I'm talking about what the word was intended to mean, not about the modern sense it may have.
From Wikipedia:
"homeopathy"... comes from the Greek: [one Greek term], "-like" and [another Greek term], "suffering"
I think this matches what I take homoeopathy to be about, i.e. administering something that causes the same symptoms as the disease. (I'm just assuming it's accurate, I'll accept correction from a better reference.)
People are vaccinated against rabies after being bitten, because presumable they may be already infected.
Okay, I stand corrected.
"Homeo" means "same" and vaccination embodies the idea of using the disease itself to prevent more serious consequences.
Yes, but vaccination works on the principle of administering a weakened form of the cause before the disease spreads, whereas the principles of homoeopathy fail to focus on the the cause of the illness, or on using treatment as a prevention rather than a cure.
Indeed, I agree this view of homeopathy is prevalent. It might work in some cases (e.g. eliciting a desired response to the symptoms), but it would also be a misnomer: that is what I would call allopathy.
Going by the above definition, "like suffering", I think the term is accurate. But really, I don't think it matters. We still "dial" or "ring" people on our phones, even though our phones no longer have either dials or bells. The meaning of words change, and I think the term "homoeopathy" (or "homeopathy" in the USA) has a well established meaning beyond the sum of its parts, so to speak.
Besides, placebos also work now and then.
Okay, I accept that, but I think the discussion was about healing properties beyond the placebo effect.
My whole point is fighting quacks is not a mere case of fighting concepts. Some people jump out of the chair like trained monkeys after hearing words like "homeopathy", "piracy" etc. I'd like people to be more mindful of their own thinking process.
I think that's a fair call, but I don't think homoeopathy was a good choice for making that point.
It would be antithetical to not sanction an homeopathy course by denying the very own subjective origin of universities as a whole.
That doesn't sound right to me. Would it be antithetical for a nation to not sanction bigotry if it historically had unenlightened views on women and/or blacks? I think it's better to recognise what's wrong with the past, and stop doing it.
Vaccination = homeopathy....
Homeopathy is the old "similia similibus curantur": that is what vaccination is. You're teaching one's immune system to deal with an unknown enemy by showing it the enemy (weakened or in smaller numbers).
Are you serious? I'm not sure because I posted essentially the same point as a joke. I can think of a couple of important differences. Vaccination is done prior to illness, so "showing the enemy (weakened)" allows the immune system to prepare before it arrives. Homoeopathy is done during the illness, when "showing the enemy" doesn't make sense any more. We can see it already anyway, because it's already here. Also, while vaccination does focus on "showing the enemy", homoeopathy is content to show something else that produces symptoms similar to those produced by "the enemy", even if the underlying cause is different, so there's no reason to suppose it would help, even if it was done in advance.
I have no problem with a course teaching about what anti-vaccine supporters claim if it helps doctors debunk it in person and helps them dismantle it in person. I hope this is what it is about.
Looking briefly at the links, I get the impression the course didn't present pro-vaccine views. I think it's a missed opportunity really. The idea of homeopathy is to use diluted poisons to cure illnesses which have symptoms that the undiluted poisons cause, and the idea of vaccines is to use weakened microbes to prevent illnesses that the unweakened microbes cause--there's actually some superficial similarity there. If I had to promote homeopathy, I'd want to play that up.
Make all of the seats "at large," and give every representative power proportional to the number of votes received
This would make representation fairer in one way (share of power), but in another way it would make representation less fair (share of representatives). Ideally I think politicians should act as our legal teams in parliament--stating the best case for our points of view. If some groups have less representation, then they're less likely to have their case stated well. If you want something like this, I think it may be better to use Single Transferable Vote.
I'm not even sure the idea would avoid party politics. To be successful, a candidate must have a platform they can explain to voters, the funding to pitch it, and hope that a vote for them won't be wasted (although something like STV may alleviate the last one). Parties can provide momentum on all counts, which can continue as representatives come and go, that independents don't have. I think it's possible that even with the system you suggest, voters may continue to vote for representatives put forward by parties.
Also, I think a big problem with politics is that politicians always come in to politics with an agenda rather than an open mind. They may be good people for arguing a case, but are, IMHO bad people for deciding it. I'd like to see politicians put forward the case for legislation, and randomly selected juries vote on it.
Yes, but that is only a requirement on what is honestly a derived work (changes made to that BSD-licensed code), as opposed to a requirement that all of the source code in the entire project be licensed under the BSD license.
It's a requirement that applies to works derived from BSD-licensed code, as GPL requirements apply to works derived from GPL-licensed code. It's up to the courts to decide what counts as derived works. e.g. If the courts decide that copying APIs is not fair use, then technically programs linked against BSD-licensed libraries must adhere to BSD terms (although they may also impose additional terms, as this isn't disallowed). On the other hand, if the courts decide copying APIs is fair use then the GPL doesn't apply to programs linked against GPL-licensed libraries (even if it would like to).
GPL 3.0 section 5 part C:
You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.
This viral component is what the Antiviral License doesn't allow.
