i still don't see how any certificate guarantees that mybank.com hasn't been pwned...
Er, if that really happened, your web browser sessions are the least of your worries. If mybank.com really got hacked (as in the hacker actually gained superuser privilege (to be able to access/change cert, you'd need that)), then you should be a lot more worried about the content of your account than your connection to their online banking.
Besides, the bank is supposed to be keeping their site secure and all.
What the certificate guarantees is that in the areas which are neither in your or the bank's control (i.e. bunch of routers through the intertubes), nothing could possibly happen.
And before you ask, no, the certificate cannot guarantee that your computer isn't hacked/pwned by spyware revealing your information even as you are looking at them, and neither will certificate guarantee against a nuclear winter following WWIII. Certificate guarantees against little mishaps before these catastrophes happen.
Unless you are lucky enough to have MS Visual C/C++ installed (and all configured just right), you can't even install some Python (which is more and more getting popular as a general analysis tool, BTW) modules unless someone took care to make a.exe or.msi for your specific version of Python + Numpy (or what-not).
In GNU/Linux, it's a snap just to run setup.py (if it already isn't packaged by your distro), as gcc is a standard part of a GNU/Linux install, or really, any *nix.
On the other hand, there may be some instrument control issues, where driver is proprietary (not standard GPIB, RS-232 (via USB or actual serial port), or even HID interface) and available only in Windows, but then, you can always learn to avoid vendors that are braindead.
This is almost as infuriating as Vons/Safeway and their "club card", tracking my purchases to try and "Better serve me".
Well, turning the sarcasm detector off, change that to "Vons/Safeway and their 'club card' tracking my purchases and all other purchases with the credit card that has ever been used with the club card through special deals with the credit card company...." and you will be closer.
Facebook is welcome to track you on their own website (practically every website owner does this with log analysis) and even track your outgoing clicks with redirects, hidden or bare (even Google does this, and they are really tricky about it too, if you've noticed it on their search results). What they are not welcome to do is track you when you are not on their website through "special deals" with other websites. Such aggregation of data on you is a disaster waiting to happen.
As much as I like listening to some of those webcasts (esp. Physics 10, "Physics for future Presidents and CEOs"), I doubt any of them will be useful for someone with decent background in mathematics trying to give himself a quick course in physics.
I mean, the only "real" physics classes on that list are Physics 8A and 8B, and those are physics for biology majors (not to mention that they are lower division, so they don't include a proper treatment of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics).
I'd agree with the sibling post and say that Feynmann lectures in physics would be better, although as those are also meant for lower division physics, he does not take the advantage of additional mathematics knowledge that someone with a B.S. in Math ought to have.
It seems to me you wanted to say "software patents", not "copyright". While the former indeed can be argued to represent a monopoly-enabler, the later is a perfectly valid mechanism to protect your rights as author.
No, I meant to say copyright. With its infinite duration ("limited term", my arse---author's life + 70 years is practically an eon in today's society), copyright, especially in software, forces you to reinvent the wheel every time you want to compete with the incumbent. That's called "barrier to entry", something which is often crucial in establishing a monopoly-dominated market.
Now, patent, especially software patent, that's just evil without any saving grace of copyright (which can at least be used for good things like copyleft), so I'm not going to go into that, lest this post also be modded flamebait.
I never said it was illegal, without any qualification, to study someone's GPL'd code and reimplement it.
What I said was it was illegal to create a derivative work of a GPL'd code and not comply with the terms of GPL (as Apple would usually do, since they are not known for copylefting their contributions).
Now the argument is whether your work would be considered a derivative work of the GPL'd code that you studied, when you "re-implement" your own version after having read the GPL'd code.
A lot of people (people who use clean room engineering method, essentially) would think so---unless you insulate yourself completely from the GPL'd code (essentially, by never reading it), your work will be a derivative work of the GPL'd code, and by the copyright law, you cannot distribute your derivative work without complying with the terms of the GPL (or getting separate permission from the author).
