Because the owner of the copyrighted work wants it to be, and the Czech government apparently has some collective rights management agencies that would like some system for Copyleft works.
I can see that in theory but I have a hard time imagining the government agency has a workable system to collect royalties on, for example, a file containing source code that is floating around the internet.
I suppose this agency could pursue users of the finished program or application but...isn't it up to the author to decide how much to charge for the program? And via the GPL the author has decided to charge $0.00.
I get the feeling this is intended for artistic works that get performed, or books that get published. Code that gets passed around and compiled...how can you track who has what and what they owe? It seems impossible.
Reading GNU's page on copyleft, it appears to me that copyleft isn't a copyright thing at all, it's a license thing. That is to say, copyleft is a procedure that is applied to a copyrighted work and implemented in the license:
To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we add distribution terms...In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for most software are contained in the GNU General Public License...
So my question would be, if the copyright is still in force, why does the work have to treated differently than any other copyrighted work?
Bicicle..come on brain...b-icicle...icicle icicle A-Team B-Team? nonono...bi-icicle points both ways? o jeez...icicle bicycle? cute but stupid...bicicle: comes with snow tires standard...o god im losing it what's HAPPENING to meeeee...bicicle: the one-season bike that comes in two colours: ice blue and yellow.
I'm still reading the paper but one thing strikes me right away as being amateurish. The linear interpolation. According to the paper (with just a *little* bit of extrapolation) nuclear was free in ~1997 and solar will be free in ~2023. Nuclear doubled in cost between 2001 and 2005. And there are no confidence bands.
Also it's pretty obvious this paper is not being presented as scholarly research but as marketing material. Check out the cover page. Nothing against solar, but I'm really tired of research with a pov that forces you to pick it apart. Life's too short to do other peoples' work for them. Get credible or get out of my face.
I'm often surprised (and impressed) by how well the CBC here in Canada and the BBC in the UK objectively report on government actions and policies.
While it's true the CBC's reporting is objective, I'm not impressed by their investigative journalism. I think that is what's lacking. Mostly the CBC is a pretty tame arts and culture operation.
I think people want more. Which is why Sheila Fraser (the Auditor General) is so popular with regular people. She's seen as independent and inquisitive. Even abrasive. But functioning on behalf of taxpayers.
It's gotten to the point where I wonder if there shouldn't be a second sort of government, one that represents the interests of the people within the existing government. Pretty bad huh?
Science doesn't really work on proving a hypothesis, but on disproving enough alternative hypothesis that you can be fairly sure you're close to the truth.
I suppose it depends how you squint at it, but inductive reasoning (the scientific method) doesn't so much disprove a whole bunch of stuff to arrive at truth by attrition as much as it begins with observations and formalizes what is observed though hypothesis. "Falsification" is a bit overused as it is really just part (albeit an important part) of the formalization process whereby the hypothesis is constructed to avoid contradicting the already known observations. New observations that come after a hypothesis is established don't usually completely negate a hypothesis but rather show it to be a special case of something else (as F=ma is to GR). But sometimes a hypothesis (or theory) can be thrown right out, like the crystallization theory of metal fatigue.
The cringeworthy video of the "science" class posted above is informative if you can bear to watch it. The kids object to aspects of evolution based on their gut feelings of "what makes sense". Interesting, because if you probed a little deeper you would find their gut feelings come from their experiences in life, and what are experiences if they are not observations of things that happened? Yes that's right, they are generalizing based on specific observations. Their own behaviour could be used to teach them the scientific method. An educator who wasn't pandering could lead them through a process of discovery where they learn that everything they think they know has come from induction (Including math because, sorry to the physicists in the room, where do you think the axioms come from?) and that science is nothing more than induction formalized.
But that would require educators willing to acknowledge that science has a domain, faith has a domain, and their formalities don't overlap even if they co-exist within the same person. I don't know if anyone else remembers the ending of "Inherit the Wind" where Spencer Tracy holds the textbook and the bible together as if to symbolize their co-existence and walks off with a confident smile. And I think to myself why are we still talking about this?