Okay, I see what you're saying, but AFAIK, this actually means a whole lot less than you think.
Re "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License":
If I take a large BSD-licensed work, and a large GPL3-licensed work (3 because I think 2 might actually be incompatible), and combine them with a little glue, then I must license my "new work" under the GPL3, but the license I am offering really only applies to that little bit of glue, and nothing else. Moreover, there's nothing stopping me from dual-licensing that little bit of glue under a BSD license too, in which case authors of further derived works can choose whether to use my little bit of glue under the GPL3 or the BSD.
None of this makes too much practical difference, because in any case, both the BSD requirements and the GPL requirements apply to the new work, since it contains both BSD and GPL code. The difference is essentially cosmetic. It means I must write that my "new work" is licensed under the GPL, regardless of how little that may mean.
This suggests to users that the work may be used without any conditions that aren't listed in the GPL, which I am required to ensure is true, but for a different reason. What actually requires me to ensure that no further conditions apply besides those listed in the GPL is the explicit requirement that I do precisely that--"You may not impose any further restrictions...". The only way I can do this is by checking that conditions of other licenses I use are also conditions of the GPL.
Re "This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.", (my emphasis)
I think perhaps the point here is supposed to be that, for instance, a Java program could be distributed in a single.jar archive file, or as a bunch of separate.class files, but it won't necessarily make a difference to what is considered a "work" under law. Even if you distribute a program as separate files, if the courts decide that the program together constitutes a work, then license conditi
Here's a link to the list of over 100 domain names Jason Kneen has for sale on his website: Domains.
The one's I've checked are either inactive or pretty generic (some camera-related links at digitalfreak.co.uk, "parked by GoDaddy" at edit-anywhere.com, and a default WordPress page at foryourpocket.com), except workbetter.com, which redirects to his website. Coincidence?
I think this license is based on a flawed premise.
The only requirement of this license is that the license of any source code covered by this license must not be modified. This license has no requirements about what license you choose for any other code you use alongside the code you receive under this license. Therefore you may use it alongside public domain and BSD licensed code and compile all of the code into a single program, but you may not include any GNU GPL code because the GNU GPL requires that you relicense any code which is compiled into the same program (which it considers to be a derivitive work) under the GNU GPL, which is the only thing that the Antiviral License does not give you permission to do. The Antiviral License
AFAIK, the BSD licenses, like the GPL licenses (and copyright licenses generally) do require that derived works be bound by their terms. In the case of the 3-clause BSD license, these are: retention of the license in derived sources and binaries (1 clause each) and no use of contributors' names to promote derived works without permission.
Notable conditions of the GPL licenses are: provision of source code (in GPL2 section 3 / GPL3 section 6) and no further restrictions beyond the GPL (in GPL2 section 6 / GPL3 section 10). I expect a license could made be compatible with BSD-like licenses and incompatible with GPL-like ones by disallowing one or both of these conditions on derived works. In particular, the latter one may fit what the author was trying to achieve.
As it is, the requirement "the license of any source code covered by this license must not be modified" sounds to me much like the "no further restrictions" clause of the GPL that I think the author was trying to avoid, while "no requirements about what license you choose for any other code you use alongside" seems to say the opposite. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this license may either disallow use with any other licenses, or do nothing at all.
If this is the sort of thing you want, I think it would be better to use the CC0. It has the same goal, but has been checked by lawyers, so there's a better chance it will work as intended.
Going by a recent Slashdot story, the answer seems to be "maybe". APIs have been ruled copyrightable, at least in the USA, and linking requires using APIs, but it's not been ruled whether the use of APIs could constitute fair use.
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that if the use of APIs were ruled to constitute fair use, then the practical consequences would be the same as if APIs had been ruled not to be copyrightable.
It seems to me the first teaser and the interview have both been edited. The teaser seems to skip a bit from the interview, and the interview seems to skip a bit from the teaser. I suspect this makes the interview sound much worse than it otherwise would have.
There are three problems with having women in the laboratory, according to the Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry. That's what he told a conference of senior women scientists and journalists in South Korea, and it didn't go down terribly well.
We caught up with Sir Tim a few hours ago as he was about to board a plane back to the UK. He told us his comments had been intended as a joke, but that he stood by some of what he said.
Sir Tim (recording):
[This section seems to be clipped from the interview] I did mean the part about having... having trouble with girls. I mean it is true that people... I have fallen in love with people in the lab, and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and it's very disruptive to the science. Um, because it's... it's terribly important that in the lab, people are, sort of, on... on a level playing field, and I found that, um, you know, these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.
[A section from the interview seems to be clipped from here]
I mean I'm really really sorry that I caused any offence, that's awful. I'm, I certainly didn't mean... I just meant to be honest actually.
Reporter:
Well, it's a subject we'll return to later in the programme. We'll be speaking to one of his colleagues, and to a scientist who was at that speech.
