'If it did, then the gangs in LA would be at peace, right?'
California and LA have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The dangers of LA actually demonstrate why making it harder for honest citizens to possess guns is a bad idea.
'When gun control people and gun rights people can agree on these facts, maybe a productive discussion can begin.'
The second amendment exists to assure that no discussion is needed. In the United States at least, all gun control is illegal. Then again, the powers at be aren't likely to be concerned with the constitution since they have disarmed the citizenry.
'One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.'
If anything, Moss Side is evidence of what happens when guns are banned. Those with no morals have access to black market weapons and those with have no way to defend themselves. This isn't even about successfully pulling your weapon when the time comes, its about the bad guy knowing you are likely to have a gun and having to decide if your wallet is worth getting shot for.
As for police, in my experience they are the worst criminals at all.
'What I think's funny, is that people on a site that continually screams 'correlation is not causation', suddenly use a correlation to claim a causation because it's convenient.'
On one hand, correlation doesn't equal causation. On the other hand, all conclusions drawn by man depend upon correlation.
'I'm not sure how legalising the carrying of knives is going to reduce knife crime, if anything it would just cause more of it.'
In the case of guns, the correlation isn't limited to one area. In fact, you can look most anywhere and you won't see a reduction in crime caused by gun bans or restrictions.
Legalizing guns reduces crime because it raises the stakes when committing a crime. The person you are attacking is more likely to be armed. Robbing an unarmed victim is one thing, robbing grandma when she might pull an uzi from her purse is another matter entirely.
It is important not to pigeon hole the issue to "knife crime" or "gun crime" of course. If there are more knives or guns there are likely to be more crimes committed with them. The problem is the violent crime, not the tool used to commit it. The more honest citizens who are armed, the less crime is committed against them overall.
I have a federal firearms license here in the states and that makes stealing weapons from me a big no no punishable by federal pound me in the tailpipe prison. They issue me a sign to display stating as much. I display that sign prominently in my window. Honestly, I don't think people who have no intention of being caught by the morons in law enforcement are concerned about the consequences if they were. But they sure as hell don't want to be shot by the crazy asshole with all those guns. They will rob the guy next door instead.
'OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.'
From the GGP: 'Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.'
It would seem he claimed both. As for knife crimes, this story seems to suggest that knife crimes are indeed a growing problem in the UK.
'From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?'
Yes, they are a half step. A number of regulations that make it harder for honest citizens to acquire weapons with which to defend themselves against the criminals who ignore gun laws anyway.
'Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated.'
I'm fairly sure guns were already banned in the UK in 2002. Any change in the pattern after that would be the result of some other action.
'Think of it this way: If the software were instead a paper describing an algorithm, and you implemented that algorithm yourself in the process of writing your own paper (or academically published software with a citations list), would you have cited the original paper in your paper? If so, citing the software is obviously correct. If not, then the algorithm / process that the software performed must not have been very relevant in your research area. '
Hardly, an algorithm is just math. I wouldn't cite my grade school textbooks if my research required addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division and wouldn't cite sources for operations that are a combination thereof.
Although if my choice to use that algorithm was based upon results and justifications found in your paper then of course I would cite that.
'academically-produced software'
Not relevant. Whether or not something was academically produced is not a factor in how it should be treated.
'If you use a piece of software that uses a non-trivial technique that is essential to your research topic, you wouldn't want to give the impression that that technique and the implementation thereof was your work. This isn't about citing Firefox because you used it to do your research'
Firefox is an extremely complex piece of software that is the result of the work and research of many people.
'software that is the published result of previous research'
If the software is actually somehow core to my research and not merely a tool being applied. Then the reasons for choosing the algorithm implemented by the software will need to be justified. That would require citing sources and papers.
Software is a tool, like a knife. If my research depended on a particular type of edge to be on the blade of a knife used then again, the sources that support my use of that type of edge and design are essential to my paper. The manufacturer and model of the knife itself might be mentioned in the body of the paper but hardly merit citation.
