When you have certain goals that you cannot or will not compromise, lots of "choices" aren't really choices at all but should be regarded as expedient measures instead.
I can agree that the reasoning behind the particular choice may have been for expediency. But you still have to remember, it was a choice they made for whatever reasons they thought it was in their interest.
The problem with that is that they would lose face. It would look too much like they were submitting not to copyright law, but to the GPL. If a silly game were made of it, then that scenario could be summarized as "GPL 1, Microsoft 0."
I'm not entirely sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Do you think some lawsuit after they stopped using the GPL'd code would force them to open up their code or something? Of course that wouldn't have happened because there is no sign that they accepted the terms of the GPL until such time as as they released their code in compliance with it. And of course in this hypothetical situation, that hadn't occurred. So at that point, the copyright holders would have to attempt to show damages on something they give away free of charge or take the statutory minimum. If anything, it would be a victory for copyright in and of itself and MS could spin that to their advantage by claiming it was proof that free software isn't free.
That's about the level of discourse found in mass marketing. A marketing company that allows this is not a very good marketing company. Microsoft is a mediocre software company whose products can be described as "just good enough to sell to an undiscerning public." However, Microsoft is an excellent marketing company by any standard.
Bad news/publicity is still news/publicity as in it allows you to get your side out and presents an opportunity to spin. It's sort of like these semi popular women who manage to get a sex tape or some compromising pictures released just when their career is about to die or their popularity is about over.
That's why they go ahead, bite the bullet, and release the relevant code as GPL software. Then they can play the PR game and talk about how cooperative and trustworthy they are, how they "did the right thing," etc. This way even a mistake turns into a win for them.
there are other ways they could turn this into a win. However, you are probably right and someone either thought they needed the code or needed to schmooze up to some people and went this route. I'm not saying it is a loss for them, I'm just pointing out that there was other viable choices and this route wasn't forced onto them outside of their own wishes.
And you put it in a way that should be easily understood by everyone.
Copyright, the way the GPL and control of code works, give the copyright holder exclusive control of the copyrighted materials. No third party license or contract can alter your control unless you explicitly agree to it. (read explicitly as knowing an action will cause another). You cannot trick someone out of their copyright or patent rights.
Actually, no. Your entire project does not need to become OSS. You can remove the offending code and take the hit on the contract violation in the license.
This won't be to much with GPLed code because as already mentioned, it's given away free. The GPL remedy is that you cannot use GPLed code so by the time you remove the code in question, you would already be in compliance with the GPL.
Giving code away is not the only remedy for a GPL violation. It's just the one they want you to use.
Sure Microsoft released the code by choice. They had plenty of other options availible like completely rewriting the code in question, keeping it close, and taking the hit for the code already distributed. It wouldn't have been very expensive because they would have argued a mistake was made in distributing the code in the first place, it was corrected once realize, and assert their willingness to pay monetary damages for the erroneous use of the code in question.
This would have been to their advantage because it would be very difficult to assign monetary value to something already given away for free while somewhat just as difficult for each and every copyright holder to bring a case forward over it. You also have the problem of the legal remedy in the GPL being not using the code anymore when you aren't in compliance. If the contract portion allowing the copyright is held as valid, it could be that a competent court could treat it just like a contract violation with an already built in solution and absolve them of any copyright royalties owed.
But instead of doing that, instead of as you already acknowledged- used their army of lawyers, MS decided to take the most beneficial approach for itself and the OSS community as a whole. It doesn't mean they have some high impression of the GPL or that they are afraid of it, all that is in your head as without them admitting to it, you have no way of reading their minds. But from what we do know is that there were options that weren't taken and there were officially state reasons for taking the options they did.
I think you are missing a very important point, Once MS saw their error, they corrected it without anyone pointing to the need.
This is important because it shows that they would have complied earlier if they understood the depth if their involvement and obligation to begin with. This indicates a specific lack of treachery and points to a misunderstanding or confusion that they sorted out on their own.