02:08:58 Teaser
Reporter:
The British Nobel prize winner Sir Tim Hunt has insisted he was joking when he said that women scientists shouldn't work with men, because they fall in love with male colleagues, and cry when criticised. Sir Tim, who was awarded the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine, made the comments to a group of female scientists in South Korea, but he told this program he didn't mean to offend anyone.
Sir Tim (recording):
I came after three women, who very nicely thanked the organisers for the... for the lunch, and I said it was odd that they had asked a man to make any comments. I'm really sorry that I... I said what I said, it was a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists, and what was intended as a sort of light-hearted ironic comment, apparently was interpreted deadly seriously by my audience.
If you 'divide' something into zero pieces, it simply ceases to exist.
No, if you divide something into an infinite number of pieces, it becomes infinitesimal, which is infinitely close to ceasing to exist, but not quite there. There's no way to divide something into zero pieces. However you divide it, you're always going to have some pieces. You'd need it to already not exist before you tried dividing it into zero pieces.
But if that were the case, it would be a different story, because there's an infinite number of ways of dividing nothing into zero pieces: You can put all of it in each piece, or you can put none of it in each piece, or, in general, for any number x, you can put x of it in each piece. The problem then, is which way you ought to do it. It might be that there is a particular way you ought to do it, and you don't know which way that is, or, on the other hand, it might not matter which way you do it, so long as you do it some way.
Most PhD and Masters graduates are women nowadays. In many of the top research fields the majority of faculty are women.
Which raises the question, is this gender bias at work, or are men just dumb? Or, well, not exactly, but at least, can we reasonably simply assume this is the result of gender bias without considering there might be another cause? Personally, I suspect it's not the result of gender bias. Actually, in an e-mail exchange (with another male) way back, I was told in no uncertain terms that the poor educational performance of boys at school is due to gender bias, and I didn't buy it then. I suspected he just assumed that, because he couldn't accept that girls might simply outperform boys on merit. But... isn't that kind of the same situation here? The authors simply assumed gender bias. In this case I suspect they're probably right, but still, that's not how you're supposed to write papers is it?
..and yet, there are numerous examples of women succeeding all over the world despite the supposed bias. This is the problem I have with the argument. If women are so hurt by the supposed gender bias issue that they're unable to work in those fields, how is it that so many women manage to work in those fields?
This doesn't follow. There are numerous examples of rocket launches despite gravity. This doesn't disprove gravity, it just shows that rockets can overcome gravity.
The problem with arguments like yours is that everything ceases to be examined objectively.
Well, yes, this happens, but let's not fool ourselves, not examining things objectively is the normal human condition. And the reviewer did himself no favours. It's all too easy to write him off.
I'm not saying meritless popular views ought to be believed, I'm saying meritless popular views ought to be addressed. And apparently you agree, because you took the time to respond to me, despite apparently considering my views meritless.
It is also possible that the flying spaghetti monster is at fault.
Come on man, without at least something more than, "hey, anything is possible" it doesn't even deserve consideration. Its that kind of uncritical acceptance of societal norms as having legitimacy that is the problem.
In a sense, I think you ought to be right. YHWH seems barely more plausible to me than the FSM, and in some sense not rightly worth the effort to address. But then, the FSM is a thought experiment to show the absurdity of belief in gods like YHWH, which is to say someone went to the effort of inventing him for the purpose of criticising societal norms. And just now, aren't you addressing something you consider shouldn't be worth addressing, simply on the basis that someone believes it, not because you perceive it to have any merit? And actually, when you think about it, doesn't that disprove your point?
The difference is that the paper is on the experience of women. It's a paper on women suffering not a paper on men being advantaged [if that's not confusing]. If two guys write this paper they're not writing about how much better the male experience is by looking at it from the male perspective. That would be weird. Maleness is defaultness. The paper in on how the female experience is not the same as the male experience. It's less. Thus it makes sense to suggest an actual female researcher contribute to the effort.
Contribute, definitely, as the primary author, quite possibly, but to consider male experience as without merit doesn't seem right to me. Surely female disadvantage and male advantage are flipsides of the same coin. I don't see how it could be any more valid to consider female disadvantage without regard to male experience, than to consider male advantage without regard to female experience. Neither could exist without the other, because each is only meaningful in relation to the other.
To say that maleness is the default, I think, may be to say something like males are often unaware that they are in a position of privilege, and that female experience is different, whereas females are aware of both. This being the case, I guess it makes sense to consider male experience as the point of comparison, and male input as without merit. There may well be something in this, but can we assume it to be an absolute? Can we really discount a male perspective as having nothing to contribute to gender issues? Surely that can't be right.
I'm not saying papers on gender issues must have a male co-author. It may well be reasonable to say "A male co-author might be good, but it's not practical, we don't have an appropriately qualified male available, we think the paper makes a valid contribution, and a male perspective can be put forward in another paper." But to say "There's no merit in a male perspective."? It seems to me this is effectively what is being said. The angle is something like "Women can be authors every bit as well as men.", which in most cases I would agree with, but in relation to the difference between female and male experience, surely both perspectives have something to contribute.
