Well, then why not do it as the Romans did? Make the day hours longer in summer and shorter in winter (and night time changes accordingly). Ok, that will be a big change in all software (but then, this would be a great economy program!), and also you may not like that your work time is actually payed less in the summer due to longer hours (solution: take your holiday in the summer and enjoy the shortened winter working time). But it certainly gives the best usage of sunlight.
Indeed, a moratorium in the lab is about the stupidest thing you could do. Especially if those things can be dangerous, you do certainly want to know about the dangers before e.g. some terrorist supporters find out and you get hit unprepared. And if those things turn out to be harmless, well, there's no reason not to use them in the lab.
So banning it from the lab is wrong if it can be dangerous, and is wrong if it cannot be dangerous. Therefore it's always wrong.
Of course, if there were some unmanagable danger, things would be different. But why should nanotech be more dangerous than e.g. highly infectious bacteria (which labs obviously can handle quite fine)? Propably the opposite would be the case.
So we need regulations! Otherwise, it will happen like in AI, where some time it turned out that all the promises we were given never were fulfilled, and the actual achievements of AI are much less. Therefore heavy regulations are necessary, so when the promises can't be fulfilled, you can just blame the over-regulation instead of having to admit that you were just over-optimistic.
They got the code from person A under the GPL (license 1). This license has been terminated due to their actions.
Now there's person B, who has a valid license. They now get it from person B under the GPL, so they get a fresh license (which again is GPL, of course). This license they got from person B is AFAIU a completely different license from license 1, except that it happens to be under the exact same terms.
IANAL however, so of course I may as well be completely wrong here.
They didn't steal it. They acquired it legally, they even modified it legally. Just the distribution was illegal. Not because they distributed it, but because that distribution was not under the terms of the GPL.
You forgot: Microsoft releases Windows XP under the GPL. The RIAA officialy declares that DRM was the wrong thing and stops sueing file downloaders, who reply instantaneously by paying for all songs they downloaded via P2P. SCO redraws their lawsuite against IBM. And the congress passes a law which voids all software patents.
Ah, and before I forget it: Did you hear that the temperature in hell has fallen lately? Climate scientists predict it to freeze over in a few years.
Well, but everyone has the right to sublicense the code to everyone else, as long as it's done under the GPL again. So it suffices if they find one third party who has a valid license and gives them the code again under the GPL. Or did I miss something?
AFAIK the normal cells don't have telomerase activity. Their telomers are long enough to support a limited number of cell duplications, and get never rebuilt. This is the reason why they cannot multiply forever, and this again is the reason you get old and eventually die.
Well, I'd call it a side-effect of being a multi-cell organism (just as natural death is, BTW). The point is, what cancer cells do (multiply forever without aging) is just the normal behaviour of single-cell organisms.
While you don't actually proof the human (you can't, of course), you do generally take steps to ensure that you don't rely on humans with faulty logic.
For example, if some random student would come and say "I looked at the proof, and I think it is OK", then you wouldn't give it as much weight as if some mathematician who clearly has proven his profound use of logic in several papers goes through the same proof and says "everything is OK." And for at least some time, the computer program would be more like the random student, unless you can proof it works OK (of course this proof may be wrong as well, but it's another line of defense; 100% certainty is unfortunately not possible, even in math).
Of course the situation is different if the program does find an error in the proof. Then you have a very narrow point to look at, and checking if the program is right in saying that step is wrong is probably not too difficult. Unfortunately this means bugs which cause wrong proofs to be judged as right will be much harder to detect than bugs which cause correct proofs to be judged wrong.
Note that again this parallels the random student situation: If the random student comes and says "there's an error in the proof, you cannot follow blah from blubb", then checking if the student is right should be relatively easy (just look at the proof and see if that particular step is really wrong).
Well, maybe the true viruses are so advanced that really no one has a clue about their existence (which would be the reason why you don't hear of them), and the "permission to install" viruses are actually a way to detract attention from them...
Well, there's no danger of sailing off the edge, because there's land at the edge of the earth. Proof: Otherwise the ocean water would run away over the edge.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course not, after all we get that hour back in autumn. But then, I think we should get interest for that time! :-)
Well, then why not do it as the Romans did? Make the day hours longer in summer and shorter in winter (and night time changes accordingly). Ok, that will be a big change in all software (but then, this would be a great economy program!), and also you may not like that your work time is actually payed less in the summer due to longer hours (solution: take your holiday in the summer and enjoy the shortened winter working time). But it certainly gives the best usage of sunlight.
You misunderstand. It's about hacking the Program Segment Prefix. DOS is coming back! :-)
Of course you can guarantee the safety of everything. Just put a sign on it: "1 Year Safety Guarantee. Safe or Money Back!"