You cannot take every instance of a GPL violation as a sign of treachery. If you do, then almost any linux distribution would be treacherous. This is because I have seen, almost all of the larger distributions offer binary updates through a service or program which doesn't offer the source code alongside it and doesn't make the location of the source code for the updates obvious. Some times it is days or even weeks before the source code for the binary patches make to an obvious locations (which is in violation of the GPL) and then you have distros who use mirrors that don't store the source and make them availible for 3 years after distribution. Take Mandriva for instance, Their URPMI update service often drops updates after a year (instead of the three as mandated by the GPL) or so when the new versions are availible. If you have to reinstall, you have to hunt down another URPMI mirror in order to find older updates just to get a system back to a usable state.
Now, no one complains about this crap being treacherous when linux distros do it. There is an after the fact attempt to get in line with the GPL and is seemingly completely acceptable even though it is a clear and direct violation of the GPL (either version).
Is that a singles advert? As long as you don't touch the table saw or drill press in the basement and don't mind me going down at random times, you can come on over.
Going back to the moon has several advantages. First, the Moon is thought to be ripe with Helium3 which is we ever figure cold fusion out would be a major advantage. They estimate that if the space shuttle's cargo bay was filled with helium3, it would be enough to power all of the US for 10 years or more.
But besides that aspect, using the moon as a staging ground for other missions can mean a lot larger payload as well as larger devices being launched to other planets or even solar systems. Imagine if the voyager probes were carrying more powerful radios and 10 times as many sensors or had another probe attached to it for increased thruster fuel and so on. Now imagine how much energy is lost on a mission just getting off the earth. Getting off the moon would allow much of the energy to be converted to something more useful as it can be replaced by either more weight, larger sizes, or more fuel when we can stop and "reload" midstream.
The great thing about humans is the AI factor. The (artificial) intelligence in humans is vastly superior to actual artificial intelligence of robots or computers.
Now, you might think we we didn't have any problems in mars. But we did, we have a rover stuck in a crater, we have had rovers that were stuck before and had to alter their missions while teams of engineers and massive amounts of resources were consumed attempting to unstuck them. A human can process this basic information much such as path and determine the 3d characteristics of object in front of them much faster and better then computers and remote controls.
In some ways, we aren't as proficient as computers and machines. The augmentation of machines and computers can greatly streamline the colonization of the moon plus allow us to refine our approach and logistics for life support. Sending humans with robots can be a means of gathering data as well as making our efforts more proficient as well as safer at the same time.
FSF is powerless unless you assign them the copyright to them. They have refused in the past to even address infringement issues unless they held part of the copyright.
Some people might think that needing to assign control of a copyright to a third party is too much of a draconian situation to do anything with. This is especially true when the license changes can depart so far from the original license a product was under as was the case with the GPLv2 verses GPLv3.
Nah, the car I saw had a hydraulic clutch and it was fed from the same reservoir too. I think it had a diesel motor and used the power steering pump instead of vacuum for the brake assist but drew everything from a common 1 quart reservoir using the same fluids.
Yes, I have specifically seen it before. It was back in 1982 and the car was at least 10 years old. I'm not sure what the model was but I remember the guy with the car having mostly dotson's and toyota's at the time. His father own an import dealership and he was always driving the cars which were traded in for newer models. The domestic cars went to another lot and the imports were cleaned up and sold as used. I believe is was something like the hydraulic brake assist in the older diesel cars but used the same fluid and reservoir for both.
Some of the older cars used brake fluid for the power steering systems and often they shared the same reservoir using hoses to branch to each independent unit. I think some older Toyota's and Dotson vehicles were initially like this until it was decided by safety laws that the reservoirs needed to be separate so a fault in the steering system couldn't remove the fluid from the brakes.