And, although their suggestion about male superiority is pretty unpleasant at multiple levels, it *is* a possible explanation for observational survey results. None of us might like that, but it's possible.
I agree with this statement, with the surrounding qualifications you gave it. Regardless of whether it's an unpleasant and apparently unlikely explanation that has historically been used without reasonable supporting evidence, it is at least theoretically possible, and should have been mentioned in the paper for completeness. (I'm assuming it wasn't mentioned, since the reviewer felt a need to raise it.) It's also possible that females are intellectually superior on average, but anti-female bias has a larger effect on the outcome, or of course, that gender has a negligible effect on intelligence either way. Academic papers should be thorough, though, and consider every possible explanation.
As many have pointed out, if the genders were reversed, this would be playing out in a very different way. Imagine, for example, that males submitted the paper, and the reviewer suggested they have a female co-author. Many would see it as rational, if extreme suggestion, that almost certainly would not have resulted in this outcome.
I guess the issue here is probably that, given the previous suggestion, there'd be a suspicion that the suggestion of bringing in a male co-author was motivated by the thought that "men are more intelligent". That would be a poor justification. But I agree that getting a male perspective is not a poor justification. If we accept that a female perspective may be helpful when considering gender issues, then it's reasonable to suppose that a male perspective may also be helpful (although yes, it might not always practical, and given that this is a paper, to which others can respond, not legislation to which others will be bound, it's not essential).
From the quotes I've seen, the reviewer appears to have lacked tact (or otherwise really was biased, as they have been taken to be). But regardless of whether they displayed poor judgement in their approach, or the suggestion they raised was false, or even provably false, I agree they were right that it should have been considered in the paper.
The real lesson to be learned? *This* is the real scientific process. Not too pretty. It's why you should be skeptical of all the scientific research you read.
Well, yes, but unfortunately whenever this gets said, some will take it to support the idea that something else is better. Best to always qualify this I think. Science is still "the tallest midget in the circus".
As a Christian i don't consider anyone as "a-theist" because "Theos" exist with/in everyone - but even as just a Greek, and even accepting the neologism "the-ist", "a-theist" still has a problematic meaning of, not just "not believing" but "without God" (that's what happens when "-religious- atheist" define themselves... they need God even for that!).
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't speak Greek), but doesn't "atheist" mean without gods generally, rather than just without Yahweh specifically? You wouldn't say pre-Christian Greeks who believed in the Greek pantheon were atheist?
Anything using the.net runtime is using significant amounts of windows assets. Just because you can't outright see it doesn't mean you're not using someone else's work. While we're at it, you're also using a compiler and an IDE you probably had nothing to do with the creation of.
I'm not sure how this fits into the larger argument, but.NET stuff can be developed and run on Mono.
Your little rant is funny, and also pointless. "Gamers" are, have always been and always will be nothing more than consumers, and obsessive ones at that. They're like fashion victims, with the difference that fashion victims are actually cool to have around. Gamers are obsessive-compulsive pathetic excuses for human beings, loud-mouthed, filthy and socially deficient. Unpleasant to have around and a constant cause for embarassment. Just like all nerds.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but assuming so, there's a difference between some (or even most) and all, and when people are involved, it's an important difference.
What? Most certainly is not a copyright infringement. I don't care for "let's play" or whatever, but don't start with that crap. Games aren't for show, and when someone is playing the game, it's interactive. Games aren't movies, so any game company saying they can't be shown is a fucking dildo.
Essentially, you seem to be saying that copyright law doesn't forbid "let's play", because there would be no sense in it doing so. Much as I might agree with your premise, however, your conclusion simply doesn't follow.
Scientifically, however, a fertilized egg is the first point in the process where you have a new individual. That's a rather solid line to use, even if it is rather inconvenient for certain purposes. Of course, depending you your point of view, that may be a benefit of the line, not a problem.
A lot of ethical considerations stem from what you consider to be a "human". While you can set that point anywhere you want to, the problem is also that you can set that point anywhere you want to. With the ability to genetically engineer humans, it's far too convenient to state that they're not human until you're done altering their genome at the most obvious point of intervention.
I think it's a mind that defines a person, that a mind depends on neuron activity in the cerebral cortex, and that this activity, as evidenced by brain waves, commences after 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks of pregnancy). This seems far more relevant to me than when there is an individual body. Also, twinning can occur, or a fertilised egg may produce only a placenta, so I don't think it's accurate to call fertilisation "the first point in the process where you have a new individual" even if you are only interested in bodies.
I always thought that Vampires were Zombies with slightly less messy eating habits and a hell of a lot more culture
AFAIK, the heyday of belief in vampires began with the worrying of livestock in Europe. Somehow people decided that those attacking the livestock had climbed out of graves in the night, and that it would be a good idea to dig up graves to look for them. Bodies dug up appeared to have fresh blood around their mouths, and their bellies swollen from their meals. Fingernails and facial hair appeared to have grown, and when bodies were stabbed in the chest to kill them, they let out a sound like a scream, apparently confirming they had been alive.