Now, to answer some of the points you raised:
1) Clean room design does not insulate you from patent infringement allegation (I really suggest that you read the Wikipedia page more closely, and study the difference between copyright and patent---copyright does not cover truly independent work/implementations, while patent gives you true monopoly on the ideas/design themselves (of course, there's the question of what is patentable---in U.S., unfortunately software and business methods are patentable).
2) The particular case in Wikipedia hinged on the fact that it was NECESSARY to disassemble the proprietary code to reverse-engineer at all. However, for most GPL'd software, it is not at all NECESSARY("helpful" and "necessary" are two very different things) that you read the code itself---it is sufficient that someone else read through the code, prepare a thorough documentation that is free of copyrighted information (essentially no code snippets), and you (the coder for the proprietary software) work from that documentation.
But, of course, given that most algorithms and specs used in GPL software are public knowledge anyway, this would simply add an unnecessary step for, e.g., Apple. They would gain nothing by having a non-coder go through the GPL'd code ("study it") and write a documentation for one of their programmers to use---most likely, such documentation is already readily available.
To summarize and clarify, reading a GPL'd code doesn't necessarily mean that everything you write from now on has to be GPL'd. However, in the cases of ACCIDENTAL SIMILARITY (as it happens often in programming languages, by the virtue of the fact that there are only so many ways to skin a cat), it will be much more difficult for you to defend against allegations of copyright infringement, if it becomes known that you have read (and even studied!) the GPL'd code.
If you have questions on any particular point (... or more explanation of my position), I'm happy to answer either on Slashdot (I don't know how deep the threads will go, BTW), or by email.
You have claimed that this will hold up in court twice now. Please cite something, because my intuition tells me that something like that is so ridiculously hard to prove (perhaps even impossible) that no court would find someone guilty of of anything less than copying code directly. Proving intent in court is a tough, pointless thing.
Well, as I've said, I don't have a case law to hand out (IANAL), but your intuition is in direct contradiction to intuition of many knowledgeable people. Clean room design page on Wikipedia may be a good place to start. A lot of people use the process I've described to defend themselves against allegations of copyright infringement.
For the record, GPL does not ban people from looking at its code; in fact, this is the opposite of its intention.
I never said that GPL bans you from looking at the code. What I said was if you plan on making a clone of a GPL'd product (and not comply with the terms of GPL), then you have to be careful to refrain from looking at the code (whereas with proprietary code you are forced away from the source code, so no self-discipline is necessary).
I am all for GPL and copyleft (heck, I am a due-paying member of FSF; I suppose I should change my email address to make that clearer). All I am saying is that if you plan on competing with a GPL product, then you'd better treat GPL code as if it were proprietary, because the terms of GPL apply to you only if you also copyleft your version as well (as Apple isn't wont to do, for a specific example).
Having said that, I suppose unless you copy and paste (as many companies mistakenly do with GPL'd software), authors of GPL software won't be as aggressive as proprietary software companies are---they have better things to do than litigate against someone simply for not having followed the correct procedure, unlike proprietary software companies.
If GPL were truly free, it wouldn't need to lean on copyright law to work, since copyright law is specifically designed to restrict what people can do. GPL is free in the same way you're "free" to convert to Islam during a jihad.
(I'm not saying copyright is wrong; I actually enjoy the right to "own" the distribution of any intellectual property I create. I'm just saying GPL advocates have this one all wrong.)
As a sibling post said, we need GPL *because* we have copyright---not the other way around.
I, on the other hand, believe that copyright is evil (or, at least, immoral) in the modern context and should be abolished (if you'd like to read a better reasoned argument, here it is).
Yes, that would mean that GPL would lose its force as well. But, without copyright, we wouldn't need copyleft.
However, lots of people write books inspired by other books, even "borrowing" characters, and generally this is OK. It doesn't matter whether you read the book or not, or whether some 3rd party told you the story.
