Do you think that Google's 'sneak peak' search access increases sales or violates copyrights on intellectual property?
Let me ask a different question: Given the benefits Google's actions give to publishers generally, do these attacks on Google amount to an anticompetitive measure to prevent the growth of small publishers?
He does have a choice. He can insist that all new contributions to the code are dual licensed for the GPLv2 and GPLv3. Since everything in the kernel is still licensed under GPLv2 there is no problem here. Sure some of the provisions of the GPLv3 won't be effective until everything is under GPLv3 and the GPLv2 license is removed but this is a valid long term migration strategy.
Linus has claimed that he likes the GPLv2 because it was a "tit for tat" license and the GPLv3 is less so and then he says this:
one of the stated goals of the FSF with the GPLv3 was to expressly design the new license to be compatible with the Apache license. That sounds like a great thing, doesn't it? It sounds nice. 'Compatible' is such a nice word. Let's just all sing songs about it around the camp-fire.
But if you actually look behind all the nice words, it's just a polite way of saying, 'We want to hijack the code of those projects that use the Apache license, too, and turn that code into GPLv3. Because the definition of 'compatible with the GPLv3' is strictly one-way compatibility. You can convert Apache-licensed projects into the GPLv3, but not the other way. Doesn't sound quite as much as a "Kumbaya" moment any more when you put it that way, now, does it?
Well if GPLv3 was convertable to the Apache license it wouldn't be a "tit for tat" license at all anymore would it? I don't know what he is complaining about here because he is complaining about something if addressed would make the license even less appealing to him. It looks more like he's desperately searching for FUD fling about to divert attention from the fact he can't actually find fault with the new license.
See, by having the freedom to choose which charities to give money to you can give to causes that you support.
This sort of system has horrible distortionary effects. Tsuanmi relief and conservation of fluffy cute animals get the bulk of the donations because it is easy to convince people to donate to these causes while poverty in third world nations and conservation of ugly creatures get pennies.
Important causes will get neglected as popular causes suck all the money up.
Voting should be compulsory - if only to guarantee that the government can't take short cuts by, for example:
only providing enough polling booths for the turnout based on the previous election
turning voters away at voting day based on some dubious criteria
disenfranchising working voters by holding elections on working days
The benefit of maintaining the integrity of the voting system (from the point of the government properly administering an election) far outweighs the cost to the "right not to vote".
Compulsory voting also diminishes the influence of ideologically extremists who vote not because they are informed.
The ballot should be preferential and the first candidate should be "The ballot ends here", so if someone numbers the ballot straight down, it is an indication that the voter votes for no one solving your "scary" scenario.
You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement.
The act of password protecting a file does not violate the license. The act of distributing a password protected file to someone doesn't violate the license provided the password is distributed as well and the means to exract the unprotected original is available. None of these are inconsistent the license agreement because they do not take away from the recipient the means to use or distribute the material as granted by the license.
Some licenses explicitly allow for translations also so that isn't inconsistent either.
So now you've got 3rd party software interacting with a 3rd party hardware driver. Exactly what is it you think the OS should be doing to prevent badly written software from asking a potentially badly written driver to do with the hardware?
Option 1: Zero third-party drivers. With Linux, you could have GPLed drivers included with the distribution and maintained with the kernel.
Google was right to comply with the court order to hand over information it had collected provided it was very specific and constitutional. We shouldn't expect corporations to be in the business breaking the law.
However, Google was in the wrong for collecting identifying information in the first place. That is where my gripe is. They should be using technical measures to filter out identifying information before it reaches their database. That might include hashing IP addresses for instance so that equality comparisons can be made - but the original IP address rendered unobtainable.
Before anyone gets any funny ideas, the moon does not recede at a constant rate from the Earth. The recession occurs because of the transfer of rotation momentum from the Earth's spin to the moon through tidal forces.
The tidal forces today are someone exaggerated the positions of the continents cause a lot of resistance to the tidal movement of the ocean. Think continents of Asia/Africa and the Americas, these continents make it very difficult for tides to move around the Earth as they would without obstacles.
What happens is the continents apply a force on the tides and the tides being a large body of water in turns applies a force on the moon effectively flinging the moon further and further away.
If the continents were positions differently as it would in the case of say the super-continent Pangaea, the continents would be less of a resistance to the movement of tides and the moon would recede at a much lower rate - more than enough to put the moon at a safe distance from the Earth.
So as funny as it is, don't take it seriously people... please.
I don't see why GPLv2 and GPLv3 code can't co-exist in the same project. Linus can require that all future contributions to the kernel are GPLv3. Eventually the parts of the kernel that remain GPLv2 will be in the minority and can be systematically replaced.
imagine a world where there's an open source electronic voting software package that everybody used... wouldn't you want the voting machine to be able to reject software that wasn't say verified by a voting auditing board and signed?
the same thing could be true of open source ATM software. would you want your ATM to whine like HAL having his memory yanked when malware was loaded onto it, or would you want it to refuse to run?
