Serious question - will there be a GPLv3 fork of the Linux kernel? I know that Torvalds is dead against the idea, but an independent fork could be created if enough kernel contributors would agree to dual-licence their code.
Sure, unless there happen to be some major kernel contributors who wrote huge chunks of the kernel who are dead set against the idea, that could work.
I don't think you can call something a "fork" anymore when you have to rewrite the entire thing from scratch to avoid having it be a derivative work of Linus' original code.
Well, we can already build computers that can do mathematical calculations billions of times faster than any human can; by your logic shouldn't this mean that we can certainly improve our own brains to do the same thing?
Your certainty is misplaced. Computer engineering is a whole lot easier than upgrades through neurosurgery. For one thing, we barely understand how the brain works as it is, and there's no reason to think that improvements in computers will correlate in any way whatsoever with improvements in brain engineering.
If the Earth suddenly stops orbiting the Sun, I can confidently say that no one will care about the defintion of "planet" anymore. But since I can't imagine a situation in which we suddenly stopped being in orbit around the Sun that doesn't involve the planet soon afterwards being sucked into the Sun and crushed, I'd say "yes".
But the computers wanted to be free. I hope whoever it was gets caught so they can be given a medal for liberating those poor computers from people who thought they could be "owned".
Very few believers in evolution posit that those who reject evolution do so because they have smaller brains. We're more likely to ascribe your ignorance to harmful memes forced upon you by abusive parents or religious figures. Hope this helps.
He could have at least cut out a hour of discussion over the 3 movies about reforging a sword that Aragorn had at the start of the first book. And don't even get me started about the Paths of the Dead.
Should automakers be responsible for car accident fatalities? I'm not suggesting that GM builds machines that a drunk person can use to kill people on purpose; they want to build a functioning vehicle that any idiot can drive, but certainly the should be held liable for not installing breathalyzers and some sort of radar-driven anticrash technology in every vehicle before selling them, no?
You don't understand how lobbying works. It's the corporations that need to hand bags of cash to government officials, not the other way around. After the corporation hands the bags of cash to the government official, the official arranges for a contract that pays back the bribe 100-fold, and everyone wins. Well, everyone but the taxpayers.
A giant, annoying ad floating over the page and they still can't earn enough money to hire a copyeditor who can spell "Microsoft" correctly? How can I subscribe to this fine publication?
Wow. Looking into that bill on Thomas, I found a ton of other bills titled something to the effect (like the one you reference above) of "To amend the Help America Vote Act to require voter-verified paper ballots and for other purposes", one of which, HR 939, was last seen when it was being referred to the subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. I didn't read the full text of the legislation, but from the summary it had nothing to do with any of those 3 things. Was this a message from the leadership of the committee that anyone who wants to reform elections is a terrorist?
GP said: The problem with the current crop of voting machines is that they do not produce a paper ballot that is the actual counted ballot.
If they count the paper ballots, it doesn't matter what the machine is recording internally.
I'd go so far as to say that it might be enough to just count some of the paper ballots, at random, to make sure they match what the electronic records say they should. If not, recount all of the paper and throw out the electronic records. And start indicting (and/or summarily executing; your standards for how draconian society should be over blatant manipulation of voting should be may vary) executives from voting machine companies.
I attribute this to the high incidence of Seasonal Affective Disorder among scientists and inventors.
And clearly all of the ones in the southern hemisphere just feel sorry for their northern collegues and put off any significant discoveries until after the new year.
Considering I replaced the battery on my 1st generation iPod (ordered the day they were announced) just fine, I'm not sure what you mean by "still", but according to a comment on this very article, the Nano doesn't have a user-replaceable battery. I don't own a Nano, so I didn't bother to do any further research to see if this was a troll or not.
I, for one, will drag you into a protracted legal battle if you try to turn my Slashdot comments into a book and sell it for a profit.
As for influencing opinions, I hardly think even the most fascistic copyright fanatics in the RIAA, MPAA, or BSA would argue that a changed opinion is a derivative work.