Generally, yes. But, apparently Ms. Rowling doesn't think so, as she persecutes countless aspiring writers in various countries...
But, to be back on topic, the thing is, with code, sometimes there are only so many ways to get the same job done. If you do "clean room engineering" (I didn't know the term before), then you have a plausible defense of independently arriving at a similar code (and since copyright isn't patent, having similar code itself wouldn't be infringement). But if you weren't careful and looked at the code, then your job would be much more difficult, as you also have to avoid incidental similarity in codes, not just intentional similarity.
But, as far as legal precedent goes, IANAL, so I don't know of any---but then, there aren't any successful litigation based on GPL yet either (only companies giving up and settling so far, with the exception of Skype, which is still ongoing).
It's what's been drilled into their heads over the years that nothing is free.
It's true that nothing is free, but when I feel like "earning" the free software I use, I donate to FSF or other projects that I use heavily---cutting the middlemen out, so to speak.
But then, I guess there's a trickle-down theory here somewhere.
Well, I wasn't thinking of ripping off source code so much as ripping off ideas and algorithms, neither of which can be copyrighted (nor can they be covered by GPL). A decent engineer can read code and understand it well enough that there is no need to "copy" the code.
But the thing is, as long as you even looked at the code, legally speaking, there is the lingering doubt of whether the code you write can even be considered original.
This subject comes up not infrequently on mailing lists of GPL projects such as Maxima and GNU Octave. They recommend that if you are going to write new modules (with more recent efficient algorithms, for example) for them, then that you DO NOT LOOK AT, e.g. Matlab code implementing the feature, even though that code also uses publicly known algorithms.
This is not a new idea/issue. If you are going to use algorithms from a code, and you don't want to comply with the terms of the license, then you yourself should not look at the code (or at least, never admit that you did), but have someone else extract the algorithm for you, and use that algorithm, never having looked at a specific implementation.
You can claim as much as you like that you only ripped of "ideas and algorithms", but the courts (and opposing lawyers) will find it otherwise.
There's really no direct political comparison, but the closest example to BSD vs. GPL in that context is a Libertarian vs. Social Democrat example.
As a due-paying member of FSF and a self-described libertarian, I resent that comparison.
Copyleft is no more contrary to concept of freedom ("real freedom" or not) than prohibition of slavery is.
I like to liken BSD (and its relatives) to a society where everything is so... laissez-faire that one person can own another person (by contract or payment of money), whereas GPL would be a society that decided that freedom to restrict others' freedom is not a freedom.
Apple can study its source code and implement what they want into their own kernel in much less time;
But that would be illegal. Copyright infringement isn't limited to verbatim copying (or copying and then modification) of codes. If you study the codes covered under GPL and write "your own" code based on what you learn from codes, chances are, courts will decide that "your own" code is in fact a derivative work of the GPL-covered work.
This is actually an area where programmers have (or should have) learned to be careful. e.g. For things like hardware drivers, where the spec for a certain hardware may be written into the source code, reasonable precaution demands that the job be divided into two parts: one person writes hardware specs based on the source code, and another person writes completely new driver based on the specs---but the person who looked at the GPL-covered (or any other license, really) code never touches the new code, and the person writing the new code never looks at the GPL-covered code.
Actually, C.S. Lewis had been converted to Christianity by J.R.R. Tolkien and in fact wrote the Chronicles of Narnia as a sort of Christian allegory.
Er, I thought it was the other way around---I thought C.S. Lewis converted J.R.R. Tolkien to Christianity, and that's why you could read Christian themes into LOTR if you try at all.
As far as I know, C.S. Lewis has always been a Christian writer.
And yet some of these same people who insist Reiser may be innocent are some of the same people who criticize others for doubting Global Warming.
