Actually, this has nothing to do with the content of the Twitter feed, and therefore is not really a free speech issue. If you read the actual takedown request, you will find that the Twitter account belongs to an organization that was recently disbanded and its assets (to which the account belongs) being seized by the authorities because its goals and actions were directed at overthrowing the constitutional order.
If you wrongly claim to own the copyright or be the agent of someone who does, there is a penalty under the perjury clause.
Which is what has happened here. Microsoft does not possess any copyright regarding the Wikipedia article on Glock pistols. This is very different from the usual case where overreaching DMCA notices are sent against actual usage of copyrighted material, but where the usage is allowed by law (e.g., under fair use). Here, however, we have the interesting case of a Microsoft representative making a false claim under the penalty of perjury.
TFDMCAN: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I think the big questions are how "quantum" (i.e., coherent) their devices actually are and whether this makes them more useful than their classical counterparts. And, if quantum optimization is a good idea to begin with.
The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.
The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork, but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.
They show relatively clear Rabi oscillations, which are a definite proof of the quantumness of the evolution of their system (which has nothing to do with entanglement). So, yes, this is a genuine qubit, albeit not a perfect one.
Do you have a less-intuitive example of a non-Minkowski space-time that allows FTL but does not have causality issues, that does not fit into one of the counterfactual categories I listed?
Also, as a preference, I tend to ignore metrics like h-indices when evaluating a researcher, as they provide very little evidence for his her her capabilities, let alone the quality of the work.
Suppose you have a position to fill and get several hundred applications. What do you do?
People have used metamaterials to achieve results that seem to violate the laws of physics (such as materials having a negative refractive index [wikipedia.org]). Speculating that such an exotic material could be produced is not hand waving. Just because we don't know how to do something today doesn't mean we'll never figure it out.
Your comparison to metamaterials is interesting. These things work by structuring the medium on scales smaller than the wavelength of the light. On these scales, the laws of geometrical optics break down and one has to use a theory that does not rely on the approximation that all features are larger than the wavelength (e.g., solve Maxwell's equations). If your analogy is valid, this means to find negative masses, we would need to go to a scale where the current laws for the description of matter (i.e., the Standard Model of particle physics) break down. This is generally expected to occur at the Planck scale, which is about 10^16 times larger than what the LHC can probe. So yes, this is pretty much as impossible as things can get.
This reasoning is only valid for flat (Minkowski) space-time, and therefore does not apply to the warp drive proposals, which aim to create particular curved (i.e., non-Minkowski) spacetime configurations.
A very intuitive counterexample: suppose you couple a photon into a very long fiber that is wound many times, with the end being at your neighbors desk. Clearly, you can walk over to him and have a chat with him about everything you like before the photon arrives. No laws of physics were harmed in the making of this experiment.
From what read elsewhere, it seems that the Aliyun people are probably not in compliance with the GPL, so they are in direct copyright infringement of code written by Google and others. While this is not too surprising given the sorry state of GPL compliance in the PRC, but this gives Google every right to strong-arm anyone touching this project.
Linux worked well if you picked up a 1-2 year old laptop, because by then you could find support for most of the hardware, but you were in for a world of hurt if you wanted anything new.
If you're buying a Laptop and want to run Linux on it, you should make sure it's certified. Of course, results are best when Linux is already pre-installed.
So, if dropping NC and ND results in a single work being relicensed under a free license, this would be a benefit.
Even if thousands of equally skillfully crafted works were no longer released under any CC license and kept proprietory because the NC or ND clause was deemed too important?
It's not like people would stop putting stuff on the internet if there were no NC/ND licenses. You will still be able to download the work and enjoy for your personal use as you don't need a license for that. Only when you want to redistribute the work or modified versions of it, the license becomes relevant.
I would like to contribute photos to wikipedia, however I don't want Monsanto or Raytheon using them for an ad campaign.
If they use your CC-BY-SA licensed photo, they have to license the entire ad back to the community. So you'd be tricking an evil company into doing something good, wouldn't that be awesome? (Anyway, won't happen, as company laywers will never allow this. So don't worry about contributing to Wikipedia.)
The thing is, if somebody besides me and them record a performance of it, who's song is that, mine or theirs?
Merely performing a song does not entitle to any copyright. In some countries (not in the US), the performers are granted so-called "related rights", which result in similar protection like copyright.
