Are there really so few geek girls out there that they can't even make a TOP 10 list, and need to pad it out with Lisa Simpson and Paris "throw up in my face" Hilton ? How insulting can you get - if they really couldn't think of more than 8 real, live, girls, then even Trinity would have been a better choice.
Well, I think it is pretty safe to say that they both invented it independently. But for sure, Pavel deserves whatever recognition (and cash!) he can get. Sony treated him really badly, considering the profit they made from the Walkman. Giving him a reasonable payout 25 years ago would have been the right thing to do.
A famous engineer retires from Sony, now aged 80, after 6 decades working there... and Slashdot frames the headline and summary like he was a disgruntled employee ditching the place! WTF?
How have we fallen so far behind? Through lack of competition. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, U.S. consumers face a "cable and telephone broadband duopoly." And that's more like a best-case scenario: Many households are hostage to a single broadband provider, and nearly one-tenth have no broadband provider at all. For businesses, it's just as bad. The telecom merger spree has left many office buildings with a single provider -- leading to annual estimated overcharges of $8 billion.
I'm not so sure. People went to vote with the understanding that Rumsfeld would be Sec Def for the next 2 years. Isn't misleading the public in that way, actually deceptive? Integrity would be actually doing what they promised last week.
Comparing carbon levels with temperature only makes sense when all other relevant factors are held constant. This is essentially true for the recent (few thousand years) history. It is not true going back 100's of millions of years. Paeloclimatology recognizes this, and that is the basis of Patterson's claim that, over the entire geological record, there is no correlation between carbon levels and temperature. As a statement of fact, that is true. It is also a fact that the average human population over the entire geological record is extremely close to zero. So why is it that, when I look out my window, I see lots of humans?
I'm sorry for you, the overwhelmingly vast consensus of science is not on your side here. That website is mostly kooks.
Did you look at the source of the data? It is your own freedom-loving Republican Capitalist Government!
The Earth is indeed 5 billion years old. For most of that time, the atmosphere was sufficiently different from today that comparing carbon levels with temperature, ignoring all other factors, is silly.
Most of them will reach the goals, I imagine. Russia will have no problems reaching it, they are already below the target. Europe will struggle, but might just make it in time. The penalty for not reaching the target is already built into the agreement, IIRC at the next rounds of reductions the countries that failed the first time are supposed to get a stiffer reduction.
Interesting. I see they didn't include any temperature data since 1985 on their 'causes of climate change' figure. Any reason for that?
I watched part 4 of the video. I saw a whole bunch of out-of-context quotes, and some outright lies. The Antarctic ice sheets are retreating, fast. That is not in dispute, and clearly contradicts the assertion from some paid shill on that video, that the temperature in the Antarctic is decreasing.
Comparing carbon levels 450 million years ago to today is inane, going back that far the atmosphere different enough that comparing a single quantity (cabon versus temperature) is not meaningful. You might as well compare carbon versus temperature on Earth versus Mars!
The reason the extention of the polar bears has been forecast is that it is likely that in the future the arctic ice sheet will melt completely in the summer months.
There was a warmer period ~1000 years ago, but it was no way near enough for the entire arctic ice sheet to vanish. Just a few areas near the coast of Greenland became, for a few years, farmable.
Ice sheets don't melt instantaneously. Give it a few years, Greenland will be green again.
Well, the big battles in Europe have mostly been fought, and it was a victory for the no-software-patents clan.
There is a fear, in some circles, that the eventual unification of European patent law will end up introducing software patents via the back door. The basis for this is that, under current proposals, the European Patent Office would also be responsible for administering the European Patent Court. Basically a fox guarding the henhouse situation, and the scenario is that the EPO would appoint judges that simply interpret the European law that clearly states "software patents are not allowed" to mean "software patents are encouraged". After all, its just a goddamn piece of paper, right?
This is a pretty far-fetched scenario to begin with - such a blatant violation of the EPO's mandate would surely not no unnoticed by the european parliament (which, admittedly, is pretty powerless, but it does have the final say). Also, I had a long discussion about this with a friend that is a patent lawyer (no really, he is actually a nice guy - only a couple of years out of a science PhD in the research group I am currently in), and he says that the pace of the bureaucracy is such that it is a decade at least before the unified European patent law will hapen anyway, at the earliest.
True, we need to remain vigilant, but for the time being, at least, Europe is safe from software patents.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post I think, the issue is not whether you can selectively license patents. That is obvious that is no (legal) problem. The issue is whether, out of a group of companies that have no license agreement, you can slectively sue some of them but not others. To repeat: there has not been any suggestion of M$ making a formal licence agreement with Novell.