You're think of BitTorrent, not Limewire (unless Limewire became a BT client in the 5 years since I actually looked at it).
In any event, the law doesn't care if you're technically only sending people "useless" bunches of data if it's entirely obvious that your intent was to provide a copyrighted song and the person downloading had the clear intent to receive one. Try getting 5 people to each give a nonlethal dose of a drug to someone at the same time as you, with the cumulative effect of a fatal overdose, and come back after you're acquitted of murder.
Yes, and it literally couldn't be the other way around; Microsoft couldn't try to sue a little guy with no resources for selling GPL'ed software based on antitrust law, because by definition nothing the little guy with no resources does can possibly violate antitrust law.
Umm, if you think that someone with no resources could be successfully prosecuted for violating antitrust laws, you probably don't understand antitrust law at all. If you're too small to harm your competitors though anti-competitive activity, then by definition you can't violate antitrust law.
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon?
No. Even absolute proof that the moon was about 6000 years old would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang theory. No one thinks that the solar system is anywhere near as old at the universe itself, and the age of the objects in the solar system is miniscule compared to the time since the Big Bang.
In any case, if your conjecture about "geologically active" = "created recently" was remotely plausible, why would you need to look at the moon at all? The Earth has plenty of active volcanos that you can go and look at, which by your logic would "prove" that the Earth isn't "old".
Slashdot Mirror
And what if the chance is 1 in (insert number of stars in the Universe here) or less?
I just love when people try to use "probability theory" to argue for something when they can't possibly know the probabilities involved.
Serious question - will there be a GPLv3 fork of the Linux kernel? I know that Torvalds is dead against the idea, but an independent fork could be created if enough kernel contributors would agree to dual-licence their code.
Sure, unless there happen to be some major kernel contributors who wrote huge chunks of the kernel who are dead set against the idea, that could work.
I don't think you can call something a "fork" anymore when you have to rewrite the entire thing from scratch to avoid having it be a derivative work of Linus' original code.
Well, we can already build computers that can do mathematical calculations billions of times faster than any human can; by your logic shouldn't this mean that we can certainly improve our own brains to do the same thing?
Your certainty is misplaced. Computer engineering is a whole lot easier than upgrades through neurosurgery. For one thing, we barely understand how the brain works as it is, and there's no reason to think that improvements in computers will correlate in any way whatsoever with improvements in brain engineering.
If the Earth suddenly stops orbiting the Sun, I can confidently say that no one will care about the defintion of "planet" anymore. But since I can't imagine a situation in which we suddenly stopped being in orbit around the Sun that doesn't involve the planet soon afterwards being sucked into the Sun and crushed, I'd say "yes".
But the computers wanted to be free. I hope whoever it was gets caught so they can be given a medal for liberating those poor computers from people who thought they could be "owned".
Very few believers in evolution posit that those who reject evolution do so because they have smaller brains. We're more likely to ascribe your ignorance to harmful memes forced upon you by abusive parents or religious figures. Hope this helps.
He could have at least cut out a hour of discussion over the 3 movies about reforging a sword that Aragorn had at the start of the first book. And don't even get me started about the Paths of the Dead.
Or, at the very least, not make us sit through a 25-minute slow pan over some forest in the middle of a scene that took up about 2 pages in the books.
Should automakers be responsible for car accident fatalities? I'm not suggesting that GM builds machines that a drunk person can use to kill people on purpose; they want to build a functioning vehicle that any idiot can drive, but certainly the should be held liable for not installing breathalyzers and some sort of radar-driven anticrash technology in every vehicle before selling them, no?
It was more the ability to turn out the right voters that helped them, rather than an overall increase in turnout.
You don't understand how lobbying works. It's the corporations that need to hand bags of cash to government officials, not the other way around. After the corporation hands the bags of cash to the government official, the official arranges for a contract that pays back the bribe 100-fold, and everyone wins. Well, everyone but the taxpayers.
A giant, annoying ad floating over the page and they still can't earn enough money to hire a copyeditor who can spell "Microsoft" correctly? How can I subscribe to this fine publication?
