But I tire of the people who try and use "The science says so! The science!" when they argue to increase governmental power
You're projecting. The science is independent of political argument. And it's the science that political people such as yourself are rejecting BECAUSE of your politics.
It's not possible. The alternative reality of the past 70 years but without nuclear weapons is completely unknowable. It's not something that can be recorded.
Knowing the rules (or rather the lack of them) won't help you when only the oligarchs and the warlords have a decent life. Anarchy is survival of the most ruthless.
It's not even clear what they mean by "quarantined cages", are they talking about physical cages, or some logical storage segment with additional access controls?
What? Google is the last company I'd trust to be honest with me. They stored every search term I put into the Google search box for years without telling me.
A recent example was the claim that Hurricane Sandy was a 1 in 700 year event even though we have at best 150 years of records to back that claim (meaning you can't really claim a frequency o f occurrence of less than 1 in 150 years).
Science and statistics are far more capable than your naive counting approach.
Monckton did create a jigsaw that he thought would be unsolvable, and bet his house on it by offering a million pound prize. It was solved in less than a year and the buffoon lost his house.
And I suspect that when the north one does disappear in a summer not so far in the future, that will be an inflection point in denialism. The lack of a north point is hard to deny. Even to oneself.
but could they have foreseen that the advent of nuclear weapons would produce the longest period of peace between industrialized nations in the past several centuries?
The Earth's climate has always been changing and will be changing while the planet is alive.
Correct.
It is uncertain whether humans have measurable influence on those changes at all
Incorrect. CO2 emissions are very measurable, as are the resulting temperature changes.
Even if we suppose there is a measurable influence it is still uncertain whether the human influence is setting the current trends
No, it's beyond reasonable doubt.
there have been warm ages in the past, too. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period.
The fact that there have been natural variations in the past and present does nothing to take away the fact that there are current changes in climate as a result of CO2 emissions.
When I was growing up, i.e. the 70ies and the 80ies, the climate scare was The Big Bad Global Cooling.
No it wasn't. That's a myth. It is known that ice ages are cyclic and in thousands of years one will likely turn up. This is not a "climate scare". AGW is happening over the lifespans of individual people, not thousands of years.
Then the scare mongers got smarter and now the scare is The Big Bad Climate Change Whatever It Is
You're scientifically naive and a conspiracy theorist.
You do realize that even if "The climate is changing" is true, the perpetual - sometimes implied, sometimes expressed - follow-up "...and therefore we must have more socialism and more power to the government" is not a scientific conclusion, right?
You do realise it's YOU that's arguing politics rather than science, don't you.
It is a legal document and as it has a culture around it it likely is an entire forum.
Culture?!
It's not a legal document. It has no standing in the law. Copyright does.
Some people might interpret the GPL as giving them the copyright holder's permission to distribute the item in question. And they might argue that in court. But as it stands there's no guarantee. The person that put the GPL on the item might not have the copyright on it all. And if they don't, the GPL won't save you.
It's irrelevant. The person uploading it claims they have the rights to distribute it. They may be claiming that wrongly or fraudulently, but that's a case of copyright law, not the GPL.
As far as I can tell this is still a GPLv2 violation though:
Which doesn't matter now that VLC is dual licensed. So long as the Mozilla license is compatible, they're fine.
Of course they need the permission of all the authors of code included in the iOS bundle to add that Mozillsa license. Which explains why some of it was rewritten. Clearly they've rewritten the bits where either the authorship is not clear, or the authorship is known but permission to add the Mozilla license was not given.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course you are. You're confusing counting with statistics.
I know that imperfect as this system and any other is, it beats the fuck-you-buddy world of anarchy.
But I tire of the people who try and use "The science says so! The science!" when they argue to increase governmental power
You're projecting. The science is independent of political argument. And it's the science that political people such as yourself are rejecting BECAUSE of your politics.
It's not possible. The alternative reality of the past 70 years but without nuclear weapons is completely unknowable. It's not something that can be recorded.