For everyone it wouldn't really be needed. Short of some sort of accident your driving ability and motor skills don't decrease in a two year span. I would agree that reflex tests should be required for everyone though and retesting every 5 years (the current renewal term in most states) would be appropriate.
In those over 65 those skills can and do decline rapidly. That isn't discrimination like senior groups try to claim, it is simple physical reality.
The real answer is to get those older drivers off the roadways. Forget the grey panthers and require drivers over 65 to re-qualify to keep their license every 2 yrs and include a driven and reflex test as well as the usual vision test.
Old drivers aren't often in accidents, they often cause accidents. They will obliviously run a red light and cause a collision behind them while they blissfully continue on to park with their wheel up on the curb at the grocery store.
'Fuck. The might as well have just increased income taxes and handed the money directly to those with bad credit. They could have avoided the charade of mortgages, etc, and just called it welfare and subsidized housing.'
Most of the people who have fallen victim to this didn't have bad credit, they were conned into taking something they couldn't afford. The mortgages started with a reasonable payment that ballooned after a period of time.
AFAIK the mortgages aren't being forgiven. The banks are just being given welfare. If you want to bailout the economy then let the banks crash and mandate a forgiveness of all outstanding mortgages. Force the banks to liquidate everything they have to pay depositors and the only thing that comes from tax dollars is whatever difference is required for honoring the FDIC insurance.
Let the banks that created the problem foot the bill, not the innocent victims they are trying to make homeless, not the bank depositors, and not the taxpayer.
New banks will pop up in short order to fill the gaps left by the fallen banks. I promise.
'Your still allowed to stay connected for an "unlimited" amount of time which is exactly what your paying for and my guess is that your service contract states this, you get X bandwidth available 24/7.'
Right, so lets use a 6Mbit connection as an example. An unlimited connection would mean I get to utilize my full 6Mbit for as long as I want during the month. Including non-stop for the entire month.
That is 2,700,000,000 bytes per hour. Or 2.5 gigabytes per hour. Many companies are talking about limits of 50 gig a month, and the weasels are probably talking about gigabits. Either way, even though they aren't stating a time limit up front, they have limited my actual usage of the connection to less than 24hrs in a 28-31 day period.
I don't know if all of E-Macs would be loadable in the limited time frames you are talking about but VI certainly could.
If you press 'i' after you load VI you will experienced a notepad like editing experience that couldn't be easier. When you are done just press esc then x to save and exit or q! to exit without saving. when you see q! think, "quit damnit".
'However, new unique software that can be used to obtain new results elsewhere deserves citations.'
I'm going to assume you meant new unique software that can be used to obtain new results that can't be obtained elsewhere. That still falls apart, again a new unique paintbrush or paint still wouldn't need to be cited unless it inspired the work in question.
'Citations are about giving credit where credit is due.'
Correction. Citations are about giving credit TO SOURCES where credit is due. The primary reason giving said credit is not to pat the source on the back, it is to avoid giving the impression that you are the author of the material.
With a few exceptions, software is not a source, it is a tool that performs some shorthand in the process of interpreting information that came from a source. The author of the output of the software is whoever is operating the software, not whoever wrote the software.
'If you even want to look at it your way, software can definitely be used to generate new sources of information that wouldn't have been available otherwise.'
Certainly, and in that instance the sources would be cited if used. After all, a writing instrument and recording device can be used to generate new sources of information as well, that doesn't mean you cite them in your paper!
'will any differences in their results be due to... the lack of use of Stork?'
If you have adequately explained your methodology then reproducing the results shouldn't depend upon the tool you used to implement that methodology. If using another tool to implement the method changes the results then the results shouldn't be considered valid in the first place.
This was exactly my thought, we GPL all the software out of our lab. We also have a prominent notice on our download page giving the proper journal citation for this particular piece of software, so users know what to put.
However to not cite software used, particularly when the exact citation line is given to you so easily, in academic would be considered academic dishonesty. Sloppy as you said. And would reflect very poorly on the author of the paper if it were ever to come to light.
Since you can't really enforce it without a costly lawsuit, you simply have to have faith other academics will follow the same attribution code to cite sources, including software.