Another problem with that is that the brake fluid's thermal design is totally different then that of traditional oil or transmission fluid so you would see a degradation of the fluid after so many hours of engine operation which wasn't implicit with mileage. It would cause breaks to fade and when the DOT 3 specs came law, it practically made it impossible to manufacture a new system in that way.
Modern systems separate the two even if they use the same fluids. Oil and transmission fluid or far more stable for the job of power steering so they are commonly used.
Yes, my point exactly. I'm not the one who holds that point of view, you are; I'm merely replacing "God" with "pixies".
I think you don't know what the point of view is. Now listen one more time, agnostic, I don't believe but am not ruling it out, atheist, There is no god (pixies for you) because of whatever reason. Do you see the damn difference? One is a definitive statement that suggest knowing the other is an non-definitive statement concerning what is unknown. The two do not intermingle.
It states: Agnosticism (Greek: - a-, without + gnsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable. [1] It is not a religious declaration in itself and the terms are not mutually exclusive.
How do you get from that, to: "Not being convinced in something"?
Fuck man, are you that stupid? If I convince you, then the unknown is no longer unknown. If you are not convinced in the presence or absence of a god or body of knowledge, then the definition fits.
And since you refer to Wikipedia, check out atheism: Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
And both of those statements are definitive which is impossible if you are unsure or hold a belief that it is unknown or inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Read the damn words that you posted yourself.
And you sources, when they don't contradict themselves, side with me and not you. Answer this, it's a logic question that I asked of you in my last post but you conveniently ignore, how can not knowing be reconciled with a definite statement of the existence or non-existent of a being? As I pointed out before, they can't and you have yet to show how unknown can mean known.
If someone tells you they're an atheist, it's not very clever to make assumptions about what they believe by ignoring sourced definitions, or redefine the terms just so you can make up a straw man. And what's more, when they clarify their stance, shouldn't you accept that? I'm telling you now: I don't believe in God.
Unless they are a moron who doesn't know what atheist is and things agnostic means atheist or don't understand the difference between knowing and not knowing, then my assumptions will always be correct. I'm sorry that you are so hurt about not being in the club with the popular kids, but truth is, you never should have in the first place.
No, I don't. Have fun with your straw man.
You should probably look that up too. I don't think it means what you want it to mean. BTW, it is not a universal "I don't agree" clause.
Honestly, I have no idea why so-called agnostics seem to spend so much time attacking people who don't believe in God, just because they use a different term to them - even when numerous dictionaries and other sources back up their usage.
Why? Because communicate is a process designed to convey complete thoughts and if you can't label yourself correctly, then don't get pissy about being accused of something that goes with the label. Tell me again, how does no knowing translate into a knowing there is no something? Tell me, how does that logic work? Not believing in god is not atheist, believing there is no god is. They are two entirely different concepts and don't intertwine.
No, the girls I keep around are the ones I think I might want to get serious with. I probably couldn't handle them sleeping around and me knowing about it. The one night stands are just that, a quit get your rocks off and be done with it. Sometimes it's to prove a point, sometimes it's because she is that hot. But rarely are they hot and worth keeping as far as I have been able to tell.
No, they are not breaking the law. A cop can go anywhere a citizen can go that isn't restricted in some way. They can go into the grocery stores in an official capacity, they can hand out at the public pool or library or public park, there is no difference between that and an online game.
there used to be a similar procedure called a gama knife which was used on cancers in certain locations as non-evasive treatment. The bursts and focus is so small that there really isn't any heat dissipation to be concerned with.
This apparatus should work in a similar method in which they direct the energy in non-damaging doses from several angles and where the point of intersection happens, they can slightly increase the strength giving the desired action without threatening any other part of the body. I imagine with sound, they sync the waves to a certain pattern which would only be destructive if in proper alignment.
The article said the machines used 1000 transponders and it's likely that on their own and outside the focal point, they are completely harmless until it becomes focused. Think of it like shining 1000 lights onto the same spot, if they aren't focused, it will only be as bright as the brightest light (even though it would carry more energy and heat). Now focus all of the lights with a lenses like they do with multiple LEDs in a flashlight to create a much brighter light then would otherwise be seen.
