Considering it'd take billions more dollars and waiting decades to get that piece of data from somewhere else, I'd call it a bargain. I'm sure I don't know the impact of that information, but if something as fundamental as how far our sun's influence really extends is unknown, it seems like it'd be at least somewhat important.
Actually, absent an expanding human presence in space, I can't see how it can ever be important to know how far our sun's influence really extends.
yes, he was french we he ruled. Otherwise, George Washington was the greatest british president.
You might consider reading a bit about the rise of nationalism and national identity. Generally, it takes more than a few years before a people accept a new "national identity".
For instance, are you aware that as of 1800, most Americans thought of themselves as citizens of their States? George Washington was a Virginian first, and an American second. And that relatively few Americans thought of themselves as "British"? After all, the vast majority of them, even in 1776, had been born in Virginia, or Pennsylvania, or one of the other colonies.
Napolean gallicized his name, in case you were interested - he wanted to appear more "French", which would have been unnecessary if Frenchmen of his time considered Corsicans to be really French (they were thought of in much the way many Americans today think of Puerto Ricans - not quite REAL Americans).
Also, for what it is worth, history is full of examples of Kings and such who were NOT, in fact, of the nationality they ruled - General Bernadotte , a Frenchman, was King of Sweden. Charlemagne, a Frank (they weren't French then - they had no sense of Style at all), was Emperor of Rome, as two obvious examples. William III of England was a Dutch Prince before he was King of England.
Interesting that people are now modifying that quote to talk about bias form the Liberal side now.
Why is that interesting? Typical is more like it. Criticizing the President (whichever Party, party, or viewpoint) is an artform that is not quite as old as the Presidency (I've never heard of any criticism of Washington, but starting with Adams, it's been an ongoing thing).
Keep firmly in mind that both sides of EVERY issue are biased. And that both sides have a firm interest in making the other side's bias clear, while claiming a total lack of bias.
I'm biased. You're biased. Everyone else posting to this or any other thread here or anywhere is biased. Otherwise, why bother posting?
Sometimes biases are obvious (the Pope is obviously biased in favour of Roman Catholicism, for instance - and if he's not, it's time for a new Pope. Teddy Kennedy is obviously biased in favour of "anything the Republicans don't like", etc.), sometimes not so obvious (there are people who will play the role of "Devil's Advocate" in any discussion, just to make the discussion interesting - we frequently call them "trolls").
Walter Cronkite dropped out of the University of Texas to become a journalist before WW2. His degrees, actual and honorary, came later.
Edward R. Murrow earned a degree when he went to college the first time - he majored in Speech, not Journalism. Then he became a journalist. His other degrees, actual and honorary, came later.
Sorry. Back in the day, there were no "journalism schools" that one could attend.
They developed the most heavily armored and gunned tanks during the early German Blitz, one French Char B1-Bis held up an entire German Division for an entire day.
I've heard of this happening once in the USSR with a KV-1. I've never heard if it happening with a Char B.
Also, for what it's worth, the KV-1 had both heavier armour and a better gun than the Char B. And a better engine, better tracks & suspension, and a better crew layout to boot.
One little short frenchie with a bad attitude almost conquered the entire world, twice
Umm, no. The little Corsican (not Frenchman) didn't even come close to conquering "the entire world". He never quite managed to conquer Europe (Hitler did better), much less Eurasia, much less the rest of the world.
NOTE: I am not anti-French. I am truly grateful for the help they provided in our Revolution, since we would not likely have won without their aid. But since then, they've managed to look like complete imbeciles more often than not.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Note that with this restriction in the GPL, it is quite possible that distribution of, say, Linux under the GPL could be made illegal, assuming that someone (MS?) wanting to stop Linux had one (1) patent on an idea essential to Linux.
Note, however, that Linux could still be distributed in places which don't recognize software patents (China, India, f'rinstance) in spite of MS's (or anyone else's) software patents.
"I've got to agree. If everyone is pissing sideways because they can't get their way and feel like they're getting manhandled, then how about actually complaining to your government to leave. The US is a farse anyway, made simply as an organized trade guild of sorts. Once they can solidify their control on industry (or the internet for that matter), then let's see how happy-go-lucky Americans are then."
We did that once. It started in South Carolina and spread to the rest of the Old South. Then we had a nice Civil War.
Note that Mister Lincoln had a dim view of leaving the USA.
You think the EU will react the same way if Sweden leaves? Personally, I doubt it could manage, unless France and Germany and the UK were willing to send their soldiers around to rough up Sweden.