And imagine that in such a world, the Bank bought such ATMs (ie. ones protected by cryptographic keys and preloaded with signed GPLv3 electronic ATM software). In this case the ATM machine vendor would be compelled by the GPLv3 to provided the cryptographic keys to the bank. Providing the bank with the keys does not compromise the ATMs.
The same goes for voting machines. The vendor is only compelled to give the keys to its customer, in this case the government institution responsible for running elections.
Couldn't the compact itself state the terms of its own termination, eg. through a sunset clause "This compact shall cease to be effective on xx/xx/xxxx" or some other trigger "This compact shall cease to be effective if x% of participating states agree to its termination".
In the same way that corporations can hurt individual workers more than their workers as a whole, Microsoft can hurt individual states much more than it can hurt the EU as a whole.
It's time states in the EU consider standing in solidarity with each other rather than be knocked off one by one.
He's curious if the mouse's brain is built from human cells instead of mouse, how that will affect its development -- will the cells work more like human brain cells (given the source), or mouse brain cells (given the environment)?
I know what you mean, but why human brain cells in particular? Could the brain cells of another animal not be chosen to demonstrate the same principle?
I wonder if the reasoning of the religious conservatives leads to the conclusion that women who are unfortunate enough to have a biological predisposition to miscarriage are murdering by simply trying to have a baby.
I wonder if that same reasoning leads to the conclusion that when two eggs are fertilise and together continue to form a single being (aka [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28an imal%29 chimera]), if murder has taken place. It seems, so: two potentials for life and the outcome is only one. Where did the other go?
What would happen if we discover that adult or cord blood stems cells themselves have a potential for life?
It is not inconceivable because human cells time and time again have been shown to be more plastic than originally thought.
You are right in saying there is no place to draw a line. But by when you say "It just seems intrinsically wrong to experiment on a living cell with human potential.", you are in fact drawing one.
It is really no difference if one "forgets" a delete in C++ somewhere or one forgets a x = null; in Java somewhere, but the Java program won't crash indeterministic, thats a difference.
It's precisely this problem in C++ that lead to the development of programming styles such as RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialisation). RAII when used religiously helps eliminate accidental or forgotten deletes.
Too bad though if you're given the task of debugging code written by someone not familiar with this concept.
One last thing - if you are Australian and interested in IT related policy issues (mandating open file formats, IT procurement policies, censorship etc) please consider voting for the Australian Democrats - if not for the House of Reps then the Senate.
The issue is we are in danger of reaching a point like we did around 1982 where virtually nobody purchased software for the Apple ][ any longer - they just copied it. It was commonly believed by people in the software industry that any new game would sell two copies - one on the east coast and one on the west coast and everyone would then get copies from the myriad BBS systems. Console games (cartridges - much harder to copy) were the thing then, until the PC Jr. failed and triggered another mini-crash.
Which, by the way, demonstrates that a technical solution can be successful if done properly and also ignores that non-cartridge games today are also successful.
That is already happening in China with like a 98% piracy rate.
In other words, a country where piracy does not primarily occur over the internet!
They couldn't do these things accurately in quantities greater than three. It is surprising. I'd think that just visually people of any language could group items up to six at least.
It makes me wonder why they could not have devised something creative by considering two quantities of three to represent six. Then they could remember six as three and three. Surely if I showed them three sticks in my left hand as well as three sticks in my right hand, they'd be able to reciprocate.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me ask a different question: Given the benefits Google's actions give to publishers generally, do these attacks on Google amount to an anticompetitive measure to prevent the growth of small publishers?
Keep your morals off my body, keep your smoke out of my lungs. That sounds totally consistent with me.
He does have a choice. He can insist that all new contributions to the code are dual licensed for the GPLv2 and GPLv3. Since everything in the kernel is still licensed under GPLv2 there is no problem here. Sure some of the provisions of the GPLv3 won't be effective until everything is under GPLv3 and the GPLv2 license is removed but this is a valid long term migration strategy.
This sort of system has horrible distortionary effects. Tsuanmi relief and conservation of fluffy cute animals get the bulk of the donations because it is easy to convince people to donate to these causes while poverty in third world nations and conservation of ugly creatures get pennies.
Important causes will get neglected as popular causes suck all the money up.
only providing enough polling booths for the turnout based on the previous election
turning voters away at voting day based on some dubious criteria
disenfranchising working voters by holding elections on working days
The benefit of maintaining the integrity of the voting system (from the point of the government properly administering an election) far outweighs the cost to the "right not to vote".
Compulsory voting also diminishes the influence of ideologically extremists who vote not because they are informed.