What might be more useful is writing this to a prominent journal in your field as a letter to bring attention to this issue, to help teach those older academics who never thought about the issues of citing software.'
Outside of a few fringe cases where the paper is about software citing software would be a little silly. Unless use of the software is implicit to the use of a source of data like a database.
You cite sources of information (including information that influenced your conclusions) not tools. That is akin to claiming an art student should cite the brush, canvas, and paint used in each painting. It doesn't matter how novel any of those things were unless the painting was a demonstration of the tool in question. Only sources that inspired the work need be cited.
'Say what you want about the product, but MUCH of Exchange's value comes from what it works with. '
Most of the value of exchange comes from interacting with Outlook. Outlook and not exchange is the 'killer app'. Specifically, Outlook's calendaring feature. I've never known anyone who was particularly in love with outlook outside of that.
85% of business conducted in this country is in the hands of small business and in a small business AD represents an additional administrative overhead and not an administrative ease. Much of this small business sector uses the Outlook email/calendar combo and this supports that well.
'QUOTAS?!?!? Kinda important, wouldn't you say?'
And this solution supports them... along with every other major MTA.
Whether or not the support for users and quotas is implemented via the windows authentication and directory scheme is really a non-issue. In many organizations the Exchange server is the last bit of windows they are stuck having in the server room.
'Was it "successful" at actually replacing Exchange with no [significant] trouble for Systems Administrators? I need to know. How come it is not that known in IT circles? What's going on?'
Probably because there are six to a dozen functional drop in replacements for exchange on the market that work fine. None of them are free as in beer or free as in speech though. Or if they are, they require an 'outlook connector' that is not.
'You've got it backwards: the GPL should be shown with the message that the user doesn't have to agree to it; the trademark license should be shown with the message that the user does have to agree to it.'
Mozilla could easily meet their burden for strong enforcement of their trademarks with a splash screen that only shows the first time you load the software and says they reserve their rights to the trademarks. Nobody has to agree that you own your own trademarks.
'But merely possessing a copy does not make you a rightful "owner of a copy," just like possessing stolen goods does not make you the owner of those goods. You are the rightful owner of a copy when you have a properly-licensed copy.'
Actually, according to a judges ruling in the recent blizzard battle you never own the copy in a licensing scheme at all.
However, ANY legal acquisition of material through a valid distribution channel will make you the owner of that material. Including software that is legally distributed under the GPL. The copyright holder need only authorize the distribution, he does not need to grant you license to sue the software as its owner.
If you legally acquire a copy of copyrighted material you have property rights to that copy as you do all of your legally acquired property. Those rights are limited somewhat by a special grant of copyright to the content creator but that grant does not cover all forms of use, only copying and distributing. You retain your property rights to use the material in any other manner.
'can it not then be argued, that I also have the right to run and use the ati drivers(https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/firegl_8_502_xp32_driver_only_065657.exe) without accepting the eula?'
It can be argued and is, by many. In the case of a package bought from the store at least one judge ruled that notification that agreement to a EULA would be required had to be on the packaging.
The copyright holder is granted the right to control distribution by copyright law. So long as you legally acquire the software from the copyright holder then you have the RIGHT to use it and need no permission. The copy you have is your property and your own property rights insure you can use the material.
In the case of software it has recently been ruled by at least one court that you don't own your copy at all, the copy still belongs to ATI and you are merely being given a license to utilize your copy.
Slashdot Mirror
'If it did, then the gangs in LA would be at peace, right?'
California and LA have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The dangers of LA actually demonstrate why making it harder for honest citizens to possess guns is a bad idea.
'When gun control people and gun rights people can agree on these facts, maybe a productive discussion can begin.'
The second amendment exists to assure that no discussion is needed. In the United States at least, all gun control is illegal. Then again, the powers at be aren't likely to be concerned with the constitution since they have disarmed the citizenry.
'Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people'
I CAN carry them to kill people who threaten me or my family. People who annoy or frighten me aren't in the equation.