I don't know about others, but I don't criticize others for doubting global warming. Heck, I've been telling everyone that while it's true that the global temperature has risen by a fraction of a degree over last century or so, there is no conclusive evidence that this rise is due to human activities.
Healthy skepticism should be employed EVERYWHERE, not selectively. On the other hand, I probably should excuse myself from sitting on the jury of any murder trials, since any doubt is reasonable-enough doubt for me.
I advocate mid-term votes on each of your congresscritters, with ballots such as that below (for each):
Well, this is supposedly why the length of the term is different for different people. Representatives are supposed to be more responsive to the needs of the people (hence they are re-elected every 2 years), while senators are supposed to hold up their principled stance (hence the term of 6 years, immune to short-term fluctuations in popular opinion), while the president is supposed to straddle the middle.
Although, I guess I wouldn't be against cutting the term of representatives down to 1 year, given that things tend to change faster now than it did, oh, 200 years ago, as long as the election logistics can be handled efficiently.
At least until the body is positively identified (perhaps by DNA testing) to be that of Nina Reiser's, for all I know this is some ploy/maneuvering by the defense attorney (who had more than ample time to tell Reiser what he was planning) in order to reduce Reiser's sentence.
He did some odd things after the murder that didn't really help his case, and its now obvious why he did those things. The lesson isn't what you said, its this: don't murder your wife.
No, the lesson is this: don't do odd things after murdering your wife or significant other.
Work computers ? You do know that Avira is free only for personal use, right ?:-)
Well, then I don't feel guilty about replacing it with ClamWin anymore (which does have less features, admittedly). I just got my employer out of potential copyright issues.:)
I'd never install a proprietary software on a computer that I am using, for work or personal uses. (OTOH, I might use something if it happens to be installed... )
The two statements are not mutually exclusive. And by the way, you already had your coup d'etat. Bush wasn't elected. The electoral college Ohio votes were fraudulent, so it's already happened in your lifetime.
You can call it whatever you want to, but it's not a "military coup".
No, I wouldn't put politicians (of any country) above coup by deceit and fraud (not that I am agreeing with your assertion regarding the last election). But I am saying that the structure of U.S. government makes it IMPOSSIBLE for MILITARY coup to happen---military, at least in U.S., is a tool of the civilian government and has no life of its own, unlike in some other countries.
When the civilian government gets out of hand, we have other means (impeachment, regularly scheduled election, or when all else fails, bloody revolution), but of course, it's another matter altogether whether the citizenry would be willing to use those methods or just sit and whine, as some people are apparently apt to do (I for one believe Bush administration, for all its failings, is legitimate, so I'm not complaining).
Except the car behind doesn't magically stop once it hits you. Sure, you'll get pushed forward into the car in front of you--and then one behind will crush you like a bug between the two of them.
In this case, it's not your mass that matters---it's the strength of the passenger compartment (as I already mentioned: "In either case, assuming that the passenger compartment is strong, the mass of your car itself has no bearing on safety.").
Since you are in contact with car in front of you, for the purpose of analyzing the collision, your mass is now negligible, and whether you get squashed like a bug or not depends whole lot more on how strong your passenger compartment is (and bigger doesn't mean that they made the car with stronger materials), not the mass of your car.
If you have a look at the Whirlpool page, you'll see that every page in the forum is headed by an orange banner, that not only references the AVG problem and suggests users uninstall the software, but also recommends and has direct links to "superior alternatives" such as Avast and Avira.
I wouldn't recommend Avira. I got so annoyed with the popups from Avira (mostly ads with bad English) using the work computer that had Avira installed, I ended up uninstalling it and replacing it with ClamWin.
Slashdot Mirror
i still don't see how any certificate guarantees that mybank.com hasn't been pwned...
Er, if that really happened, your web browser sessions are the least of your worries. If mybank.com really got hacked (as in the hacker actually gained superuser privilege (to be able to access/change cert, you'd need that)), then you should be a lot more worried about the content of your account than your connection to their online banking.