Thanks for answering! But I thought libertarianism was much more than that? Like being able to opt out of most (all?) taxes, for example, in exchange for also not receiving services in exchange. And who decides what infringes on the 'equal freedom of others' ? Granted, in most cases it is pretty clear, but there are a whole lot of cases where it is not so clear. What about the tragedy of the commons?
Right, but the point is that Novell have to agree to the GPL in order to distribute their software. But if they have a secret agreement with Microsoft that violates the GPL, they cannot in good faith distribute. Also, the GPL explicitly states that there can be no additional conditions (such as an EULA).
You are talking about licensing. But no one else is. I'm not sure its possible to 'secretly' license a patent, eventually it will come out. Until that happens, and we find out exactly what patents M$ is talking about (or vaporing about), its a vacuous question.
Another interesting question is, what happens if said 'other distro' claims in court that they downloaded the code from a SuSE server?
Well, as far as I know the USA is the only country that recognizes software patents, so realistically most of the world doesn't care anyway. But it would be an interesting court case, because usually you either license patents or you do not, going after one company that has not licensed the patent but not going after another is pretty questionable, and I reckon a court would see it as strange too (although of course IANAL). And there has been no mention of SuSE licencing patents - of course - if there was Microsoft would have to reveal what those patents were, which would itself be very interesting.
Nice theory. Unfortunately, the GPL simply doesn't work like that. Microsoft agreeing not to go after SuSE means they cannot go after the code full stop. Electrons do not distinguish which webserver you download from.
Wow, great post. I'm curious though, I had heard that Europeans, especially dutch, were very wary of surveillence, exactly for that reason: if the government knows everything about you, then they know already who needs to be sent to the camps and who doesn't. Is it just that 70 years is too long to remember all this?
Slashdot Mirror
Are there really so few geek girls out there that they can't even make a TOP 10 list, and need to pad it out with Lisa Simpson and Paris "throw up in my face" Hilton ? How insulting can you get - if they really couldn't think of more than 8 real, live, girls, then even Trinity would have been a better choice.
So, can you point to a subway system where blocking a door doesn't prevent the subway from moving???
Also, some evidence of your claim about the reason for the ban on chewing gum would be appreciated. 'Cause I think you might be wrong.
Well, I think it is pretty safe to say that they both invented it independently. But for sure, Pavel deserves whatever recognition (and cash!) he can get. Sony treated him really badly, considering the profit they made from the Walkman. Giving him a reasonable payout 25 years ago would have been the right thing to do.
A famous engineer retires from Sony, now aged 80, after 6 decades working there ... and Slashdot frames the headline and summary like he was a disgruntled employee ditching the place! WTF?
Free market? Maybe you didn't read the article:
Doesn't sound like much of a free market to me.
Well, he is 74. Maybe it's time to retire?
On the other hand, the Carlyle Group could sure benefit from him as a consultant.
I'm not so sure. People went to vote with the understanding that Rumsfeld would be Sec Def for the next 2 years. Isn't misleading the public in that way, actually deceptive? Integrity would be actually doing what they promised last week.
It is possible for something to be correlated on short timescales, but not correlated on longer timescales.
Going from a correlation to a causation is not trivial, but Patterson seems very confused about this.
Note that even in his own department, Patterson is controversial.
When exactly was the last time the polar ice cap melted?
Comparing carbon levels with temperature only makes sense when all other relevant factors are held constant. This is essentially true for the recent (few thousand years) history. It is not true going back 100's of millions of years. Paeloclimatology recognizes this, and that is the basis of Patterson's claim that, over the entire geological record, there is no correlation between carbon levels and temperature. As a statement of fact, that is true. It is also a fact that the average human population over the entire geological record is extremely close to zero. So why is it that, when I look out my window, I see lots of humans?
I'm sorry for you, the overwhelmingly vast consensus of science is not on your side here. That website is mostly kooks.
Did you look at the source of the data? It is your own freedom-loving Republican Capitalist Government!
The Earth is indeed 5 billion years old. For most of that time, the atmosphere was sufficiently different from today that comparing carbon levels with temperature, ignoring all other factors, is silly.
Most of them will reach the goals, I imagine. Russia will have no problems reaching it, they are already below the target. Europe will struggle, but might just make it in time. The penalty for not reaching the target is already built into the agreement, IIRC at the next rounds of reductions the countries that failed the first time are supposed to get a stiffer reduction.