I didn't exactly find where they said the cost of this was but it is a Swiss study so they could be off a little compared to other countries.
However, you are coming to the wrong conclusions. You are only measuring income disparagement between having and not having the procedure and coming to an arbitrary conclusion. However, this is wrong on so many levels as I can show that a poor person making minimum wage according to your criteria would never be eligable for most major procedures where a high level exec or a millionair who inherited their money might more easily slide through. The differences between making minimum wage and the minimum plus $1-4 dollars or even minimum wage on a reduced workweek compared to a full work weak would have severe problems justifying the costly procedures where someone making 500k a year could earn 750k a year would justify the expenses more readily.
But when you look at the full aspects of human life, you have to consider what the person can't do because of the illness or injury. For instance, what kind of price tag would you put on having to open your home up to outside people to come in an clean it because you can't? What kind of price do you put on needing someone to help bath because you can't bend certain ways without knee bending agony? What kind of price can you place on not being able pick up or to hold your own kids or grandchildren. How about not being able to go outside and playing with them, not smelling their hair and giving them the love and nurturing that they deserve and humans families normally aspire to because of some limitation your disease or illness presents. How about having to give up hobbies and activities that you always found enjoyable or having to purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment in order to still participate. You may think it doesn't matter now, but wait until you are afflicted with something and you are told to just suffer because you don't add enough value to society.
Realistically we need to start realizing that not every person DESERVES the best treatment, because the best treatment is so costly that society can never regain that investment. To think otherwise is to bankrupt ourselves.
The problem with your line of reasoning is that you assume or expect a gain but don't rationally look the realities. Costs of equipment is one reasons these procedures are so expensive but that works out to be less per patient if you treat more patients. So if you have the equiptment and treat 10 people, it may cost 100,000 per treatment but if you treat 100 people, that drops to 10,000 per treatment. If it's realistic to treat 5 patients a day 5 days a week, then that cost of equipment drops to just 3800 per patient. Now if you pay for a portion of that million dollar piece of equiptment with fund arrived from people who aren't being treated (profits from another division or charity or insurance or taxes) then it can be even lower. That 3800 could become16-1700 if the 91 million tax payers paid just.6 cents more per year in taxes. Now don't read that wrong, it isn't 60 cents, it is six tenths of one cent.
But, that doesn't even address why the prices of the machine is high to begin with. Or why the costs of the tech and doctor is so expensive. Get those trimmed down, and that 6/10ths of one cent could be less then one tenth of one cent. Anyways, the point is that if the machines exist, then the more they are used, the less it costs per treatment. Your withholding treatment because someone isn't worthy plan would only result in increased costs and less people qualifying.
So your one of those people who pick fights to break up for a short time so cheating isn't really cheating too. I generally prefer to do it over the phone rather then by SMS, I suppose that just seems cold for me.
Aha, you have faith - the same mechanism for believe in pixies!
Only if you are a moron and don't pay attention to the rest of the statement. The mechanism is not in not believing, but in stating one over the other without any empirical or testable proof. I do not believe is not the same as there is no god or pixies. If you would have kept the comment in context, you would see that I didn't preclude the possibilities of a god or pixies, that I'm just not convinced they are here. That is agnostic and no atheist or apixies and doesn't involve faith at all- it involves not being convinced one way or the opposite. If I was to say either doesn't exist, then I would be reaching with faith because there is no evidence of that. There is only the lack of evidence showing they do and as we know, the lack of something does not prove something.
Well this is the point - few atheists go so far as to "exclude their possibility". Even for those who are strong atheists, they would still admit they'd change their mind if confronted with the evidence. So your point is a straw man, and no better than me jumping to conclusions about you "excluding the possibility of pixies".
