were 0.997 USD (0.54 Cyprus pound, which is divided into cents, not pence)
Membrane technology is still improving significantly. While there is a thermodynamic limit to efficiency, there is still a lot of room to lower unit costs by producing reverse osmosis (RO) membranes with a longer life, lower cost, greater tolerance for contaminants (ie, less pre-treatment before hitting the RO membrane), less frequent backwash cycles, and so on. As for "well out of reach of most water users", well, whatever. A person drinks 1-4 litres of water a day, which is around $2 / year, even with your gloomy estimates.FYI, Peter Gleick is the President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, which "strives to improve policy through science-based research and dialogue with action-oriented groups from the international to local level"They claim to be non-partisan, but he appears to have a radical green bias. Let's look at what else Gleick says about desalination:
Hmmm, not quite as gloomy - just uncertain. Given that most domestic water gets flushed, high quality desalination is not even required for your toilet or shower - leaving some residual salt makes desalinated water cheaper to produce. But for drinking water, it is still inexpensive enough - you'll spend more money on distribution than on production.kuro5hin had a better article on Lomborg a while ago. The Economist just had another one as well. And of course, you should read Lomborgs response to SciAm , which is posted in it's entirety on Patrick Moore's website. SciAm threatened legal action if Lomborg included their article in his line-by-line response, although they felt free to include Lomborg's response on their website with more SciAm comments - hypocrisy worthy of RIAA or MPAA. So, Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace posted Lomborgs response to SciAm, with the following comment:
People like you will eventually make me buy Lomborg's book, just so I can bitchslap you properly.
dschl
If you think hunting is barbaric, you should visit a chicken farm someday
Alexis De Tocqueville Institution. The paper was titled "Opening the Open Source Debate". Alexis would be rolling in his grave to see what use they make of his name.
Wired article
Slashdot article, and a followup a week later.
Thanks. Given Bruce's background (former Debian leader, etc), he has a lot more credibility in this discussion, and if the FSF lawyer (ie, works on improving the GPL) can live with the current W3 recommendations, perhaps we should lay off with the /. flameburst this article will create.
Thanks
While I am far from being a big fan of Windows, all your comment tells me is that Win 3.1 (which is what, a 12 year old DOS-based OS) could not be locked down.
Your comment would be a bit more relevant if you had a similar example for Win2k or XP.
Not to anybody - only to those you distributed a binary to. Modify to your heart's content, but you only have to make source available to those you sell a binary. Of course, they can then release it freely, but you still only have to provide a written offer to give source at cost (ie, CD reproduction plus shipping and handling) to anyone who receives a binary.
Crown copyright may be infinite. I have seen discussion which indicates that the King James version of the Bible (commissioned by the crown, as was the Domesday Book) has an infinite copyright.
I wonder whether that would change if Britain became a republic?
From Lindows, of course. The GPL only requires that they make a copy of the source available to people to whom they distributed the software.
Try the FSF in case you had any other questions about the GPL.