Knowing the rules (or rather the lack of them) won't help you when only the oligarchs and the warlords have a decent life. Anarchy is survival of the most ruthless.
The answer to failed or insufficient regulation is not to stop regulating completely. It's to regulate better.
It's not even clear what they mean by "quarantined cages", are they talking about physical cages, or some logical storage segment with additional access controls?
It's a fiction. So does it really matter?
Due diligence does not require exploring every possibility. But it requires more than taking the perpetrator's word for it.
What? Google is the last company I'd trust to be honest with me. They stored every search term I put into the Google search box for years without telling me.
That would incorrect.
As for no standing in law, all licenses have standing in law.
No they don't.
No, it's just a indicator of a person that understands arithmetic but not statistics.
What, all of them? Or are we talking particular generals, who also suffer from the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
A recent example was the claim that Hurricane Sandy was a 1 in 700 year event even though we have at best 150 years of records to back that claim (meaning you can't really claim a frequency o f occurrence of less than 1 in 150 years).
Science and statistics are far more capable than your naive counting approach.
Monkton?
Monckton did create a jigsaw that he thought would be unsolvable, and bet his house on it by offering a million pound prize. It was solved in less than a year and the buffoon lost his house.
The polar ice caps are still here.
And I suspect that when the north one does disappear in a summer not so far in the future, that will be an inflection point in denialism. The lack of a north point is hard to deny. Even to oneself.
but could they have foreseen that the advent of nuclear weapons would produce the longest period of peace between industrialized nations in the past several centuries?
Logical fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The Earth's climate has always been changing and will be changing while the planet is alive.
Correct.
It is uncertain whether humans have measurable influence on those changes at all
Incorrect. CO2 emissions are very measurable, as are the resulting temperature changes.
Even if we suppose there is a measurable influence it is still uncertain whether the human influence is setting the current trends
No, it's beyond reasonable doubt.
there have been warm ages in the past, too. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period.
The fact that there have been natural variations in the past and present does nothing to take away the fact that there are current changes in climate as a result of CO2 emissions.
When I was growing up, i.e. the 70ies and the 80ies, the climate scare was The Big Bad Global Cooling.
No it wasn't. That's a myth. It is known that ice ages are cyclic and in thousands of years one will likely turn up. This is not a "climate scare". AGW is happening over the lifespans of individual people, not thousands of years.
Then the scare mongers got smarter and now the scare is The Big Bad Climate Change Whatever It Is
You're scientifically naive and a conspiracy theorist.
Atomic scientists didn't create anything either. They discovered.
You might be confusing science with engineering.
It is not science if your hypothesis is not falsifiable.
Bullshit. Popper's philosophy is not that which defines science.
You do realize that even if "The climate is changing" is true, the perpetual - sometimes implied, sometimes expressed - follow-up "...and therefore we must have more socialism and more power to the government" is not a scientific conclusion, right?
You do realise it's YOU that's arguing politics rather than science, don't you.
It is a legal document and as it has a culture around it it likely is an entire forum.
Culture?!
It's not a legal document. It has no standing in the law. Copyright does.
Some people might interpret the GPL as giving them the copyright holder's permission to distribute the item in question. And they might argue that in court. But as it stands there's no guarantee. The person that put the GPL on the item might not have the copyright on it all. And if they don't, the GPL won't save you.
It's irrelevant. The person uploading it claims they have the rights to distribute it. They may be claiming that wrongly or fraudulently, but that's a case of copyright law, not the GPL.
"This is the 14th beta of VLC for Android."
How appropriate for an app on a Google platform.
As far as I can tell this is still a GPLv2 violation though:
Which doesn't matter now that VLC is dual licensed. So long as the Mozilla license is compatible, they're fine.
Of course they need the permission of all the authors of code included in the iOS bundle to add that Mozillsa license. Which explains why some of it was rewritten. Clearly they've rewritten the bits where either the authorship is not clear, or the authorship is known but permission to add the Mozilla license was not given.