Actually, all atheist do go so far as to exclude the possibility. Otherwise they would be agnostic which can easily be defined as in not knowing the existence or nonexistence of either. If they are jumping under a label in order to get in on a fad, then that is on them, not the definitions.
And no, it is not a strawman, it is the difference between two defined terms. You seem to be insisting that an apple should be called an orange just because you have done it in the past or know someone who has. That doesn't make it so, it makes incorrect label or name use. And yes, it is better then you jumping to conclusions over the possibility of pixies because I clearly stated that I wasn't denying their possibility where you ignored the statement and asserted I was. Also you will note that the conversation is about proper labeling because of the differences in terminology that is derived from actions or positions taken. Your jumping to conclusions was nothing more then being an ass in order to perpetuate an incorrect point.
No, that definition is not supported by any dictionary I am aware of.
Agnosticism means a belief that God's existence is unknownable. You can be agnostic and atheist, btw.
Actually, the term goes past a god or gods existences and refers to the ultimate knowledge in any particular subject. It is often used in terms of gods and is so in this conversation. And no, you can't be agnostic and atheist because the act of atheist is a known assertion(there is no god). It removes the unknowable portion of agnostic. How can you hold a position of not knowing something while asserting to know that same something doesn't exist or is untrue? Go ahead, work that out as a logic problem, -2+2=0, you have nothing, it doesn't work. Atheist assert they know, you can't hold a belief of not knowing while asserting you know. It just doesn't work. I'm sorry I shattered your world view and you might not fit into the popular groups anymore but that's just the logic working, not me. If you don't know there is a god well enough to believe in him, but leave the possibility open, you are agnostic. If you deny the existence of a god, you are atheist and making a definite assertion.
IBM sold their x86 lines to Lenovo. Well either sold or created Lenovo, I don't quite remember which right now, but that division which would account for quite a bit of smaller scale servers in the world (and MS installs) is doing business under the Lenovo brand now.
Early cars and farm machinery used to do that for the same reasons too- to control corrosion especially in salt water environments. Of course they were primarily 6 and 12 volt system with a few occasional 24 and 48 volt implementations. But the principles were primarily the same.
It wouldn't really matter is there was an NSA type watching the game and chat logs. You have no idea if the person next to you is a cop on duty or off or some government spy or some researcher trolling for information on behavioral patterns. As long as they are not cheating to get access, it doesn't matter any more then it does that you might be part of the game.
The problem is that all the variants can be bred back to the original using nothing but anomalies in the pure strain of the species. If you take X to Y and Y back to X, without introducing anything new, have you actually created something new or are you simply manipulating the same things? Even if X and Y seem to be incompatible?
This brings us to the concept of a ring species which is within the same species and not separate. There is often a concept of a Great Dane and a Chihuahua not being able to mate and is pointed to often as a sign of speciation even though it is classified as the same species. However, Chihuahua's are only the size they are now because of arbitrary limits placed on them for competition by the kennel clubs. They (some of them) list that they need to be under 9 lbs to compete. What this does is primarily reduce the breed to a set that couldn't reproduce with a larger animal without significant problems resulting in the death of the offspring before birth, the mother, or a mechanical impossibility of breeding. However, what this neglects is that the original Chihuahua's were around 40 lbs dogs (used to hunt deer) and can be bred back to that size purely within the breed which overcomes all limitations of the two breeds both biologically and mechanically. So the question is, does the tea cup Chihuahua get classified as a separate species as the Great Dane or the traditional Chihuahua, or is it just a breed taken to one extreme that creates a ring open on one end. Of course the answer is they are the same species just taken to extreme opposites where something changed enough to not be compatible.
Now the Evening primrose's (Oenothera) new variant is just that, a new variant. And it has been known since 1943 at least that this was the case with Davis, B.M., An amphidiploid in the F1 generation from the cross Oenothera franciscana x Oenothera biennis, and its progeny, Genetics 28(4):275-285, July 1943, . In that paper, it was noted that the offspring without constant care and manipulation from human intervention, would revert back to normal varients within the species and the chromosome pairings would vary greatly.