Interesting. I see they didn't include any temperature data since 1985 on their 'causes of climate change' figure. Any reason for that?
I watched part 4 of the video. I saw a whole bunch of out-of-context quotes, and some outright lies. The Antarctic ice sheets are retreating, fast. That is not in dispute, and clearly contradicts the assertion from some paid shill on that video, that the temperature in the Antarctic is decreasing.
Comparing carbon levels 450 million years ago to today is inane, going back that far the atmosphere different enough that comparing a single quantity (cabon versus temperature) is not meaningful. You might as well compare carbon versus temperature on Earth versus Mars!
The reason the extention of the polar bears has been forecast is that it is likely that in the future the arctic ice sheet will melt completely in the summer months.
There was a warmer period ~1000 years ago, but it was no way near enough for the entire arctic ice sheet to vanish. Just a few areas near the coast of Greenland became, for a few years, farmable.
Ice sheets don't melt instantaneously. Give it a few years, Greenland will be green again.
Actually, there are many many thousands of years of reliable data to go on.
How many countries ratified Kyoto?
Last count was 166. Maybe a few more since then. The only developed countries that have not ratified it are the USA and Australia.
Well, the big battles in Europe have mostly been fought, and it was a victory for the no-software-patents clan.
There is a fear, in some circles, that the eventual unification of European patent law will end up introducing software patents via the back door. The basis for this is that, under current proposals, the European Patent Office would also be responsible for administering the European Patent Court. Basically a fox guarding the henhouse situation, and the scenario is that the EPO would appoint judges that simply interpret the European law that clearly states "software patents are not allowed" to mean "software patents are encouraged". After all, its just a goddamn piece of paper, right?
This is a pretty far-fetched scenario to begin with - such a blatant violation of the EPO's mandate would surely not no unnoticed by the european parliament (which, admittedly, is pretty powerless, but it does have the final say). Also, I had a long discussion about this with a friend that is a patent lawyer (no really, he is actually a nice guy - only a couple of years out of a science PhD in the research group I am currently in), and he says that the pace of the bureaucracy is such that it is a decade at least before the unified European patent law will hapen anyway, at the earliest.
True, we need to remain vigilant, but for the time being, at least, Europe is safe from software patents.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post I think, the issue is not whether you can selectively license patents. That is obvious that is no (legal) problem. The issue is whether, out of a group of companies that have no license agreement, you can slectively sue some of them but not others. To repeat: there has not been any suggestion of M$ making a formal licence agreement with Novell.
Thanks for answering! But I thought libertarianism was much more than that? Like being able to opt out of most (all?) taxes, for example, in exchange for also not receiving services in exchange. And who decides what infringes on the 'equal freedom of others' ? Granted, in most cases it is pretty clear, but there are a whole lot of cases where it is not so clear. What about the tragedy of the commons?
Right, but the point is that Novell have to agree to the GPL in order to distribute their software. But if they have a secret agreement with Microsoft that violates the GPL, they cannot in good faith distribute. Also, the GPL explicitly states that there can be no additional conditions (such as an EULA).
You are talking about licensing. But no one else is. I'm not sure its possible to 'secretly' license a patent, eventually it will come out. Until that happens, and we find out exactly what patents M$ is talking about (or vaporing about), its a vacuous question.
Another interesting question is, what happens if said 'other distro' claims in court that they downloaded the code from a SuSE server?
Well, as far as I know the USA is the only country that recognizes software patents, so realistically most of the world doesn't care anyway. But it would be an interesting court case, because usually you either license patents or you do not, going after one company that has not licensed the patent but not going after another is pretty questionable, and I reckon a court would see it as strange too (although of course IANAL). And there has been no mention of SuSE licencing patents - of course - if there was Microsoft would have to reveal what those patents were, which would itself be very interesting.
Nice theory. Unfortunately, the GPL simply doesn't work like that. Microsoft agreeing not to go after SuSE means they cannot go after the code full stop. Electrons do not distinguish which webserver you download from.
Well, I wasn't discussing libertarianism per se, but only how the two-party system in the USA effectively makes it impossible for them to succeed.
But my question still stands, what, exactly, distinguishes libertarianism from anarchy?
Wow, great post. I'm curious though, I had heard that Europeans, especially dutch, were very wary of surveillence, exactly for that reason: if the government knows everything about you, then they know already who needs to be sent to the camps and who doesn't. Is it just that 70 years is too long to remember all this?