The ballot should be preferential and the first candidate should be "The ballot ends here", so if someone numbers the ballot straight down, it is an indication that the voter votes for no one solving your "scary" scenario.
The act of password protecting a file does not violate the license. The act of distributing a password protected file to someone doesn't violate the license provided the password is distributed as well and the means to exract the unprotected original is available. None of these are inconsistent the license agreement because they do not take away from the recipient the means to use or distribute the material as granted by the license.
Some licenses explicitly allow for translations also so that isn't inconsistent either.
Option 1: Zero third-party drivers. With Linux, you could have GPLed drivers included with the distribution and maintained with the kernel.
Option 2: Usermode drivers.
However, Google was in the wrong for collecting identifying information in the first place. That is where my gripe is. They should be using technical measures to filter out identifying information before it reaches their database. That might include hashing IP addresses for instance so that equality comparisons can be made - but the original IP address rendered unobtainable.
Lets see:
So:
And then you could compound them into more descriptive terms like this:
What would Pluto be? A Terraterrasol.
Simple.
And here's the link that explains it.
The tidal forces today are someone exaggerated the positions of the continents cause a lot of resistance to the tidal movement of the ocean. Think continents of Asia/Africa and the Americas, these continents make it very difficult for tides to move around the Earth as they would without obstacles.
What happens is the continents apply a force on the tides and the tides being a large body of water in turns applies a force on the moon effectively flinging the moon further and further away.
If the continents were positions differently as it would in the case of say the super-continent Pangaea, the continents would be less of a resistance to the movement of tides and the moon would recede at a much lower rate - more than enough to put the moon at a safe distance from the Earth.
So as funny as it is, don't take it seriously people ... please.
But bearing in mind that TiVo could have use other equally effective measures to protect users without compromising their freedoms.
I don't see why GPLv2 and GPLv3 code can't co-exist in the same project. Linus can require that all future contributions to the kernel are GPLv3. Eventually the parts of the kernel that remain GPLv2 will be in the minority and can be systematically replaced.
the same thing could be true of open source ATM software. would you want your ATM to whine like HAL having his memory yanked when malware was loaded onto it, or would you want it to refuse to run?
And imagine that in such a world, the Bank bought such ATMs (ie. ones protected by cryptographic keys and preloaded with signed GPLv3 electronic ATM software). In this case the ATM machine vendor would be compelled by the GPLv3 to provided the cryptographic keys to the bank. Providing the bank with the keys does not compromise the ATMs.
The same goes for voting machines. The vendor is only compelled to give the keys to its customer, in this case the government institution responsible for running elections.
So explain to me why this is so bad?
Couldn't the compact itself state the terms of its own termination, eg. through a sunset clause "This compact shall cease to be effective on xx/xx/xxxx" or some other trigger "This compact shall cease to be effective if x% of participating states agree to its termination".
It's time states in the EU consider standing in solidarity with each other rather than be knocked off one by one.
I know what you mean, but why human brain cells in particular? Could the brain cells of another animal not be chosen to demonstrate the same principle?
I wonder if the reasoning of the religious conservatives leads to the conclusion that women who are unfortunate enough to have a biological predisposition to miscarriage are murdering by simply trying to have a baby. I wonder if that same reasoning leads to the conclusion that when two eggs are fertilise and together continue to form a single being (aka [http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28an imal%29 chimera]), if murder has taken place. It seems, so: two potentials for life and the outcome is only one. Where did the other go?
What would happen if we discover that adult or cord blood stems cells themselves have a potential for life?
It is not inconceivable because human cells time and time again have been shown to be more plastic than originally thought.
You are right in saying there is no place to draw a line. But by when you say "It just seems intrinsically wrong to experiment on a living cell with human potential.", you are in fact drawing one.
It's precisely this problem in C++ that lead to the development of programming styles such as RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialisation). RAII when used religiously helps eliminate accidental or forgotten deletes.
Too bad though if you're given the task of debugging code written by someone not familiar with this concept.
And if you vote for the Australian Democrats, but disagree with Family First be careful, because the Australian Democrats (and all the other parties except the Australian Greens) have preferenced Family First.
To be safe, vote below the line.
More information here: Election 2004 Candidates and Parties
In particular, look under the "Group Voting Ticket" section which contains information on where your preferences will go if you vote above the line.
Must be a new innovation. Uber-high quality singles on DVDs.
Which, by the way, demonstrates that a technical solution can be successful if done properly and also ignores that non-cartridge games today are also successful.
That is already happening in China with like a 98% piracy rate.
In other words, a country where piracy does not primarily occur over the internet!
I convinced my company to use Mediawiki at work for collaboration. We never looked back.
It makes me wonder why they could not have devised something creative by considering two quantities of three to represent six. Then they could remember six as three and three. Surely if I showed them three sticks in my left hand as well as three sticks in my right hand, they'd be able to reciprocate.