What if the performer put my notes to their modified lyrics, or vice versa?
If they modify the lyrics, the rights to the modifications, but not the original version, lie with them.
But I hope you see that the whole situation is a bit complicated, and therefore CC is not really doing everyone a favor by offering licenses with implications most artists do not understand.
I fail to see how dropping NC/ND types from CC v4.0 would be a benefit.
The idea behind the Commons is that you have a set of resources that anyone can use at his or her convenience. In the digital realm, this refers to the set of works that can be freely distributed, modified, and you are allowed to create any service based upon them. This realm, lets call it the "free world", is huge: it includes Wikipedia, Free Software, and a plethora of other projects. The beauty is that you can pretty much take any parts of the existing free world to create something new, enriching the Commons in the process.
NC and ND are not part of this blessed realm. They form isolated patches of works that cannot be combined with the rest. They will never be part of the Commons. In that way, these licenses are not better than having no license at all. Or even worse, since they create distractions by leading authors to believe they are doing a good thing when in fact they are not.
So, if dropping NC and ND results in a single work being relicensed under a free license, this would be a benefit.
Slashdot Mirror
I I use Bittorent almost exclusivly for down/uploading Linux iso's so I think I'm pretty safe.
Actually, unless you distribute the source code as well, you are violating the GPL and are potentially liable for copyright infringement ...
This stuff scales incredibly bad with time. Not even a hint of a "Moore's law" here.
There is.
Actually, this has nothing to do with the content of the Twitter feed, and therefore is not really a free speech issue. If you read the actual takedown request, you will find that the Twitter account belongs to an organization that was recently disbanded and its assets (to which the account belongs) being seized by the authorities because its goals and actions were directed at overthrowing the constitutional order.
Shocking, someone using the proper method for suggesting new packages to suggest a new package!
- If it's GPL, where is the link for the free distribution of the source code?
As long as you recieve the link once you buy the software, there is absolutely no problem with this.
If you wrongly claim to own the copyright or be the agent of someone who does, there is a penalty under the perjury clause.
Which is what has happened here. Microsoft does not possess any copyright regarding the Wikipedia article on Glock pistols. This is very different from the usual case where overreaching DMCA notices are sent against actual usage of copyrighted material, but where the usage is allowed by law (e.g., under fair use). Here, however, we have the interesting case of a Microsoft representative making a false claim under the penalty of perjury.
TFDMCAN: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that with respect to those notifications, I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
I think the big questions are how "quantum" (i.e., coherent) their devices actually are and whether this makes them more useful than their classical counterparts. And, if quantum optimization is a good idea to begin with.
Two words: Bertlmann's socks.
TDTTOE:
case WAN_WISHING: /* fall through, if wizard */
#ifdef WIZARD
if (!wizard) {
#endif
otmp->spe = (rn2(10) ? -1 : 0);
break;
#ifdef WIZARD
}
#endif
[...]
if (oclass == WAND_CLASS) {
if (otmp->otyp == WAN_WISHING
#ifdef WIZARD
&& !wizard
#endif
) rechrg = 1;
otmp->recharged = (unsigned)rechrg;
}
At least you have a 10% chance to retain your wish.
I'm of the opinion adding more qubits to a superposition is going to be an exponentially hard problem.
History tells otherwise.
The interesting difference here is the barrier to entry: The Replicator 2 is a physical object. It needs a supply chain, and shipping arrangements, and a manufacturing base to fork it. (Instead of in pure software where the only thing besides the people you need is some web hosting.) So, it'll take others quite some time to set up a fork of reasonable size and quality, and a fair amount of money.
The funny thing is that a few weeks ago, someone tried to create a fork, but he got slashed pretty badly by the community and his Kickstarter campaign failed. I suppose this guy has a second chance now.
They show relatively clear Rabi oscillations, which are a definite proof of the quantumness of the evolution of their system (which has nothing to do with entanglement). So, yes, this is a genuine qubit, albeit not a perfect one.
Actual research article
Wikipedia article on the architecture proposal
Do you have a less-intuitive example of a non-Minkowski space-time that allows FTL but does not have causality issues, that does not fit into one of the counterfactual categories I listed?
Read the first link given in the summary.