Besides, the bank is supposed to be keeping their site secure and all.
What the certificate guarantees is that in the areas which are neither in your or the bank's control (i.e. bunch of routers through the intertubes), nothing could possibly happen.
And before you ask, no, the certificate cannot guarantee that your computer isn't hacked/pwned by spyware revealing your information even as you are looking at them, and neither will certificate guarantee against a nuclear winter following WWIII. Certificate guarantees against little mishaps before these catastrophes happen.
Indeed.
Unless you are lucky enough to have MS Visual C/C++ installed (and all configured just right), you can't even install some Python (which is more and more getting popular as a general analysis tool, BTW) modules unless someone took care to make a .exe or .msi for your specific version of Python + Numpy (or what-not).
In GNU/Linux, it's a snap just to run setup.py (if it already isn't packaged by your distro), as gcc is a standard part of a GNU/Linux install, or really, any *nix.
On the other hand, there may be some instrument control issues, where driver is proprietary (not standard GPIB, RS-232 (via USB or actual serial port), or even HID interface) and available only in Windows, but then, you can always learn to avoid vendors that are braindead.
This is almost as infuriating as Vons/Safeway and their "club card", tracking my purchases to try and "Better serve me".
Well, turning the sarcasm detector off, change that to "Vons/Safeway and their 'club card' tracking my purchases and all other purchases with the credit card that has ever been used with the club card through special deals with the credit card company ...." and you will be closer.
Facebook is welcome to track you on their own website (practically every website owner does this with log analysis) and even track your outgoing clicks with redirects, hidden or bare (even Google does this, and they are really tricky about it too, if you've noticed it on their search results). What they are not welcome to do is track you when you are not on their website through "special deals" with other websites. Such aggregation of data on you is a disaster waiting to happen.
As much as I like listening to some of those webcasts (esp. Physics 10, "Physics for future Presidents and CEOs"), I doubt any of them will be useful for someone with decent background in mathematics trying to give himself a quick course in physics.
I mean, the only "real" physics classes on that list are Physics 8A and 8B, and those are physics for biology majors (not to mention that they are lower division, so they don't include a proper treatment of classical mechanics or quantum mechanics).
I'd agree with the sibling post and say that Feynmann lectures in physics would be better, although as those are also meant for lower division physics, he does not take the advantage of additional mathematics knowledge that someone with a B.S. in Math ought to have.
It seems to me you wanted to say "software patents", not "copyright". While the former indeed can be argued to represent a monopoly-enabler, the later is a perfectly valid mechanism to protect your rights as author.
No, I meant to say copyright. With its infinite duration ("limited term", my arse---author's life + 70 years is practically an eon in today's society), copyright, especially in software, forces you to reinvent the wheel every time you want to compete with the incumbent. That's called "barrier to entry", something which is often crucial in establishing a monopoly-dominated market.
Now, patent, especially software patent, that's just evil without any saving grace of copyright (which can at least be used for good things like copyleft), so I'm not going to go into that, lest this post also be modded flamebait.
The whole point of SMS is that you can send to any cellphone with SMS capability that is why it is hard to get rid of
'Fixed it for you.
Try sending an SMS to a landline phone, you insensitive clod.
Let the market decide.
How do you propose to let the market decide when the government has granted you a perpetual monopoly (often euphemistically called "copyright")?
Say what you want, but "let the market decide" is the last thing you can possibly say when proprietary software is involved.
I never said it was illegal, without any qualification, to study someone's GPL'd code and reimplement it.
What I said was it was illegal to create a derivative work of a GPL'd code and not comply with the terms of GPL (as Apple would usually do, since they are not known for copylefting their contributions).
Now the argument is whether your work would be considered a derivative work of the GPL'd code that you studied, when you "re-implement" your own version after having read the GPL'd code.