If you can't peer review, it's not science. If you're theory cannot actually predict anything but the past, that's not a good theory and you need to go back to the drawing board.
The subject of this discussion is the Synthesis Report of the fourth IPCC Assessment Report.
The Assessment Report (AR4) consists of four volumes: the Synthesis Report (SR4) and reports from Working Groups (WGs) I, II, and III. Think of the WG reports as literature reviews and The Synthesis Report as an overview for policy makers. Quoting from the forward to SR4:
[SR4] illustrates the impacts of global warming already under way and to be expected in future, and describes the potential for adaptation of society to reduce its vulnerability; finally it presents an analysis of costs, policies and technologies intended to limit the extent of future changes in the climate system.
So, we should expect the WG reports to present the science and any conclusions derived therefrom, and the SR to discuss those conclusions. What has happened is that some small number of "factoids" the SR used to illustrate the conclusions of the WG reports were not peer reviewed and turned out to be wrong.
You can debate the idea of using examples not in the WG for purposes of illustration, but the justification for doing so is that it makes it more relevant to the lay reader (according to me). And let me repeat, the purpose of the non-peer reviewed data is to illustrate conclusions that have already been made based on peer reviewed science.
So my question to you would be, what is it about all this that you find objectionable? Something about peer review I think but I don't understand specifically what you are objecting to in the IPCC process.
...capable of reaching any corner of the earth from the United States in under an hour...It would travel through the atmosphere at several times the speed of sound...
Something is not the right order of magnitude here. 12,500 miles/1 hour = 12,500 mph = Mach 16. To me, 16 is more than "several".
I don't know of anything operational (SCRAM isn't) other than a rocket that can propel something that fast. And a rocket with enough thrust and low enough weight wouldn't be able to fire for an hour.
From that I suspect the entire flight profile isn't in the atmosphere. Something like: an ICBM delivers a ramjet-powered cruise missile somewhere in the vicinity of a target. The missile then flies the rest of the way.
As someone else pointed out...jeez. How expensive is that? Why not fire a missile from a B52 or a ship? Last I heard the US still had lots of both of those all over the globe. A Mach 5 ramjet could go 3840 miles in an hour so your platform wouldn't even have to be that close. Way out in the middle of the Indian Ocean is within that distance from Kabul, for example.
The problem isn't in the dlls per se, the exploit works by causing mod_isapi to unload a dll and leave dangling pointers to the api that can be invoked. The fix is an apache.org change to mod_isapi that prevents such unloading:
*) SECURITY: CVE-2010-0425 (cve.mitre.org)
mod_isapi: Do not unload an isapi.dll module until the request
processing is completed, avoiding orphaned callback pointers.
[Brett Gervasoni brettg senseofsecurity.com, Jeff Trawick]
Caveat: I am not a cosmetologist. Not even a cosmologist although I dated one once. Cosmetologist I mean. So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot, well, have a great deal of validity.
To wit, wherein TFS claims "we previously hypothesized" etc etc actually no we didn't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.
Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say. So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.
The one where somebody broke into a computer and stole a bunch of stuff then released it a way that just happened to give maximum benefit to some of the richest people on the planet.
Google and the NSA found out who wrote the code behind their break-in. They found out what buildings the attack came from. Where is the equivalent law enforcement action here? And where is the news coverage of the real actual crime?
Of course I'm being rhetorical, I know it can't and won't happen.
If they were really interested in theft recovery why didn't they use a system specifically designed for that purpose. Lojack costs $30/year per machine and I'm sure they would have gotten a volume discount.
until someone offers $100,000 to a $15/hr tech to give them two years of Senator X's browsing records. After that, it will have "served its purpose" and will "no longer be in the public's interest".
The future of computing is gallium arsenide^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hphotonics^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hmolecular switches^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hquantum whatnot^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hummmmmmm^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hgraphene?^h!