The right to bear arms is in our constitution because it has been needed before. We had to kill ENGLISHMEN.
'One of the reasons I am very glad that firearms are illegal in this country is it makes it a lot easier for the police to arrest people who wave them around.'
If anything, Moss Side is evidence of what happens when guns are banned. Those with no morals have access to black market weapons and those with have no way to defend themselves. This isn't even about successfully pulling your weapon when the time comes, its about the bad guy knowing you are likely to have a gun and having to decide if your wallet is worth getting shot for.
As for police, in my experience they are the worst criminals at all.
'What I think's funny, is that people on a site that continually screams 'correlation is not causation', suddenly use a correlation to claim a causation because it's convenient.'
On one hand, correlation doesn't equal causation. On the other hand, all conclusions drawn by man depend upon correlation.
'I'm not sure how legalising the carrying of knives is going to reduce knife crime, if anything it would just cause more of it.'
In the case of guns, the correlation isn't limited to one area. In fact, you can look most anywhere and you won't see a reduction in crime caused by gun bans or restrictions.
Legalizing guns reduces crime because it raises the stakes when committing a crime. The person you are attacking is more likely to be armed. Robbing an unarmed victim is one thing, robbing grandma when she might pull an uzi from her purse is another matter entirely.
It is important not to pigeon hole the issue to "knife crime" or "gun crime" of course. If there are more knives or guns there are likely to be more crimes committed with them. The problem is the violent crime, not the tool used to commit it. The more honest citizens who are armed, the less crime is committed against them overall.
I have a federal firearms license here in the states and that makes stealing weapons from me a big no no punishable by federal pound me in the tailpipe prison. They issue me a sign to display stating as much. I display that sign prominently in my window. Honestly, I don't think people who have no intention of being caught by the morons in law enforcement are concerned about the consequences if they were. But they sure as hell don't want to be shot by the crazy asshole with all those guns. They will rob the guy next door instead.
'You're assuming causation.'
Along with all research and conclusions draw by man in any matter in history. Lightning struck a log, the log burst into flame. We assumed causation.
'Various hip-hop and R&B trends that used gun imagery implying that it was cool to carry a gun.'
Imagery doesn't cause anything except patterns of light to be reflected into your eyes. People take it from there.
'OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.'
From the GGP: 'Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.'
It would seem he claimed both. As for knife crimes, this story seems to suggest that knife crimes are indeed a growing problem in the UK.
'From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?'
Yes, they are a half step. A number of regulations that make it harder for honest citizens to acquire weapons with which to defend themselves against the criminals who ignore gun laws anyway.
'Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated.'
I'm fairly sure guns were already banned in the UK in 2002. Any change in the pattern after that would be the result of some other action.
'Think of it this way: If the software were instead a paper describing an algorithm, and you implemented that algorithm yourself in the process of writing your own paper (or academically published software with a citations list), would you have cited the original paper in your paper? If so, citing the software is obviously correct. If not, then the algorithm / process that the software performed must not have been very relevant in your research area. '
Hardly, an algorithm is just math. I wouldn't cite my grade school textbooks if my research required addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division and wouldn't cite sources for operations that are a combination thereof.
Although if my choice to use that algorithm was based upon results and justifications found in your paper then of course I would cite that.
'academically-produced software'
Not relevant. Whether or not something was academically produced is not a factor in how it should be treated.
'If you use a piece of software that uses a non-trivial technique that is essential to your research topic, you wouldn't want to give the impression that that technique and the implementation thereof was your work. This isn't about citing Firefox because you used it to do your research'
Firefox is an extremely complex piece of software that is the result of the work and research of many people.
'software that is the published result of previous research'
If the software is actually somehow core to my research and not merely a tool being applied. Then the reasons for choosing the algorithm implemented by the software will need to be justified. That would require citing sources and papers.
Software is a tool, like a knife. If my research depended on a particular type of edge to be on the blade of a knife used then again, the sources that support my use of that type of edge and design are essential to my paper. The manufacturer and model of the knife itself might be mentioned in the body of the paper but hardly merit citation.