Also, as a preference, I tend to ignore metrics like h-indices when evaluating a researcher, as they provide very little evidence for his her her capabilities, let alone the quality of the work.
Suppose you have a position to fill and get several hundred applications. What do you do?
People have used metamaterials to achieve results that seem to violate the laws of physics (such as materials having a negative refractive index [wikipedia.org]). Speculating that such an exotic material could be produced is not hand waving. Just because we don't know how to do something today doesn't mean we'll never figure it out.
Your comparison to metamaterials is interesting. These things work by structuring the medium on scales smaller than the wavelength of the light. On these scales, the laws of geometrical optics break down and one has to use a theory that does not rely on the approximation that all features are larger than the wavelength (e.g., solve Maxwell's equations). If your analogy is valid, this means to find negative masses, we would need to go to a scale where the current laws for the description of matter (i.e., the Standard Model of particle physics) break down. This is generally expected to occur at the Planck scale, which is about 10^16 times larger than what the LHC can probe. So yes, this is pretty much as impossible as things can get.
Here is a relatively understandable explanation of why beating a photon to its destination implies time travel, even if you don't locally travel faster than light: http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html [theculture.org].
This reasoning is only valid for flat (Minkowski) space-time, and therefore does not apply to the warp drive proposals, which aim to create particular curved (i.e., non-Minkowski) spacetime configurations.
A very intuitive counterexample: suppose you couple a photon into a very long fiber that is wound many times, with the end being at your neighbors desk. Clearly, you can walk over to him and have a chat with him about everything you like before the photon arrives. No laws of physics were harmed in the making of this experiment.
From what read elsewhere, it seems that the Aliyun people are probably not in compliance with the GPL, so they are in direct copyright infringement of code written by Google and others. While this is not too surprising given the sorry state of GPL compliance in the PRC, but this gives Google every right to strong-arm anyone touching this project.
That's nothing, my most recent paper has spin right in the title!
Linux worked well if you picked up a 1-2 year old laptop, because by then you could find support for most of the hardware, but you were in for a world of hurt if you wanted anything new.
If you're buying a Laptop and want to run Linux on it, you should make sure it's certified. Of course, results are best when Linux is already pre-installed.
So, if dropping NC and ND results in a single work being relicensed under a free license, this would be a benefit.
Even if thousands of equally skillfully crafted works were no longer released under any CC license and kept proprietory because the NC or ND clause was deemed too important?
It's not like people would stop putting stuff on the internet if there were no NC/ND licenses. You will still be able to download the work and enjoy for your personal use as you don't need a license for that. Only when you want to redistribute the work or modified versions of it, the license becomes relevant.
I would like to contribute photos to wikipedia, however I don't want Monsanto or Raytheon using them for an ad campaign.
If they use your CC-BY-SA licensed photo, they have to license the entire ad back to the community. So you'd be tricking an evil company into doing something good, wouldn't that be awesome? (Anyway, won't happen, as company laywers will never allow this. So don't worry about contributing to Wikipedia.)
The thing is, if somebody besides me and them record a performance of it, who's song is that, mine or theirs?
Merely performing a song does not entitle to any copyright. In some countries (not in the US), the performers are granted so-called "related rights", which result in similar protection like copyright.
What if the performer put my notes to their modified lyrics, or vice versa?
If they modify the lyrics, the rights to the modifications, but not the original version, lie with them.
But I hope you see that the whole situation is a bit complicated, and therefore CC is not really doing everyone a favor by offering licenses with implications most artists do not understand.
I fail to see how dropping NC/ND types from CC v4.0 would be a benefit.
The idea behind the Commons is that you have a set of resources that anyone can use at his or her convenience. In the digital realm, this refers to the set of works that can be freely distributed, modified, and you are allowed to create any service based upon them. This realm, lets call it the "free world", is huge: it includes Wikipedia, Free Software, and a plethora of other projects. The beauty is that you can pretty much take any parts of the existing free world to create something new, enriching the Commons in the process.
NC and ND are not part of this blessed realm. They form isolated patches of works that cannot be combined with the rest. They will never be part of the Commons. In that way, these licenses are not better than having no license at all. Or even worse, since they create distractions by leading authors to believe they are doing a good thing when in fact they are not.
So, if dropping NC and ND results in a single work being relicensed under a free license, this would be a benefit.