Slashdot Mirror
Because the owner of the copyrighted work wants it to be, and the Czech government apparently has some collective rights management agencies that would like some system for Copyleft works.
I can see that in theory but I have a hard time imagining the government agency has a workable system to collect royalties on, for example, a file containing source code that is floating around the internet.
I suppose this agency could pursue users of the finished program or application but...isn't it up to the author to decide how much to charge for the program? And via the GPL the author has decided to charge $0.00.
I get the feeling this is intended for artistic works that get performed, or books that get published. Code that gets passed around and compiled...how can you track who has what and what they owe? It seems impossible.
So my question would be, if the copyright is still in force, why does the work have to treated differently than any other copyrighted work?
Isn't that convenient.
Mmmyeahhh I'm going to have to ask you to go ahead and move that camera back a little bit.
Bicicle..come on brain...b-icicle...icicle icicle A-Team B-Team? nonono...bi-icicle points both ways? o jeez...icicle bicycle? cute but stupid...bicicle: comes with snow tires standard...o god im losing it what's HAPPENING to meeeee...bicicle: the one-season bike that comes in two colours: ice blue and yellow.
Ok fine I give up.
2011 will be the year of Lin...no wait. I mean 2011 will be the year of open source social networks on the desk...er, in your browser.
I'm still reading the paper but one thing strikes me right away as being amateurish. The linear interpolation. According to the paper (with just a *little* bit of extrapolation) nuclear was free in ~1997 and solar will be free in ~2023. Nuclear doubled in cost between 2001 and 2005. And there are no confidence bands.
Also it's pretty obvious this paper is not being presented as scholarly research but as marketing material. Check out the cover page. Nothing against solar, but I'm really tired of research with a pov that forces you to pick it apart. Life's too short to do other peoples' work for them. Get credible or get out of my face.
While it's true the CBC's reporting is objective, I'm not impressed by their investigative journalism. I think that is what's lacking. Mostly the CBC is a pretty tame arts and culture operation.
I think people want more. Which is why Sheila Fraser (the Auditor General) is so popular with regular people. She's seen as independent and inquisitive. Even abrasive. But functioning on behalf of taxpayers.
It's gotten to the point where I wonder if there shouldn't be a second sort of government, one that represents the interests of the people within the existing government. Pretty bad huh?
I suppose it depends how you squint at it, but inductive reasoning (the scientific method) doesn't so much disprove a whole bunch of stuff to arrive at truth by attrition as much as it begins with observations and formalizes what is observed though hypothesis. "Falsification" is a bit overused as it is really just part (albeit an important part) of the formalization process whereby the hypothesis is constructed to avoid contradicting the already known observations. New observations that come after a hypothesis is established don't usually completely negate a hypothesis but rather show it to be a special case of something else (as F=ma is to GR). But sometimes a hypothesis (or theory) can be thrown right out, like the crystallization theory of metal fatigue.
The cringeworthy video of the "science" class posted above is informative if you can bear to watch it. The kids object to aspects of evolution based on their gut feelings of "what makes sense". Interesting, because if you probed a little deeper you would find their gut feelings come from their experiences in life, and what are experiences if they are not observations of things that happened? Yes that's right, they are generalizing based on specific observations. Their own behaviour could be used to teach them the scientific method. An educator who wasn't pandering could lead them through a process of discovery where they learn that everything they think they know has come from induction (Including math because, sorry to the physicists in the room, where do you think the axioms come from?) and that science is nothing more than induction formalized.
But that would require educators willing to acknowledge that science has a domain, faith has a domain, and their formalities don't overlap even if they co-exist within the same person. I don't know if anyone else remembers the ending of "Inherit the Wind" where Spencer Tracy holds the textbook and the bible together as if to symbolize their co-existence and walks off with a confident smile. And I think to myself why are we still talking about this?
The subject of this discussion is the Synthesis Report of the fourth IPCC Assessment Report.