The blood around their mouths had actually been pushed out of their chests by bloating due to internal decomposition. Fingernails and facial hair appeared to have grown because the skin had shrivelled. The sound was due to air being forced out of the lungs with the impact of the stabbing.
OTOH, zombies originated in Central America. People believed dead were seemingly brought back to life, although without their mental faculties intact, and with the expectation that they would work for those keeping them alive.
Actually they had been poisoned to cause the appearance of death, and were subsequently kept drugged to impair their mental faculties.
So actually zombies have better eating habits than vampires (vampires worry livestock, whereas zombies eat somewhat normally, if with less coordination), and however little culture zombies may have, vampires give them no competition (whenever vampires aren't out worrying livestock, they're lying motionless under the ground).
(Although this is just my understanding, and I'm not an expert on either vampires or zombies.)
Slashdot Mirror
From Wikipedia:
I think this matches what I take homoeopathy to be about, i.e. administering something that causes the same symptoms as the disease. (I'm just assuming it's accurate, I'll accept correction from a better reference.)
Okay, I stand corrected.
Yes, but vaccination works on the principle of administering a weakened form of the cause before the disease spreads, whereas the principles of homoeopathy fail to focus on the the cause of the illness, or on using treatment as a prevention rather than a cure.
Going by the above definition, "like suffering", I think the term is accurate. But really, I don't think it matters. We still "dial" or "ring" people on our phones, even though our phones no longer have either dials or bells. The meaning of words change, and I think the term "homoeopathy" (or "homeopathy" in the USA) has a well established meaning beyond the sum of its parts, so to speak.
Okay, I accept that, but I think the discussion was about healing properties beyond the placebo effect.
I think that's a fair call, but I don't think homoeopathy was a good choice for making that point.
That doesn't sound right to me. Would it be antithetical for a nation to not sanction bigotry if it historically had unenlightened views on women and/or blacks? I think it's better to recognise what's wrong with the past, and stop doing it.
Are you serious? I'm not sure because I posted essentially the same point as a joke. I can think of a couple of important differences. Vaccination is done prior to illness, so "showing the enemy (weakened)" allows the immune system to prepare before it arrives. Homoeopathy is done during the illness, when "showing the enemy" doesn't make sense any more. We can see it already anyway, because it's already here. Also, while vaccination does focus on "showing the enemy", homoeopathy is content to show something else that produces symptoms similar to those produced by "the enemy", even if the underlying cause is different, so there's no reason to suppose it would help, even if it was done in advance.
Looking briefly at the links, I get the impression the course didn't present pro-vaccine views. I think it's a missed opportunity really. The idea of homeopathy is to use diluted poisons to cure illnesses which have symptoms that the undiluted poisons cause, and the idea of vaccines is to use weakened microbes to prevent illnesses that the unweakened microbes cause--there's actually some superficial similarity there. If I had to promote homeopathy, I'd want to play that up.
This would make representation fairer in one way (share of power), but in another way it would make representation less fair (share of representatives). Ideally I think politicians should act as our legal teams in parliament--stating the best case for our points of view. If some groups have less representation, then they're less likely to have their case stated well. If you want something like this, I think it may be better to use Single Transferable Vote.
I'm not even sure the idea would avoid party politics. To be successful, a candidate must have a platform they can explain to voters, the funding to pitch it, and hope that a vote for them won't be wasted (although something like STV may alleviate the last one). Parties can provide momentum on all counts, which can continue as representatives come and go, that independents don't have. I think it's possible that even with the system you suggest, voters may continue to vote for representatives put forward by parties.
Also, I think a big problem with politics is that politicians always come in to politics with an agenda rather than an open mind. They may be good people for arguing a case, but are, IMHO bad people for deciding it. I'd like to see politicians put forward the case for legislation, and randomly selected juries vote on it.
It's a requirement that applies to works derived from BSD-licensed code, as GPL requirements apply to works derived from GPL-licensed code. It's up to the courts to decide what counts as derived works. e.g. If the courts decide that copying APIs is not fair use, then technically programs linked against BSD-licensed libraries must adhere to BSD terms (although they may also impose additional terms, as this isn't disallowed). On the other hand, if the courts decide copying APIs is fair use then the GPL doesn't apply to programs linked against GPL-licensed libraries (even if it would like to).
Okay, I see what you're saying, but AFAIK, this actually means a whole lot less than you think.
Re "You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License":
If I take a large BSD-licensed work, and a large GPL3-licensed work (3 because I think 2 might actually be incompatible), and combine them with a little glue, then I must license my "new work" under the GPL3, but the license I am offering really only applies to that little bit of glue, and nothing else. Moreover, there's nothing stopping me from dual-licensing that little bit of glue under a BSD license too, in which case authors of further derived works can choose whether to use my little bit of glue under the GPL3 or the BSD.
None of this makes too much practical difference, because in any case, both the BSD requirements and the GPL requirements apply to the new work, since it contains both BSD and GPL code. The difference is essentially cosmetic. It means I must write that my "new work" is licensed under the GPL, regardless of how little that may mean.