A lot of people (people who use clean room engineering method, essentially) would think so---unless you insulate yourself completely from the GPL'd code (essentially, by never reading it), your work will be a derivative work of the GPL'd code, and by the copyright law, you cannot distribute your derivative work without complying with the terms of the GPL (or getting separate permission from the author).
Now, to answer some of the points you raised:
1) Clean room design does not insulate you from patent infringement allegation (I really suggest that you read the Wikipedia page more closely, and study the difference between copyright and patent---copyright does not cover truly independent work/implementations, while patent gives you true monopoly on the ideas/design themselves (of course, there's the question of what is patentable---in U.S., unfortunately software and business methods are patentable).
2) The particular case in Wikipedia hinged on the fact that it was NECESSARY to disassemble the proprietary code to reverse-engineer at all. However, for most GPL'd software, it is not at all NECESSARY("helpful" and "necessary" are two very different things) that you read the code itself---it is sufficient that someone else read through the code, prepare a thorough documentation that is free of copyrighted information (essentially no code snippets), and you (the coder for the proprietary software) work from that documentation.
But, of course, given that most algorithms and specs used in GPL software are public knowledge anyway, this would simply add an unnecessary step for, e.g., Apple. They would gain nothing by having a non-coder go through the GPL'd code ("study it") and write a documentation for one of their programmers to use---most likely, such documentation is already readily available.
To summarize and clarify, reading a GPL'd code doesn't necessarily mean that everything you write from now on has to be GPL'd. However, in the cases of ACCIDENTAL SIMILARITY (as it happens often in programming languages, by the virtue of the fact that there are only so many ways to skin a cat), it will be much more difficult for you to defend against allegations of copyright infringement, if it becomes known that you have read (and even studied!) the GPL'd code.
If you have questions on any particular point (... or more explanation of my position), I'm happy to answer either on Slashdot (I don't know how deep the threads will go, BTW), or by email.
You have claimed that this will hold up in court twice now. Please cite something, because my intuition tells me that something like that is so ridiculously hard to prove (perhaps even impossible) that no court would find someone guilty of of anything less than copying code directly. Proving intent in court is a tough, pointless thing.
Well, as I've said, I don't have a case law to hand out (IANAL), but your intuition is in direct contradiction to intuition of many knowledgeable people. Clean room design page on Wikipedia may be a good place to start. A lot of people use the process I've described to defend themselves against allegations of copyright infringement.
For the record, GPL does not ban people from looking at its code; in fact, this is the opposite of its intention.
I never said that GPL bans you from looking at the code. What I said was if you plan on making a clone of a GPL'd product (and not comply with the terms of GPL), then you have to be careful to refrain from looking at the code (whereas with proprietary code you are forced away from the source code, so no self-discipline is necessary).
I am all for GPL and copyleft (heck, I am a due-paying member of FSF; I suppose I should change my email address to make that clearer). All I am saying is that if you plan on competing with a GPL product, then you'd better treat GPL code as if it were proprietary, because the terms of GPL apply to you only if you also copyleft your version as well (as Apple isn't wont to do, for a specific example).
Having said that, I suppose unless you copy and paste (as many companies mistakenly do with GPL'd software), authors of GPL software won't be as aggressive as proprietary software companies are---they have better things to do than litigate against someone simply for not having followed the correct procedure, unlike proprietary software companies.
If GPL were truly free, it wouldn't need to lean on copyright law to work, since copyright law is specifically designed to restrict what people can do. GPL is free in the same way you're "free" to convert to Islam during a jihad.
(I'm not saying copyright is wrong; I actually enjoy the right to "own" the distribution of any intellectual property I create. I'm just saying GPL advocates have this one all wrong.)
As a sibling post said, we need GPL *because* we have copyright---not the other way around.
I, on the other hand, believe that copyright is evil (or, at least, immoral) in the modern context and should be abolished (if you'd like to read a better reasoned argument, here it is).
Yes, that would mean that GPL would lose its force as well. But, without copyright, we wouldn't need copyleft.