Of course, most people in the South thought that the northern States wouldn't be willing to send their soldiers to rough up the South either....
Pardon my ignorance, but in traditional journalism, is the confedentiality of a source legally protected if the source is demonstrably breaking the law?
Depends on the state in question, but, in general, yes.
Frankly, while I agree with your comment completely, I am deeply concerned at the notion that the government (any government) gets to pick and choose who qualifies as a "journalist" entitled to completely "Free Speech".
Specifically, Shield Laws were put into place to prevent a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the First Amendment. Allowing the government to specify that some people can be subject to said "chilling effect", and some cannot pretty much allows the government absolute control over the "free press" if the government wishes to bother.
Correlate gun ownership rates in any county of the USA with fatal shooting in that county. You'll be surprised.
Hint: the counties with the most restrictive gun-control laws and the lowest rates of gun ownership tend to be up near the top in terms of fatal shootings.
Anecdotal case: Jefferson Parish LA vs. Orleans Parish LA. Two counties (we call them parishes in LA, but they're still counties) that are literally side by side - separated by a canal about 30 feet wide. Populations of both are similar - about 400,000.
Prior to passage of Louisiana's Shall Issue (Concealed Carry) Law, Orleans Parish didn't issue concealed weapon permits, Jefferson Parish did quite freely.
Murder rates in Orleans Parish were on the order of 300 per year.
Jefferson Parish? about 25.
You might also consider Switzerland. Everyone has a fully automatic weapon there. Required by law, as part of their militia system, I understand. Murder rate? Trivially low.
Canada has about the same gun ownership rate the US has (they're just not so noisy about it as we are), but 1/3 our murder rate.
One might also want to consider that looking only at fatal shootings is misleading. Look instead at murders from all causes (after all, it's not really desirable to remove guns if all we do is make sure that more people are killed with baseball bats than previously).
No, SCO's position is NOT that Title 17 is unconstitutional. SCO's position is that the GPL is unconstitutional.
Note that if Title 17 were unconstitutional, SCO would have no case, by definition - can't have a copyright violation without a copyright. And if you read the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power
.... (extraneous clauses deleted)
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Note that Copyright isn't actually specified as part of the Constitution. Instead, it is specifically ALLOWED under the Constitution. NOt required, but allowed. Without a law to enact same, there are no copyrights.
Instead of invalidating Title 17 (which noone wants), SCO wants to invalidate the GPL. However, the GPL is MORE permissive than Title 17 - if the GPL goes, so does SCO's permission to use ANY GPL'd code without specific permission from EACH author of the code. And somehow, I don't think the authors would be willing to give SCO a glass of water if SCO were on fire, much less permission to use their code.
SCO's opinion that the end of the GPL means that GPL'd code instantly becomes public domain (which is what they were basing their case on, back when their case was about copyrights - note that now that IBM is suing SCO for Copyright violations, SCO is insisting that the GPL is perfectly valid, and in fact that they never once said it was invalid/unconstitutional) is obviously false from a five minute perusal of the text of the law in question.
Too fragile. When the military is using wire-guided weapons, there are explosions and such happening. It's kind of hostile to wires finer than a human hair....
There will be less guns on the street. That is always a good thing
I take it you can provide convincing evidence of this? Interesting, if so, since several pro-gun-control studies have been able to do so yet - they tend to call for "more research".
A wire-guided weapon is one that trails a wire from controller to weapon as it flies/swims/moves, allowing control signals to be sent from controller to weapon without those nasty RF emissions that can be jammed.
Yes, a Mk 48 torpedo trails a miles long wire behind it as it goes....
A nuke submariner recieves a smaller dose that an airline flight crew or a Navy pilot - though paradoxically he wears a dosimeter while aviators don't.
There is a reason for that. The sky can't suddenly develop a crack or leak and expose him to deadly doses of radiation in minutes.
Umm, no. The dosimeter a Navy nuke wears will (reasonably) accurately indicate radiation doses in the range it was designed for - which is about three orders of magnitude below the level of "deadly doses of radiation in minutes".
And, frankly, if a reactor had a hole that will allow you to die of radiation exposure "in minutes", you'd have a bigger problem with being parboiled by the escaping steam.
Depends. Shield Laws exist in some states which allow journalists to avoid revealing sources (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the wording of the law in question). California, or instance, has a very strong shield law, last I looked.