For everyone it wouldn't really be needed. Short of some sort of accident your driving ability and motor skills don't decrease in a two year span. I would agree that reflex tests should be required for everyone though and retesting every 5 years (the current renewal term in most states) would be appropriate.
In those over 65 those skills can and do decline rapidly. That isn't discrimination like senior groups try to claim, it is simple physical reality.
The real answer is to get those older drivers off the roadways. Forget the grey panthers and require drivers over 65 to re-qualify to keep their license every 2 yrs and include a driven and reflex test as well as the usual vision test.
Old drivers aren't often in accidents, they often cause accidents. They will obliviously run a red light and cause a collision behind them while they blissfully continue on to park with their wheel up on the curb at the grocery store.
'Fuck. The might as well have just increased income taxes and handed the money directly to those with bad credit. They could have avoided the charade of mortgages, etc, and just called it welfare and subsidized housing.'
Most of the people who have fallen victim to this didn't have bad credit, they were conned into taking something they couldn't afford. The mortgages started with a reasonable payment that ballooned after a period of time.
AFAIK the mortgages aren't being forgiven. The banks are just being given welfare. If you want to bailout the economy then let the banks crash and mandate a forgiveness of all outstanding mortgages. Force the banks to liquidate everything they have to pay depositors and the only thing that comes from tax dollars is whatever difference is required for honoring the FDIC insurance.
Let the banks that created the problem foot the bill, not the innocent victims they are trying to make homeless, not the bank depositors, and not the taxpayer.
New banks will pop up in short order to fill the gaps left by the fallen banks. I promise.
'Your still allowed to stay connected for an "unlimited" amount of time which is exactly what your paying for and my guess is that your service contract states this, you get X bandwidth available 24/7.'
Right, so lets use a 6Mbit connection as an example. An unlimited connection would mean I get to utilize my full 6Mbit for as long as I want during the month. Including non-stop for the entire month.
That is 2,700,000,000 bytes per hour. Or 2.5 gigabytes per hour. Many companies are talking about limits of 50 gig a month, and the weasels are probably talking about gigabits. Either way, even though they aren't stating a time limit up front, they have limited my actual usage of the connection to less than 24hrs in a 28-31 day period.
I don't know if all of E-Macs would be loadable in the limited time frames you are talking about but VI certainly could.
If you press 'i' after you load VI you will experienced a notepad like editing experience that couldn't be easier. When you are done just press esc then x to save and exit or q! to exit without saving. when you see q! think, "quit damnit".
'However, new unique software that can be used to obtain new results elsewhere deserves citations.'
I'm going to assume you meant new unique software that can be used to obtain new results that can't be obtained elsewhere. That still falls apart, again a new unique paintbrush or paint still wouldn't need to be cited unless it inspired the work in question.
'Citations are about giving credit where credit is due.'
Correction. Citations are about giving credit TO SOURCES where credit is due. The primary reason giving said credit is not to pat the source on the back, it is to avoid giving the impression that you are the author of the material.
With a few exceptions, software is not a source, it is a tool that performs some shorthand in the process of interpreting information that came from a source. The author of the output of the software is whoever is operating the software, not whoever wrote the software.
'If you even want to look at it your way, software can definitely be used to generate new sources of information that wouldn't have been available otherwise.'
Certainly, and in that instance the sources would be cited if used. After all, a writing instrument and recording device can be used to generate new sources of information as well, that doesn't mean you cite them in your paper!
'will any differences in their results be due to... the lack of use of Stork?'
If you have adequately explained your methodology then reproducing the results shouldn't depend upon the tool you used to implement that methodology. If using another tool to implement the method changes the results then the results shouldn't be considered valid in the first place.
'
This was exactly my thought, we GPL all the software out of our lab. We also have a prominent notice on our download page giving the proper journal citation for this particular piece of software, so users know what to put.
However to not cite software used, particularly when the exact citation line is given to you so easily, in academic would be considered academic dishonesty. Sloppy as you said. And would reflect very poorly on the author of the paper if it were ever to come to light.