However, lots of people write books inspired by other books, even "borrowing" characters, and generally this is OK. It doesn't matter whether you read the book or not, or whether some 3rd party told you the story.
Generally, yes. But, apparently Ms. Rowling doesn't think so, as she persecutes countless aspiring writers in various countries ...
But, to be back on topic, the thing is, with code, sometimes there are only so many ways to get the same job done. If you do "clean room engineering" (I didn't know the term before), then you have a plausible defense of independently arriving at a similar code (and since copyright isn't patent, having similar code itself wouldn't be infringement). But if you weren't careful and looked at the code, then your job would be much more difficult, as you also have to avoid incidental similarity in codes, not just intentional similarity.
But, as far as legal precedent goes, IANAL, so I don't know of any---but then, there aren't any successful litigation based on GPL yet either (only companies giving up and settling so far, with the exception of Skype, which is still ongoing).
It's what's been drilled into their heads over the years that nothing is free.
It's true that nothing is free, but when I feel like "earning" the free software I use, I donate to FSF or other projects that I use heavily---cutting the middlemen out, so to speak.
But then, I guess there's a trickle-down theory here somewhere.
Well, I wasn't thinking of ripping off source code so much as ripping off ideas and algorithms, neither of which can be copyrighted (nor can they be covered by GPL). A decent engineer can read code and understand it well enough that there is no need to "copy" the code.
But the thing is, as long as you even looked at the code, legally speaking, there is the lingering doubt of whether the code you write can even be considered original.
This subject comes up not infrequently on mailing lists of GPL projects such as Maxima and GNU Octave. They recommend that if you are going to write new modules (with more recent efficient algorithms, for example) for them, then that you DO NOT LOOK AT, e.g. Matlab code implementing the feature, even though that code also uses publicly known algorithms.
This is not a new idea/issue. If you are going to use algorithms from a code, and you don't want to comply with the terms of the license, then you yourself should not look at the code (or at least, never admit that you did), but have someone else extract the algorithm for you, and use that algorithm, never having looked at a specific implementation.
You can claim as much as you like that you only ripped of "ideas and algorithms", but the courts (and opposing lawyers) will find it otherwise.
There's really no direct political comparison, but the closest example to BSD vs. GPL in that context is a Libertarian vs. Social Democrat example.
As a due-paying member of FSF and a self-described libertarian, I resent that comparison.
Copyleft is no more contrary to concept of freedom ("real freedom" or not) than prohibition of slavery is.
I like to liken BSD (and its relatives) to a society where everything is so ... laissez-faire that one person can own another person (by contract or payment of money), whereas GPL would be a society that decided that freedom to restrict others' freedom is not a freedom.
Apple can study its source code and implement what they want into their own kernel in much less time;
But that would be illegal. Copyright infringement isn't limited to verbatim copying (or copying and then modification) of codes. If you study the codes covered under GPL and write "your own" code based on what you learn from codes, chances are, courts will decide that "your own" code is in fact a derivative work of the GPL-covered work.
This is actually an area where programmers have (or should have) learned to be careful. e.g. For things like hardware drivers, where the spec for a certain hardware may be written into the source code, reasonable precaution demands that the job be divided into two parts: one person writes hardware specs based on the source code, and another person writes completely new driver based on the specs---but the person who looked at the GPL-covered (or any other license, really) code never touches the new code, and the person writing the new code never looks at the GPL-covered code.
Actually, C.S. Lewis had been converted to Christianity by J.R.R. Tolkien and in fact wrote the Chronicles of Narnia as a sort of Christian allegory.
Er, I thought it was the other way around---I thought C.S. Lewis converted J.R.R. Tolkien to Christianity, and that's why you could read Christian themes into LOTR if you try at all.
As far as I know, C.S. Lewis has always been a Christian writer.
And yet some of these same people who insist Reiser may be innocent are some of the same people who criticize others for doubting Global Warming.