However its not that simple. Noone has the right to the work because of the copyright. If the copyright is GPLed and the GPL is invalid then the work is copyrighted at all. Under US copyright law this isn't the case, but SCO's argument is constitutional that congress is not empower to permit this type of copyright hence there is no copyright hence anyone can copy it (essentially public domain).
Umm, no. From Title 17, Section 201:
(a) Initial Ownership.-- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
(b) Works Made for Hire.-- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
(c) Contributions to Collective Works.-- Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
(d) Transfer of Ownership.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
(e) Involuntary Transfer.-- When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title, except as provided under title 11.
Title 11 covers bankruptcy, by the way. Note that Copyright resides with the orignal author, unless voluntarily transferred, and that there are no involuntary transfers allowed (except under conditions of bankruptcy). So even if a judge were to rule that the GPL is unconstitutional, the judge has no power to transfer ownership of the copyrights from the original authors.
So, yes, people DO have a right to the work because of Copyright. Specifically, the AUTHOR(S) have such a right. My code is mine. Your code is your's. I may not use your code without your express permission, nor may you use mine. The GPL is such a grant of permission, but if it were deemed illegal/unconstitutional, the permission to use the code would disappear. The Copyright would NOT disappear, though...
Note that the GPL is NOT a "type of copyright" - it is a license to copy, which is not at all the same thing. I may grant a license to copy my copyrighted works if I wish (in fact, I have to do so to get a book published - the publisher cannot legally make copies of my work without a license to do so from me). I am not forced to do so.
Nor are the author(s) of GPL'd works. They may license their work in any fashion they desire, or not at all. The default under Copyright Law is "not at all", by the way. Abs
Clinton's impeachment terms were "lying to a grand jury" (about a blowjob). He hadn't lied: he was asked if he had sex with her, he asked for a definition of "sex", the supplied definition did not include blowjobs, he said he hadn't. The Congress found that to be the case, and he was acquitted.
Clinton weaseled in front of a Grand Jury. And lost his license to practice law for four years as a result - which doesn't suggest that he "told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as he was required to do.
If you had done likewise, and were as smart as Clinton to present his defense in such terms, you'd be acquitted, too. You might even be as successful in your other endeavors as has been Clinton.
If I have to weasel to be as successful as Clinton, then I'm glad I'm not that successful. And what other endeavors are those?
The economy folding had to do with the impeachment as part of the war between congressional Republicans and Clinton. While Clinton's economics team was managing the unprecedented growth, including reducing the debt to increase the ability of the government to back the financing of the banks which underwrote the boom, Congress was busy shutting down the government with budget showdowns. The impeachment was just another obstruction to Clinton's management.
Umm, no. Check your timelines again. The debt reduction part didn't come into play until after the Republicans were in control - for Clinton's first two years, there was no sign of debt reduction to be seen.
And you again assume that Clinton (or anyone else) "managed" the economy. Sorry. Clinton didn't, Reagan didn't, Carter didn't, JFK didn't. Hell, even FDR had only limited control over the economy, and he came as close as anyone ever has to nationalizing entire industries to fight WW2.
The idea that people suddenly woke up to realize they owned worthless corporations is silly - everyone knew it all along. There was just a final shakeout - like the junkbond shakeout of the 1980s, but in equities
Oh? So, people were buying stocks in companies that they KNEW were worthless? Sounds pretty stupid to me. And unbelievable. The people buying the stocks thought the stocks were going to make them rich. And when they realized it wasn't going to happen, they started dumping the stocks, hence the Dot-Bomb....
Clinton was managing a "soft landing", funded by the huge surpluses the government had gathered during the boom
"Huge surpluses"?!? What alternate dimension are you from? Even if you ignore the fact that the National Debt incresed EVERY year Clinton was in office (as it has since at least FDR's time), the largest claimed surplus was far from "huge" - $99 billion isn't all that much (especially when you take into account that in that same year, the debt rose by ~$15 billion).
Note also that the second-largest surplus happened under Bush. And the National Debt grew both years.
You are begging the question here. That is you are assuming SCO's theory of the law is incorrect when you just blanketly assert that your rights aren't dependent upon you trying to place restrictions that don't result in you making money.
You seem to be ignoring the little detail that without the GPL, noone but you has ANY rights to your work.
1) I write code and GPL same.
2) You want to use my code, but don't want to accept the terms of the GPL.
3) Because you refuse to accept the terms of the GPL, you have NO right to use my code. Not until it goes out of copyright in ~100 years (absent any further copyright extensions by Congress).
Whether I choose to make a profit on my code is irrelevant to YOUR use of my code. YOU may only use it under the conditions *I* specify (my code, my Copyright).