The Assessment Report (AR4) consists of four volumes: the Synthesis Report (SR4) and reports from Working Groups (WGs) I, II, and III. Think of the WG reports as literature reviews and The Synthesis Report as an overview for policy makers. Quoting from the forward to SR4:
So, we should expect the WG reports to present the science and any conclusions derived therefrom, and the SR to discuss those conclusions. What has happened is that some small number of "factoids" the SR used to illustrate the conclusions of the WG reports were not peer reviewed and turned out to be wrong.
You can debate the idea of using examples not in the WG for purposes of illustration, but the justification for doing so is that it makes it more relevant to the lay reader (according to me). And let me repeat, the purpose of the non-peer reviewed data is to illustrate conclusions that have already been made based on peer reviewed science.
So my question to you would be, what is it about all this that you find objectionable? Something about peer review I think but I don't understand specifically what you are objecting to in the IPCC process.
The proletariat plays "Will It Blend?" The governing class plays "Will It Nuke?"
Something is not the right order of magnitude here. 12,500 miles/1 hour = 12,500 mph = Mach 16. To me, 16 is more than "several".
I don't know of anything operational (SCRAM isn't) other than a rocket that can propel something that fast. And a rocket with enough thrust and low enough weight wouldn't be able to fire for an hour.
From that I suspect the entire flight profile isn't in the atmosphere. Something like: an ICBM delivers a ramjet-powered cruise missile somewhere in the vicinity of a target. The missile then flies the rest of the way.
As someone else pointed out...jeez. How expensive is that? Why not fire a missile from a B52 or a ship? Last I heard the US still had lots of both of those all over the globe. A Mach 5 ramjet could go 3840 miles in an hour so your platform wouldn't even have to be that close. Way out in the middle of the Indian Ocean is within that distance from Kabul, for example.
That's not a gigantic ancient impact crater. That's a gigantic ancient impact crater.
The problem isn't in the dlls per se, the exploit works by causing mod_isapi to unload a dll and leave dangling pointers to the api that can be invoked. The fix is an apache.org change to mod_isapi that prevents such unloading:
2.2.15 Release Notes
Changes with Apache 2.2.15
*) SECURITY: CVE-2010-0425 (cve.mitre.org) mod_isapi: Do not unload an isapi .dll module until the request
processing is completed, avoiding orphaned callback pointers.
[Brett Gervasoni brettg senseofsecurity.com, Jeff Trawick]
Caveat: I am not a cosmetologist. Not even a cosmologist although I dated one once. Cosmetologist I mean. So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot, well, have a great deal of validity.
To wit, wherein TFS claims "we previously hypothesized" etc etc actually no we didn't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.
Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say. So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.
How does it affect kdawson's ability to play WoW when his mom dies of cancer.
The one where somebody broke into a computer and stole a bunch of stuff then released it a way that just happened to give maximum benefit to some of the richest people on the planet.
Google and the NSA found out who wrote the code behind their break-in. They found out what buildings the attack came from. Where is the equivalent law enforcement action here? And where is the news coverage of the real actual crime?
Of course I'm being rhetorical, I know it can't and won't happen.
And please visit my home page.
And get off my grass!
He's not on your grass, he's like that all the time.
If they were really interested in theft recovery why didn't they use a system specifically designed for that purpose. Lojack costs $30/year per machine and I'm sure they would have gotten a volume discount.
And the kdawsonification of /. continues. Please don't let this place become another DailyTech.
until someone offers $100,000 to a $15/hr tech to give them two years of Senator X's browsing records. After that, it will have "served its purpose" and will "no longer be in the public's interest".
In 2032 right after the event we know as "The electrosoccertux-Hamster-Beanbag Incident" that changed the rules of underwater violin racing forever.
But I've already said too much.
The future of computing is gallium arsenide^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hphotonics^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hmolecular switches^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hquantum whatnot^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hummmmmmm^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hgraphene?^h!
In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.
When can we expect Scientology types to go to jail for fucking with peoples' heads?