This suggests to users that the work may be used without any conditions that aren't listed in the GPL, which I am required to ensure is true, but for a different reason. What actually requires me to ensure that no further conditions apply besides those listed in the GPL is the explicit requirement that I do precisely that--"You may not impose any further restrictions...". The only way I can do this is by checking that conditions of other licenses I use are also conditions of the GPL.
Re "This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged.", (my emphasis)
I think perhaps the point here is supposed to be that, for instance, a Java program could be distributed in a single .jar archive file, or as a bunch of separate .class files, but it won't necessarily make a difference to what is considered a "work" under law. Even if you distribute a program as separate files, if the courts decide that the program together constitutes a work, then license conditi
Here's a link to the list of over 100 domain names Jason Kneen has for sale on his website: Domains.
The one's I've checked are either inactive or pretty generic (some camera-related links at digitalfreak.co.uk, "parked by GoDaddy" at edit-anywhere.com, and a default WordPress page at foryourpocket.com), except workbetter.com, which redirects to his website. Coincidence?
I think this license is based on a flawed premise.
AFAIK, the BSD licenses, like the GPL licenses (and copyright licenses generally) do require that derived works be bound by their terms. In the case of the 3-clause BSD license, these are: retention of the license in derived sources and binaries (1 clause each) and no use of contributors' names to promote derived works without permission.
Notable conditions of the GPL licenses are: provision of source code (in GPL2 section 3 / GPL3 section 6) and no further restrictions beyond the GPL (in GPL2 section 6 / GPL3 section 10). I expect a license could made be compatible with BSD-like licenses and incompatible with GPL-like ones by disallowing one or both of these conditions on derived works. In particular, the latter one may fit what the author was trying to achieve.
As it is, the requirement "the license of any source code covered by this license must not be modified" sounds to me much like the "no further restrictions" clause of the GPL that I think the author was trying to avoid, while "no requirements about what license you choose for any other code you use alongside" seems to say the opposite. I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this license may either disallow use with any other licenses, or do nothing at all.
If this is the sort of thing you want, I think it would be better to use the CC0. It has the same goal, but has been checked by lawyers, so there's a better chance it will work as intended.
Going by a recent Slashdot story, the answer seems to be "maybe". APIs have been ruled copyrightable, at least in the USA, and linking requires using APIs, but it's not been ruled whether the use of APIs could constitute fair use.
SCOTUS Denies Google's Request To Appeal Oracle API Case
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that if the use of APIs were ruled to constitute fair use, then the practical consequences would be the same as if APIs had been ruled not to be copyrightable.
It seems to me the first teaser and the interview have both been edited. The teaser seems to skip a bit from the interview, and the interview seems to skip a bit from the teaser. I suspect this makes the interview sound much worse than it otherwise would have.
BBC Today 10/06/2015
01:15:45 Teaser
Reporter:
It's now quarter past seven.
There are three problems with having women in the laboratory, according to the Nobel laureate Sir Tim Hunt. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry. That's what he told a conference of senior women scientists and journalists in South Korea, and it didn't go down terribly well.
We caught up with Sir Tim a few hours ago as he was about to board a plane back to the UK. He told us his comments had been intended as a joke, but that he stood by some of what he said.
Sir Tim (recording):
[This section seems to be clipped from the interview] I did mean the part about having... having trouble with girls. I mean it is true that people... I have fallen in love with people in the lab, and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me, and it's very disruptive to the science. Um, because it's... it's terribly important that in the lab, people are, sort of, on... on a level playing field, and I found that, um, you know, these emotional entanglements made life very difficult.
[A section from the interview seems to be clipped from here]
I mean I'm really really sorry that I caused any offence, that's awful. I'm, I certainly didn't mean... I just meant to be honest actually.
Reporter:
Well, it's a subject we'll return to later in the programme. We'll be speaking to one of his colleagues, and to a scientist who was at that speech.
02:08:58 Teaser
Reporter:
The British Nobel prize winner Sir Tim Hunt has insisted he was joking when he said that women scientists shouldn't work with men, because they fall in love with male colleagues, and cry when criticised. Sir Tim, who was awarded the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology or medicine, made the comments to a group of female scientists in South Korea, but he told this program he didn't mean to offend anyone.
Sir Tim (recording):
I came after three women, who very nicely thanked the organisers for the... for the lunch, and I said it was odd that they had asked a man to make any comments. I'm really sorry that I... I said what I said, it was a very stupid thing to do in the presence of all those journalists, and what was intended as a sort of light-hearted ironic comment, apparently was interpreted deadly seriously by my audience.
02:21:30 Story
[Which I didn't transcribe.]
No, if you divide something into an infinite number of pieces, it becomes infinitesimal, which is infinitely close to ceasing to exist, but not quite there. There's no way to divide something into zero pieces. However you divide it, you're always going to have some pieces. You'd need it to already not exist before you tried dividing it into zero pieces.