I don't know about others, but I don't criticize others for doubting global warming. Heck, I've been telling everyone that while it's true that the global temperature has risen by a fraction of a degree over last century or so, there is no conclusive evidence that this rise is due to human activities.
Healthy skepticism should be employed EVERYWHERE, not selectively. On the other hand, I probably should excuse myself from sitting on the jury of any murder trials, since any doubt is reasonable-enough doubt for me.
I advocate mid-term votes on each of your congresscritters, with ballots such as that below (for each):
Well, this is supposedly why the length of the term is different for different people. Representatives are supposed to be more responsive to the needs of the people (hence they are re-elected every 2 years), while senators are supposed to hold up their principled stance (hence the term of 6 years, immune to short-term fluctuations in popular opinion), while the president is supposed to straddle the middle.
Although, I guess I wouldn't be against cutting the term of representatives down to 1 year, given that things tend to change faster now than it did, oh, 200 years ago, as long as the election logistics can be handled efficiently.
I mean, he knew where the body was buried.
Or his attorney did.
At least until the body is positively identified (perhaps by DNA testing) to be that of Nina Reiser's, for all I know this is some ploy/maneuvering by the defense attorney (who had more than ample time to tell Reiser what he was planning) in order to reduce Reiser's sentence.
He did some odd things after the murder that didn't really help his case, and its now obvious why he did those things. The lesson isn't what you said, its this: don't murder your wife.
No, the lesson is this: don't do odd things after murdering your wife or significant other.
Work computers ? You do know that Avira is free only for personal use, right ? :-)
Well, then I don't feel guilty about replacing it with ClamWin anymore (which does have less features, admittedly). I just got my employer out of potential copyright issues. :)
I'd never install a proprietary software on a computer that I am using, for work or personal uses. (OTOH, I might use something if it happens to be installed ... )
The two statements are not mutually exclusive. And by the way, you already had your coup d'etat. Bush wasn't elected. The electoral college Ohio votes were fraudulent, so it's already happened in your lifetime.
You can call it whatever you want to, but it's not a "military coup".
No, I wouldn't put politicians (of any country) above coup by deceit and fraud (not that I am agreeing with your assertion regarding the last election). But I am saying that the structure of U.S. government makes it IMPOSSIBLE for MILITARY coup to happen---military, at least in U.S., is a tool of the civilian government and has no life of its own, unlike in some other countries.
When the civilian government gets out of hand, we have other means (impeachment, regularly scheduled election, or when all else fails, bloody revolution), but of course, it's another matter altogether whether the citizenry would be willing to use those methods or just sit and whine, as some people are apparently apt to do (I for one believe Bush administration, for all its failings, is legitimate, so I'm not complaining).
Except the car behind doesn't magically stop once it hits you. Sure, you'll get pushed forward into the car in front of you--and then one behind will crush you like a bug between the two of them.
In this case, it's not your mass that matters---it's the strength of the passenger compartment (as I already mentioned: "In either case, assuming that the passenger compartment is strong, the mass of your car itself has no bearing on safety.").
Since you are in contact with car in front of you, for the purpose of analyzing the collision, your mass is now negligible, and whether you get squashed like a bug or not depends whole lot more on how strong your passenger compartment is (and bigger doesn't mean that they made the car with stronger materials), not the mass of your car.
Go learn some physics before you spread FUD.
Why isn't bush willing to protect us from these terrorists?
The Democratic congress. They are not letting him declare war on Canada. Darn those Democrats.
If you have a look at the Whirlpool page, you'll see that every page in the forum is headed by an orange banner, that not only references the AVG problem and suggests users uninstall the software, but also recommends and has direct links to "superior alternatives" such as Avast and Avira.
I wouldn't recommend Avira. I got so annoyed with the popups from Avira (mostly ads with bad English) using the work computer that had Avira installed, I ended up uninstalling it and replacing it with ClamWin.