SCO's theory is basically absurd.
Note that it is just barely possible that a Judge could be found that ruled the GPL unconstitutional. But, upon that event occurring, it would then be illegal (violation of Copyright laws) for ANYONE OTHER THAN THE AUTHOR(S) to make use of the GPL'd code. It would NOT become Public Domain (as SCO seems to believe).
Unless SCO is willing to wait 100 years, anyway.
Admittedly, MS would LOVE that particular outcome.
Except for the fact that the author(s) of GPL'd code could leave it GPL'd, and just sue the socks off of anyone that used it that they didn't approve of. Remember, NO rights to use someone else's Copyrighted code without a license (and by definition in the USA, all code is Copyrighted, just as all writing is (including this ramble)).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, absent an expanding human presence in space, I can't see how it can ever be important to know how far our sun's influence really extends.
You might consider reading a bit about the rise of nationalism and national identity. Generally, it takes more than a few years before a people accept a new "national identity".
For instance, are you aware that as of 1800, most Americans thought of themselves as citizens of their States? George Washington was a Virginian first, and an American second. And that relatively few Americans thought of themselves as "British"? After all, the vast majority of them, even in 1776, had been born in Virginia, or Pennsylvania, or one of the other colonies.
Napolean gallicized his name, in case you were interested - he wanted to appear more "French", which would have been unnecessary if Frenchmen of his time considered Corsicans to be really French (they were thought of in much the way many Americans today think of Puerto Ricans - not quite REAL Americans).
Also, for what it is worth, history is full of examples of Kings and such who were NOT, in fact, of the nationality they ruled - General Bernadotte , a Frenchman, was King of Sweden. Charlemagne, a Frank (they weren't French then - they had no sense of Style at all), was Emperor of Rome, as two obvious examples. William III of England was a Dutch Prince before he was King of England.
Why is that interesting? Typical is more like it. Criticizing the President (whichever Party, party, or viewpoint) is an artform that is not quite as old as the Presidency (I've never heard of any criticism of Washington, but starting with Adams, it's been an ongoing thing).
Keep firmly in mind that both sides of EVERY issue are biased. And that both sides have a firm interest in making the other side's bias clear, while claiming a total lack of bias.
I'm biased. You're biased. Everyone else posting to this or any other thread here or anywhere is biased. Otherwise, why bother posting?
Sometimes biases are obvious (the Pope is obviously biased in favour of Roman Catholicism, for instance - and if he's not, it's time for a new Pope. Teddy Kennedy is obviously biased in favour of "anything the Republicans don't like", etc.), sometimes not so obvious (there are people who will play the role of "Devil's Advocate" in any discussion, just to make the discussion interesting - we frequently call them "trolls").
Alright, I'll bite. Who was executed for claiming the earth was round, or that we weren't the center of the universe?
Mark me as curious, since I don't recall reading of such in any of the histories I've read.
You mean "-1, Incoherent", right?
Edward R. Murrow earned a degree when he went to college the first time - he majored in Speech, not Journalism. Then he became a journalist. His other degrees, actual and honorary, came later.
Sorry. Back in the day, there were no "journalism schools" that one could attend.
I've heard of this happening once in the USSR with a KV-1. I've never heard if it happening with a Char B.
Also, for what it's worth, the KV-1 had both heavier armour and a better gun than the Char B. And a better engine, better tracks & suspension, and a better crew layout to boot.
One little short frenchie with a bad attitude almost conquered the entire world, twice
Umm, no. The little Corsican (not Frenchman) didn't even come close to conquering "the entire world". He never quite managed to conquer Europe (Hitler did better), much less Eurasia, much less the rest of the world.
NOTE: I am not anti-French. I am truly grateful for the help they provided in our Revolution, since we would not likely have won without their aid. But since then, they've managed to look like complete imbeciles more often than not.
Well, as an example, the GPL:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Note that with this restriction in the GPL, it is quite possible that distribution of, say, Linux under the GPL could be made illegal, assuming that someone (MS?) wanting to stop Linux had one (1) patent on an idea essential to Linux.
Note, however, that Linux could still be distributed in places which don't recognize software patents (China, India, f'rinstance) in spite of MS's (or anyone else's) software patents.
We did that once. It started in South Carolina and spread to the rest of the Old South. Then we had a nice Civil War.
Note that Mister Lincoln had a dim view of leaving the USA.
You think the EU will react the same way if Sweden leaves? Personally, I doubt it could manage, unless France and Germany and the UK were willing to send their soldiers around to rough up Sweden.