...
Now, in the worst case, you'll lose a lot of money. But that's a different problem
Actually we have had such processors for years. Just don't install the newest bloatware on it.
Indeed, a moratorium in the lab is about the stupidest thing you could do. Especially if those things can be dangerous, you do certainly want to know about the dangers before e.g. some terrorist supporters find out and you get hit unprepared. And if those things turn out to be harmless, well, there's no reason not to use them in the lab.
So banning it from the lab is wrong if it can be dangerous, and is wrong if it cannot be dangerous. Therefore it's always wrong.
Of course, if there were some unmanagable danger, things would be different. But why should nanotech be more dangerous than e.g. highly infectious bacteria (which labs obviously can handle quite fine)? Propably the opposite would be the case.
And no, I don't believe in grey goo.
So we need regulations! Otherwise, it will happen like in AI, where some time it turned out that all the promises we were given never were fulfilled, and the actual achievements of AI are much less. Therefore heavy regulations are necessary, so when the promises can't be fulfilled, you can just blame the over-regulation instead of having to admit that you were just over-optimistic.
But what's the reason for #3?
I'm not sure you understodd me correctly.
They got the code from person A under the GPL (license 1). This license has been terminated due to their actions.
Now there's person B, who has a valid license. They now get it from person B under the GPL, so they get a fresh license (which again is GPL, of course). This license they got from person B is AFAIU a completely different license from license 1, except that it happens to be under the exact same terms.
IANAL however, so of course I may as well be completely wrong here.
They didn't steal it. They acquired it legally, they even modified it legally. Just the distribution was illegal. Not because they distributed it, but because that distribution was not under the terms of the GPL.
You forgot: Microsoft releases Windows XP under the GPL. The RIAA officialy declares that DRM was the wrong thing and stops sueing file downloaders, who reply instantaneously by paying for all songs they downloaded via P2P. SCO redraws their lawsuite against IBM. And the congress passes a law which voids all software patents.
Ah, and before I forget it: Did you hear that the temperature in hell has fallen lately? Climate scientists predict it to freeze over in a few years.
Given that the current GPL version is 2, I think your crystal ball has serious math problems ... ;-)
Well, but everyone has the right to sublicense the code to everyone else, as long as it's done under the GPL again. So it suffices if they find one third party who has a valid license and gives them the code again under the GPL. Or did I miss something?
Well, if so, they probably died from cosmic radiation.
<movie type="B">
Or mayme they mutated into something which grows into a monster which eventually comes back to destroy the earth
</movie>
AFAIK the normal cells don't have telomerase activity. Their telomers are long enough to support a limited number of cell duplications, and get never rebuilt. This is the reason why they cannot multiply forever, and this again is the reason you get old and eventually die.
However IANAB[iologist].
Well, I'd call it a side-effect of being a multi-cell organism (just as natural death is, BTW). The point is, what cancer cells do (multiply forever without aging) is just the normal behaviour of single-cell organisms.
In Korea, only old cancer cells die.
You're not a nerd? Then what are you doing on slashdot? :-)
It's "news for nerds", not "news for geeks"!
While you don't actually proof the human (you can't, of course), you do generally take steps to ensure that you don't rely on humans with faulty logic.
For example, if some random student would come and say "I looked at the proof, and I think it is OK", then you wouldn't give it as much weight as if some mathematician who clearly has proven his profound use of logic in several papers goes through the same proof and says "everything is OK." And for at least some time, the computer program would be more like the random student, unless you can proof it works OK (of course this proof may be wrong as well, but it's another line of defense; 100% certainty is unfortunately not possible, even in math).
Of course the situation is different if the program does find an error in the proof. Then you have a very narrow point to look at, and checking if the program is right in saying that step is wrong is probably not too difficult. Unfortunately this means bugs which cause wrong proofs to be judged as right will be much harder to detect than bugs which cause correct proofs to be judged wrong.
Note that again this parallels the random student situation: If the random student comes and says "there's an error in the proof, you cannot follow blah from blubb", then checking if the student is right should be relatively easy (just look at the proof and see if that particular step is really wrong).
Didn't the name "bluetooth" already imply that it would eventually bite you? :-)
Well, maybe the true viruses are so advanced that really no one has a clue about their existence (which would be the reason why you don't hear of them), and the "permission to install" viruses are actually a way to detract attention from them ...
But the question is: Will they also post on slashdot?
Of course then you still have to proof that your program for proof checking is correct.
... and the results are currently tested in the form of Slashdot editors.
Well, there's no danger of sailing off the edge, because there's land at the edge of the earth. Proof: Otherwise the ocean water would run away over the edge.