On page 78 of the linked PDF, In summary it should be emphasized that this amphidiploid did not present a settled behaviour of all pairing on the part of the chromosomes at diakinesis. On the contrary, there was much irregularity in the process of chromosome segregation during meiosis. Accounts of amphidiploids have frequently assumed that these plants even from hybrids would breed true because the double set of chromosomes would permit a regular pairing between homologues. It will be noted that here is an amphidiploid Oenothera hybrid in which the pairing is far from regular with the result that the plant does not breed true, as will appear in the accounts of later generations.
Amphidiploid is a synonym of allopolyploid. These have chromosomes from different species. See also Batten, D., Eat your Brussels sprouts!, Creation 28(3):36-40, 2006. And yes, I copied and pasted that from another site. But this is important because we don't call a species as in speciation when the plant will mutate back to a compatible variant if left on it's own.
Talk origins is one of those sites which only grabs the information it thinks it needs in order to push an agenda. If you had all the availible information, would you have posted your comment in the way you did? We should be very skeptical of sites like that as well as counter sites like answers in genesis (which attempts to push a biblical creation accounting) or answers in creation (which is actually an evolution site masquerading as a creation site in an attempt to fool people by claiming evolution and creation fit hand in hand even though better then 80 percent of their articles is why the bible isn't true). To some degree, they will present information just enough to push their agendas and ideals but not enough to get the complete picture.
How is it not all information when he says phone calls, texts emails originating in or going to afghanistan / pakistan.
You are conflating a statement made with the TSP program as if it was one and the same. They aren't. The TSP and the warrantless wiretaps were between international calls in which one person was believed to have been a terrorist or had connections to terrorist. Echelon and magic lantern already do what he said needed to be done and both have been shown to be legal by all the challenges to date in a court.
There's a far cry difference between border searches (for physical goods) and spying on people.
Really? So all your records on your laptop are open at the borders right? Yes, the courts have already supported that. And this is different from inspecting anything that crosses the border in what way? I mean the TSP only dealt with calls in which one party was outside our borders. Attaching the words spying is disingenuous. It implies something more then there ever was as some point of separate to make the claim worse. It doesn't, it's no different outside of the person knowing they were being searched. And within 2 years of the TSP, everyone had reason to believe that their international calls were being monitored so again, were is the separation?
"well just cuz its unknowable means we have to assume innocence"...it's not a court here. Unfortunately they set it up so that we can't know and are only allowed to piece it together from the fragments that we have. Again I cite the operation of plausible deniability.
You really don't get it do you? You are stating opinion as fact when it is nothing but opinion. You have so many things wrong in your attempts to do so, you have admited that all your proof is nothing more then a mental construct in your own head, and here, you claim that you not knowing proves your point. It doesn't, it only makes you jump to conclusions derived from within you mind completely that lack support in the real world. For instance, what was their end goal of doing this maliciously? If you say the collection of power, then how do you explain them willingly and peacefully giving that power up when the term was over or the Vice President not running for office to continue that power grab. In your other post, you attempted to claim absolute power corrupts yet you also maintained there was no absolute power because he was still attempting to acquire power.
Unknowable doesn't mean the lack of malice, it means your accusation of malice is nothing more then your opinion. It is not fact and never will be until such time as someone actually knows.
yes you're conception is plausible BUT UNLIKELY. to add some more occam's razor quality knowledge "if it smells like a fish, it's probably a fish"/useless:(
It's only unlikely when you add your own made up information to the mix. That does not make it so, it only makes you think it is so. And yes, there are mammals that smell like fish which aren't fish as all. Dolphin for instance smell like fish but aren't fish. Occam's logic is more then a singular completion, a more accurate piece of knowledge would be "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is probably a duck". You see, more then one piece of real and not made up validation with a probable and not a definite explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
I can agree that the reasoning behind the particular choice may have been for expediency. But you still have to remember, it was a choice they made for whatever reasons they thought it was in their interest.