Of course, most people in the South thought that the northern States wouldn't be willing to send their soldiers to rough up the South either....
Depends on the state in question, but, in general, yes.
Specifically, Shield Laws were put into place to prevent a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the First Amendment. Allowing the government to specify that some people can be subject to said "chilling effect", and some cannot pretty much allows the government absolute control over the "free press" if the government wishes to bother.
Walter Cronkite wasn't a journalist??? Who'd have thought?
And Edward R. Murrow wasn't a journalist either??? What a concept!
Isn't it a bitch that the ISS isn't that high up?
Or that the Shuttle doesn't go that high either? It tops out a bit over 400Km....
Correlate gun ownership rates in any county of the USA with fatal shooting in that county. You'll be surprised.
Hint: the counties with the most restrictive gun-control laws and the lowest rates of gun ownership tend to be up near the top in terms of fatal shootings.
Anecdotal case: Jefferson Parish LA vs. Orleans Parish LA. Two counties (we call them parishes in LA, but they're still counties) that are literally side by side - separated by a canal about 30 feet wide. Populations of both are similar - about 400,000.
Prior to passage of Louisiana's Shall Issue (Concealed Carry) Law, Orleans Parish didn't issue concealed weapon permits, Jefferson Parish did quite freely.
Murder rates in Orleans Parish were on the order of 300 per year.
Jefferson Parish? about 25.
You might also consider Switzerland. Everyone has a fully automatic weapon there. Required by law, as part of their militia system, I understand. Murder rate? Trivially low.
Canada has about the same gun ownership rate the US has (they're just not so noisy about it as we are), but 1/3 our murder rate.
One might also want to consider that looking only at fatal shootings is misleading. Look instead at murders from all causes (after all, it's not really desirable to remove guns if all we do is make sure that more people are killed with baseball bats than previously).
No, SCO's position is NOT that Title 17 is unconstitutional. SCO's position is that the GPL is unconstitutional.
Note that if Title 17 were unconstitutional, SCO would have no case, by definition - can't have a copyright violation without a copyright. And if you read the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Note that Copyright isn't actually specified as part of the Constitution. Instead, it is specifically ALLOWED under the Constitution. NOt required, but allowed. Without a law to enact same, there are no copyrights.
Instead of invalidating Title 17 (which noone wants), SCO wants to invalidate the GPL. However, the GPL is MORE permissive than Title 17 - if the GPL goes, so does SCO's permission to use ANY GPL'd code without specific permission from EACH author of the code. And somehow, I don't think the authors would be willing to give SCO a glass of water if SCO were on fire, much less permission to use their code.
SCO's opinion that the end of the GPL means that GPL'd code instantly becomes public domain (which is what they were basing their case on, back when their case was about copyrights - note that now that IBM is suing SCO for Copyright violations, SCO is insisting that the GPL is perfectly valid, and in fact that they never once said it was invalid/unconstitutional) is obviously false from a five minute perusal of the text of the law in question.
Too fragile. When the military is using wire-guided weapons, there are explosions and such happening. It's kind of hostile to wires finer than a human hair....
No, but the large ones get to beat the crap out of the small ones and take their stuff.
I take it you can provide convincing evidence of this? Interesting, if so, since several pro-gun-control studies have been able to do so yet - they tend to call for "more research".
Just so. they're regulating what YOU can say.
A wire-guided weapon is one that trails a wire from controller to weapon as it flies/swims/moves, allowing control signals to be sent from controller to weapon without those nasty RF emissions that can be jammed.
Yes, a Mk 48 torpedo trails a miles long wire behind it as it goes....
There is a reason for that. The sky can't suddenly develop a crack or leak and expose him to deadly doses of radiation in minutes.
Umm, no. The dosimeter a Navy nuke wears will (reasonably) accurately indicate radiation doses in the range it was designed for - which is about three orders of magnitude below the level of "deadly doses of radiation in minutes".
And, frankly, if a reactor had a hole that will allow you to die of radiation exposure "in minutes", you'd have a bigger problem with being parboiled by the escaping steam.
Depends. Shield Laws exist in some states which allow journalists to avoid revealing sources (to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the wording of the law in question). California, or instance, has a very strong shield law, last I looked.
Umm, no. From Title 17, Section 201:
(a) Initial Ownership.-- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
(b) Works Made for Hire.-- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
(c) Contributions to Collective Works.-- Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
(d) Transfer of Ownership.--
(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.