But if that were the case, it would be a different story, because there's an infinite number of ways of dividing nothing into zero pieces: You can put all of it in each piece, or you can put none of it in each piece, or, in general, for any number x, you can put x of it in each piece. The problem then, is which way you ought to do it. It might be that there is a particular way you ought to do it, and you don't know which way that is, or, on the other hand, it might not matter which way you do it, so long as you do it some way.
Can he pull little girls hair?
That's not fair... She was 26, and he thought it was consentual.
John Key: Ponytail pull not sexist
Most PhD and Masters graduates are women nowadays. In many of the top research fields the majority of faculty are women.
Which raises the question, is this gender bias at work, or are men just dumb? Or, well, not exactly, but at least, can we reasonably simply assume this is the result of gender bias without considering there might be another cause? Personally, I suspect it's not the result of gender bias. Actually, in an e-mail exchange (with another male) way back, I was told in no uncertain terms that the poor educational performance of boys at school is due to gender bias, and I didn't buy it then. I suspected he just assumed that, because he couldn't accept that girls might simply outperform boys on merit. But... isn't that kind of the same situation here? The authors simply assumed gender bias. In this case I suspect they're probably right, but still, that's not how you're supposed to write papers is it?
..and yet, there are numerous examples of women succeeding all over the world despite the supposed bias. This is the problem I have with the argument. If women are so hurt by the supposed gender bias issue that they're unable to work in those fields, how is it that so many women manage to work in those fields?
This doesn't follow. There are numerous examples of rocket launches despite gravity. This doesn't disprove gravity, it just shows that rockets can overcome gravity.
The problem with arguments like yours is that everything ceases to be examined objectively.
Well, yes, this happens, but let's not fool ourselves, not examining things objectively is the normal human condition. And the reviewer did himself no favours. It's all too easy to write him off.
To put it more simply:
I'm not saying meritless popular views ought to be believed, I'm saying meritless popular views ought to be addressed. And apparently you agree, because you took the time to respond to me, despite apparently considering my views meritless.
It is also possible that the flying spaghetti monster is at fault.
Come on man, without at least something more than, "hey, anything is possible" it doesn't even deserve consideration. Its that kind of uncritical acceptance of societal norms as having legitimacy that is the problem.
In a sense, I think you ought to be right. YHWH seems barely more plausible to me than the FSM, and in some sense not rightly worth the effort to address. But then, the FSM is a thought experiment to show the absurdity of belief in gods like YHWH, which is to say someone went to the effort of inventing him for the purpose of criticising societal norms. And just now, aren't you addressing something you consider shouldn't be worth addressing, simply on the basis that someone believes it, not because you perceive it to have any merit? And actually, when you think about it, doesn't that disprove your point?
The difference is that the paper is on the experience of women. It's a paper on women suffering not a paper on men being advantaged [if that's not confusing]. If two guys write this paper they're not writing about how much better the male experience is by looking at it from the male perspective. That would be weird. Maleness is defaultness. The paper in on how the female experience is not the same as the male experience. It's less. Thus it makes sense to suggest an actual female researcher contribute to the effort.
Contribute, definitely, as the primary author, quite possibly, but to consider male experience as without merit doesn't seem right to me. Surely female disadvantage and male advantage are flipsides of the same coin. I don't see how it could be any more valid to consider female disadvantage without regard to male experience, than to consider male advantage without regard to female experience. Neither could exist without the other, because each is only meaningful in relation to the other.
To say that maleness is the default, I think, may be to say something like males are often unaware that they are in a position of privilege, and that female experience is different, whereas females are aware of both. This being the case, I guess it makes sense to consider male experience as the point of comparison, and male input as without merit. There may well be something in this, but can we assume it to be an absolute? Can we really discount a male perspective as having nothing to contribute to gender issues? Surely that can't be right.
I'm not saying papers on gender issues must have a male co-author. It may well be reasonable to say "A male co-author might be good, but it's not practical, we don't have an appropriately qualified male available, we think the paper makes a valid contribution, and a male perspective can be put forward in another paper." But to say "There's no merit in a male perspective."? It seems to me this is effectively what is being said. The angle is something like "Women can be authors every bit as well as men.", which in most cases I would agree with, but in relation to the difference between female and male experience, surely both perspectives have something to contribute.
And, although their suggestion about male superiority is pretty unpleasant at multiple levels, it *is* a possible explanation for observational survey results. None of us might like that, but it's possible.
I agree with this statement, with the surrounding qualifications you gave it. Regardless of whether it's an unpleasant and apparently unlikely explanation that has historically been used without reasonable supporting evidence, it is at least theoretically possible, and should have been mentioned in the paper for completeness. (I'm assuming it wasn't mentioned, since the reviewer felt a need to raise it.) It's also possible that females are intellectually superior on average, but anti-female bias has a larger effect on the outcome, or of course, that gender has a negligible effect on intelligence either way. Academic papers should be thorough, though, and consider every possible explanation.
As many have pointed out, if the genders were reversed, this would be playing out in a very different way. Imagine, for example, that males submitted the paper, and the reviewer suggested they have a female co-author. Many would see it as rational, if extreme suggestion, that almost certainly would not have resulted in this outcome.