I'm not entirely sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Do you think some lawsuit after they stopped using the GPL'd code would force them to open up their code or something? Of course that wouldn't have happened because there is no sign that they accepted the terms of the GPL until such time as as they released their code in compliance with it. And of course in this hypothetical situation, that hadn't occurred. So at that point, the copyright holders would have to attempt to show damages on something they give away free of charge or take the statutory minimum. If anything, it would be a victory for copyright in and of itself and MS could spin that to their advantage by claiming it was proof that free software isn't free.
Bad news/publicity is still news/publicity as in it allows you to get your side out and presents an opportunity to spin. It's sort of like these semi popular women who manage to get a sex tape or some compromising pictures released just when their career is about to die or their popularity is about over.
there are other ways they could turn this into a win. However, you are probably right and someone either thought they needed the code or needed to schmooze up to some people and went this route. I'm not saying it is a loss for them, I'm just pointing out that there was other viable choices and this route wasn't forced onto them outside of their own wishes.
Finally, someone else who knows what is up.
And you put it in a way that should be easily understood by everyone.
Copyright, the way the GPL and control of code works, give the copyright holder exclusive control of the copyrighted materials. No third party license or contract can alter your control unless you explicitly agree to it. (read explicitly as knowing an action will cause another). You cannot trick someone out of their copyright or patent rights.
Actually, no. Your entire project does not need to become OSS. You can remove the offending code and take the hit on the contract violation in the license.
This won't be to much with GPLed code because as already mentioned, it's given away free. The GPL remedy is that you cannot use GPLed code so by the time you remove the code in question, you would already be in compliance with the GPL.
Giving code away is not the only remedy for a GPL violation. It's just the one they want you to use.
Sure Microsoft released the code by choice. They had plenty of other options availible like completely rewriting the code in question, keeping it close, and taking the hit for the code already distributed. It wouldn't have been very expensive because they would have argued a mistake was made in distributing the code in the first place, it was corrected once realize, and assert their willingness to pay monetary damages for the erroneous use of the code in question.
This would have been to their advantage because it would be very difficult to assign monetary value to something already given away for free while somewhat just as difficult for each and every copyright holder to bring a case forward over it. You also have the problem of the legal remedy in the GPL being not using the code anymore when you aren't in compliance. If the contract portion allowing the copyright is held as valid, it could be that a competent court could treat it just like a contract violation with an already built in solution and absolve them of any copyright royalties owed.
But instead of doing that, instead of as you already acknowledged- used their army of lawyers, MS decided to take the most beneficial approach for itself and the OSS community as a whole. It doesn't mean they have some high impression of the GPL or that they are afraid of it, all that is in your head as without them admitting to it, you have no way of reading their minds. But from what we do know is that there were options that weren't taken and there were officially state reasons for taking the options they did.
I think you are missing a very important point, Once MS saw their error, they corrected it without anyone pointing to the need.
This is important because it shows that they would have complied earlier if they understood the depth if their involvement and obligation to begin with. This indicates a specific lack of treachery and points to a misunderstanding or confusion that they sorted out on their own.
You cannot take every instance of a GPL violation as a sign of treachery. If you do, then almost any linux distribution would be treacherous. This is because I have seen, almost all of the larger distributions offer binary updates through a service or program which doesn't offer the source code alongside it and doesn't make the location of the source code for the updates obvious. Some times it is days or even weeks before the source code for the binary patches make to an obvious locations (which is in violation of the GPL) and then you have distros who use mirrors that don't store the source and make them availible for 3 years after distribution. Take Mandriva for instance, Their URPMI update service often drops updates after a year (instead of the three as mandated by the GPL) or so when the new versions are availible. If you have to reinstall, you have to hunt down another URPMI mirror in order to find older updates just to get a system back to a usable state.