Since you can't really enforce it without a costly lawsuit, you simply have to have faith other academics will follow the same attribution code to cite sources, including software.
What might be more useful is writing this to a prominent journal in your field as a letter to bring attention to this issue, to help teach those older academics who never thought about the issues of citing software.'
Outside of a few fringe cases where the paper is about software citing software would be a little silly. Unless use of the software is implicit to the use of a source of data like a database.
You cite sources of information (including information that influenced your conclusions) not tools. That is akin to claiming an art student should cite the brush, canvas, and paint used in each painting. It doesn't matter how novel any of those things were unless the painting was a demonstration of the tool in question. Only sources that inspired the work need be cited.
'Say what you want about the product, but MUCH of Exchange's value comes from what it works with. '
Most of the value of exchange comes from interacting with Outlook. Outlook and not exchange is the 'killer app'. Specifically, Outlook's calendaring feature. I've never known anyone who was particularly in love with outlook outside of that.
85% of business conducted in this country is in the hands of small business and in a small business AD represents an additional administrative overhead and not an administrative ease. Much of this small business sector uses the Outlook email/calendar combo and this supports that well.
'QUOTAS?!?!? Kinda important, wouldn't you say?'
And this solution supports them... along with every other major MTA.
Whether or not the support for users and quotas is implemented via the windows authentication and directory scheme is really a non-issue. In many organizations the Exchange server is the last bit of windows they are stuck having in the server room.
Yet another open source exchange replacement that didn't open source everything required to interact with outlook.
Without that, whats the point?
'OWA?
Drop in replacement, you say? Will MOSS or CRM play with it? Will it pick up AD rules and GPOs? What about BCM and Project Server? '
Can you say bloat, bloat, and more bloat?
Because this isn't actually being released under the GPL.
'Was it "successful" at actually replacing Exchange with no [significant] trouble for Systems Administrators? I need to know. How come it is not that known in IT circles? What's going on?'
Probably because there are six to a dozen functional drop in replacements for exchange on the market that work fine. None of them are free as in beer or free as in speech though. Or if they are, they require an 'outlook connector' that is not.
'See for comparison how everybody thinks that *windows* is slow'
That is a poor comparison. After all windows is slow without the crapware.
'You've got it backwards: the GPL should be shown with the message that the user doesn't have to agree to it; the trademark license should be shown with the message that the user does have to agree to it.'
Mozilla could easily meet their burden for strong enforcement of their trademarks with a splash screen that only shows the first time you load the software and says they reserve their rights to the trademarks. Nobody has to agree that you own your own trademarks.
'But merely possessing a copy does not make you a rightful "owner of a copy," just like possessing stolen goods does not make you the owner of those goods. You are the rightful owner of a copy when you have a properly-licensed copy.'
Actually, according to a judges ruling in the recent blizzard battle you never own the copy in a licensing scheme at all.
However, ANY legal acquisition of material through a valid distribution channel will make you the owner of that material. Including software that is legally distributed under the GPL. The copyright holder need only authorize the distribution, he does not need to grant you license to sue the software as its owner.
False.
If you legally acquire a copy of copyrighted material you have property rights to that copy as you do all of your legally acquired property. Those rights are limited somewhat by a special grant of copyright to the content creator but that grant does not cover all forms of use, only copying and distributing. You retain your property rights to use the material in any other manner.
'can it not then be argued, that I also have the right to run and use the ati drivers(https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206/0/www2.ati.com/drivers/firegl/firegl_8_502_xp32_driver_only_065657.exe) without accepting the eula?'
It can be argued and is, by many. In the case of a package bought from the store at least one judge ruled that notification that agreement to a EULA would be required had to be on the packaging.
The copyright holder is granted the right to control distribution by copyright law. So long as you legally acquire the software from the copyright holder then you have the RIGHT to use it and need no permission. The copy you have is your property and your own property rights insure you can use the material.
In the case of software it has recently been ruled by at least one court that you don't own your copy at all, the copy still belongs to ATI and you are merely being given a license to utilize your copy.