I guess the issue here is probably that, given the previous suggestion, there'd be a suspicion that the suggestion of bringing in a male co-author was motivated by the thought that "men are more intelligent". That would be a poor justification. But I agree that getting a male perspective is not a poor justification. If we accept that a female perspective may be helpful when considering gender issues, then it's reasonable to suppose that a male perspective may also be helpful (although yes, it might not always practical, and given that this is a paper, to which others can respond, not legislation to which others will be bound, it's not essential).
From the quotes I've seen, the reviewer appears to have lacked tact (or otherwise really was biased, as they have been taken to be). But regardless of whether they displayed poor judgement in their approach, or the suggestion they raised was false, or even provably false, I agree they were right that it should have been considered in the paper.
The real lesson to be learned? *This* is the real scientific process. Not too pretty. It's why you should be skeptical of all the scientific research you read.
Well, yes, but unfortunately whenever this gets said, some will take it to support the idea that something else is better. Best to always qualify this I think. Science is still "the tallest midget in the circus".
As a Christian i don't consider anyone as "a-theist" because "Theos" exist with/in everyone - but even as just a Greek, and even accepting the neologism "the-ist", "a-theist" still has a problematic meaning of, not just "not believing" but "without God" (that's what happens when "-religious- atheist" define themselves... they need God even for that!).
Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't speak Greek), but doesn't "atheist" mean without gods generally, rather than just without Yahweh specifically? You wouldn't say pre-Christian Greeks who believed in the Greek pantheon were atheist?
Anything using the .net runtime is using significant amounts of windows assets. Just because you can't outright see it doesn't mean you're not using someone else's work. While we're at it, you're also using a compiler and an IDE you probably had nothing to do with the creation of.
I'm not sure how this fits into the larger argument, but .NET stuff can be developed and run on Mono.
Your little rant is funny, and also pointless. "Gamers" are, have always been and always will be nothing more than consumers, and obsessive ones at that. They're like fashion victims, with the difference that fashion victims are actually cool to have around. Gamers are obsessive-compulsive pathetic excuses for human beings, loud-mouthed, filthy and socially deficient. Unpleasant to have around and a constant cause for embarassment. Just like all nerds.
I'm not sure if you're serious, but assuming so, there's a difference between some (or even most) and all, and when people are involved, it's an important difference.
What? Most certainly is not a copyright infringement. I don't care for "let's play" or whatever, but don't start with that crap. Games aren't for show, and when someone is playing the game, it's interactive. Games aren't movies, so any game company saying they can't be shown is a fucking dildo.
Essentially, you seem to be saying that copyright law doesn't forbid "let's play", because there would be no sense in it doing so. Much as I might agree with your premise, however, your conclusion simply doesn't follow.
Scientifically, however, a fertilized egg is the first point in the process where you have a new individual. That's a rather solid line to use, even if it is rather inconvenient for certain purposes. Of course, depending you your point of view, that may be a benefit of the line, not a problem.
A lot of ethical considerations stem from what you consider to be a "human". While you can set that point anywhere you want to, the problem is also that you can set that point anywhere you want to. With the ability to genetically engineer humans, it's far too convenient to state that they're not human until you're done altering their genome at the most obvious point of intervention.
I think it's a mind that defines a person, that a mind depends on neuron activity in the cerebral cortex, and that this activity, as evidenced by brain waves, commences after 20 weeks gestation (18 weeks of pregnancy). This seems far more relevant to me than when there is an individual body. Also, twinning can occur, or a fertilised egg may produce only a placenta, so I don't think it's accurate to call fertilisation "the first point in the process where you have a new individual" even if you are only interested in bodies.
I always thought that Vampires were Zombies with slightly less messy eating habits and a hell of a lot more culture
AFAIK, the heyday of belief in vampires began with the worrying of livestock in Europe. Somehow people decided that those attacking the livestock had climbed out of graves in the night, and that it would be a good idea to dig up graves to look for them. Bodies dug up appeared to have fresh blood around their mouths, and their bellies swollen from their meals. Fingernails and facial hair appeared to have grown, and when bodies were stabbed in the chest to kill them, they let out a sound like a scream, apparently confirming they had been alive.
The blood around their mouths had actually been pushed out of their chests by bloating due to internal decomposition. Fingernails and facial hair appeared to have grown because the skin had shrivelled. The sound was due to air being forced out of the lungs with the impact of the stabbing.
OTOH, zombies originated in Central America. People believed dead were seemingly brought back to life, although without their mental faculties intact, and with the expectation that they would work for those keeping them alive.
Actually they had been poisoned to cause the appearance of death, and were subsequently kept drugged to impair their mental faculties.
So actually zombies have better eating habits than vampires (vampires worry livestock, whereas zombies eat somewhat normally, if with less coordination), and however little culture zombies may have, vampires give them no competition (whenever vampires aren't out worrying livestock, they're lying motionless under the ground).
(Although this is just my understanding, and I'm not an expert on either vampires or zombies.)