(2) Any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred as provided by clause (1) and owned separately. The owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title.
(e) Involuntary Transfer.-- When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect under this title, except as provided under title 11.
Title 11 covers bankruptcy, by the way. Note that Copyright resides with the orignal author, unless voluntarily transferred, and that there are no involuntary transfers allowed (except under conditions of bankruptcy). So even if a judge were to rule that the GPL is unconstitutional, the judge has no power to transfer ownership of the copyrights from the original authors.
So, yes, people DO have a right to the work because of Copyright. Specifically, the AUTHOR(S) have such a right. My code is mine. Your code is your's. I may not use your code without your express permission, nor may you use mine. The GPL is such a grant of permission, but if it were deemed illegal/unconstitutional, the permission to use the code would disappear. The Copyright would NOT disappear, though...
Note that the GPL is NOT a "type of copyright" - it is a license to copy, which is not at all the same thing. I may grant a license to copy my copyrighted works if I wish (in fact, I have to do so to get a book published - the publisher cannot legally make copies of my work without a license to do so from me). I am not forced to do so.
Nor are the author(s) of GPL'd works. They may license their work in any fashion they desire, or not at all. The default under Copyright Law is "not at all", by the way. Abs
Clinton weaseled in front of a Grand Jury. And lost his license to practice law for four years as a result - which doesn't suggest that he "told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as he was required to do.
If you had done likewise, and were as smart as Clinton to present his defense in such terms, you'd be acquitted, too. You might even be as successful in your other endeavors as has been Clinton.
If I have to weasel to be as successful as Clinton, then I'm glad I'm not that successful. And what other endeavors are those?
The economy folding had to do with the impeachment as part of the war between congressional Republicans and Clinton. While Clinton's economics team was managing the unprecedented growth, including reducing the debt to increase the ability of the government to back the financing of the banks which underwrote the boom, Congress was busy shutting down the government with budget showdowns. The impeachment was just another obstruction to Clinton's management.
Umm, no. Check your timelines again. The debt reduction part didn't come into play until after the Republicans were in control - for Clinton's first two years, there was no sign of debt reduction to be seen.
And you again assume that Clinton (or anyone else) "managed" the economy. Sorry. Clinton didn't, Reagan didn't, Carter didn't, JFK didn't. Hell, even FDR had only limited control over the economy, and he came as close as anyone ever has to nationalizing entire industries to fight WW2.
The idea that people suddenly woke up to realize they owned worthless corporations is silly - everyone knew it all along. There was just a final shakeout - like the junkbond shakeout of the 1980s, but in equities
Oh? So, people were buying stocks in companies that they KNEW were worthless? Sounds pretty stupid to me. And unbelievable. The people buying the stocks thought the stocks were going to make them rich. And when they realized it wasn't going to happen, they started dumping the stocks, hence the Dot-Bomb....
Clinton was managing a "soft landing", funded by the huge surpluses the government had gathered during the boom
"Huge surpluses"?!? What alternate dimension are you from? Even if you ignore the fact that the National Debt incresed EVERY year Clinton was in office (as it has since at least FDR's time), the largest claimed surplus was far from "huge" - $99 billion isn't all that much (especially when you take into account that in that same year, the debt rose by ~$15 billion).
Note also that the second-largest surplus happened under Bush. And the National Debt grew both years.
You seem to be ignoring the little detail that without the GPL, noone but you has ANY rights to your work.
1) I write code and GPL same.
2) You want to use my code, but don't want to accept the terms of the GPL.
3) Because you refuse to accept the terms of the GPL, you have NO right to use my code. Not until it goes out of copyright in ~100 years (absent any further copyright extensions by Congress).
Whether I choose to make a profit on my code is irrelevant to YOUR use of my code. YOU may only use it under the conditions *I* specify (my code, my Copyright).
SCO's theory is basically absurd.
Note that it is just barely possible that a Judge could be found that ruled the GPL unconstitutional. But, upon that event occurring, it would then be illegal (violation of Copyright laws) for ANYONE OTHER THAN THE AUTHOR(S) to make use of the GPL'd code. It would NOT become Public Domain (as SCO seems to believe).
Unless SCO is willing to wait 100 years, anyway.
Admittedly, MS would LOVE that particular outcome.
Except for the fact that the author(s) of GPL'd code could leave it GPL'd, and just sue the socks off of anyone that used it that they didn't approve of. Remember, NO rights to use someone else's Copyrighted code without a license (and by definition in the USA, all code is Copyrighted, just as all writing is (including this ramble)).