It's a nickname.
Where's your complaint about the inconsistency in the summary using both "UK" and "Britain"?
Wow. Looking into that bill on Thomas, I found a ton of other bills titled something to the effect (like the one you reference above) of "To amend the Help America Vote Act to require voter-verified paper ballots and for other purposes", one of which, HR 939, was last seen when it was being referred to the subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. I didn't read the full text of the legislation, but from the summary it had nothing to do with any of those 3 things. Was this a message from the leadership of the committee that anyone who wants to reform elections is a terrorist?
GP said: The problem with the current crop of voting machines is that they do not produce a paper ballot that is the actual counted ballot.
If they count the paper ballots, it doesn't matter what the machine is recording internally.
I'd go so far as to say that it might be enough to just count some of the paper ballots, at random, to make sure they match what the electronic records say they should. If not, recount all of the paper and throw out the electronic records. And start indicting (and/or summarily executing; your standards for how draconian society should be over blatant manipulation of voting should be may vary) executives from voting machine companies.
I attribute this to the high incidence of Seasonal Affective Disorder among scientists and inventors.
And clearly all of the ones in the southern hemisphere just feel sorry for their northern collegues and put off any significant discoveries until after the new year.
Considering I replaced the battery on my 1st generation iPod (ordered the day they were announced) just fine, I'm not sure what you mean by "still", but according to a comment on this very article, the Nano doesn't have a user-replaceable battery. I don't own a Nano, so I didn't bother to do any further research to see if this was a troll or not.
Yes, and I'm happy to license my copyrighted comments to them for free, but that doesn't mean I'm giving them away to anyone and everyone for free.
I, for one, will drag you into a protracted legal battle if you try to turn my Slashdot comments into a book and sell it for a profit.
As for influencing opinions, I hardly think even the most fascistic copyright fanatics in the RIAA, MPAA, or BSA would argue that a changed opinion is a derivative work.
Well, except for those hiding under a mountain of used iPod batteries
I, for one, can't wait to get my hands on a Zune, with its new infinitely-rechargable battery technology. It uses a nickel-adamantium alloy, right?
You're think of BitTorrent, not Limewire (unless Limewire became a BT client in the 5 years since I actually looked at it).
In any event, the law doesn't care if you're technically only sending people "useless" bunches of data if it's entirely obvious that your intent was to provide a copyrighted song and the person downloading had the clear intent to receive one. Try getting 5 people to each give a nonlethal dose of a drug to someone at the same time as you, with the cumulative effect of a fatal overdose, and come back after you're acquitted of murder.
Yes, and it literally couldn't be the other way around; Microsoft couldn't try to sue a little guy with no resources for selling GPL'ed software based on antitrust law, because by definition nothing the little guy with no resources does can possibly violate antitrust law.
but it is made by Microsoft, who is not nearly as cool as Apple or even Sony etc when it comes to consumer electronics.
This is probably why the multi-page Zune ad in the most recent issue of Rolling Stone makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of Microsoft.
How sad is it when you have to run away from your own established brand to try to sell something?
Umm, if you think that someone with no resources could be successfully prosecuted for violating antitrust laws, you probably don't understand antitrust law at all. If you're too small to harm your competitors though anti-competitive activity, then by definition you can't violate antitrust law.
Okay, with that out of the way, my question is this: Does this tend to support creationism then (at least as opposed to a big bang with an extremely old universe), as a dead moon would likely be much older than a "recently" geologically active moon?
No. Even absolute proof that the moon was about 6000 years old would have nothing whatsoever to do with the Big Bang theory. No one thinks that the solar system is anywhere near as old at the universe itself, and the age of the objects in the solar system is miniscule compared to the time since the Big Bang.
In any case, if your conjecture about "geologically active" = "created recently" was remotely plausible, why would you need to look at the moon at all? The Earth has plenty of active volcanos that you can go and look at, which by your logic would "prove" that the Earth isn't "old".