Now, no one complains about this crap being treacherous when linux distros do it. There is an after the fact attempt to get in line with the GPL and is seemingly completely acceptable even though it is a clear and direct violation of the GPL (either version).
Is that a singles advert? As long as you don't touch the table saw or drill press in the basement and don't mind me going down at random times, you can come on over.
Going back to the moon has several advantages. First, the Moon is thought to be ripe with Helium3 which is we ever figure cold fusion out would be a major advantage. They estimate that if the space shuttle's cargo bay was filled with helium3, it would be enough to power all of the US for 10 years or more.
But besides that aspect, using the moon as a staging ground for other missions can mean a lot larger payload as well as larger devices being launched to other planets or even solar systems. Imagine if the voyager probes were carrying more powerful radios and 10 times as many sensors or had another probe attached to it for increased thruster fuel and so on. Now imagine how much energy is lost on a mission just getting off the earth. Getting off the moon would allow much of the energy to be converted to something more useful as it can be replaced by either more weight, larger sizes, or more fuel when we can stop and "reload" midstream.
The great thing about humans is the AI factor. The (artificial) intelligence in humans is vastly superior to actual artificial intelligence of robots or computers.
Now, you might think we we didn't have any problems in mars. But we did, we have a rover stuck in a crater, we have had rovers that were stuck before and had to alter their missions while teams of engineers and massive amounts of resources were consumed attempting to unstuck them. A human can process this basic information much such as path and determine the 3d characteristics of object in front of them much faster and better then computers and remote controls.
In some ways, we aren't as proficient as computers and machines. The augmentation of machines and computers can greatly streamline the colonization of the moon plus allow us to refine our approach and logistics for life support. Sending humans with robots can be a means of gathering data as well as making our efforts more proficient as well as safer at the same time.
FSF is powerless unless you assign them the copyright to them. They have refused in the past to even address infringement issues unless they held part of the copyright.
Some people might think that needing to assign control of a copyright to a third party is too much of a draconian situation to do anything with. This is especially true when the license changes can depart so far from the original license a product was under as was the case with the GPLv2 verses GPLv3.
Nah, the car I saw had a hydraulic clutch and it was fed from the same reservoir too. I think it had a diesel motor and used the power steering pump instead of vacuum for the brake assist but drew everything from a common 1 quart reservoir using the same fluids.
Yes, I have specifically seen it before. It was back in 1982 and the car was at least 10 years old. I'm not sure what the model was but I remember the guy with the car having mostly dotson's and toyota's at the time. His father own an import dealership and he was always driving the cars which were traded in for newer models. The domestic cars went to another lot and the imports were cleaned up and sold as used. I believe is was something like the hydraulic brake assist in the older diesel cars but used the same fluid and reservoir for both.
Some of the older cars used brake fluid for the power steering systems and often they shared the same reservoir using hoses to branch to each independent unit. I think some older Toyota's and Dotson vehicles were initially like this until it was decided by safety laws that the reservoirs needed to be separate so a fault in the steering system couldn't remove the fluid from the brakes.
Another problem with that is that the brake fluid's thermal design is totally different then that of traditional oil or transmission fluid so you would see a degradation of the fluid after so many hours of engine operation which wasn't implicit with mileage. It would cause breaks to fade and when the DOT 3 specs came law, it practically made it impossible to manufacture a new system in that way.
Modern systems separate the two even if they use the same fluids. Oil and transmission fluid or far more stable for the job of power steering so they are commonly used.
I think you don't know what the point of view is. Now listen one more time, agnostic, I don't believe but am not ruling it out, atheist, There is no god (pixies for you) because of whatever reason. Do you see the damn difference? One is a definitive statement that suggest knowing the other is an non-definitive statement concerning what is unknown. The two do not intermingle.
Fuck man, are you that stupid? If I convince you, then the unknown is no longer unknown. If you are not convinced in the presence or absence of a god or body of knowledge, then the definition fits.
And both of those statements are definitive which is impossible if you are unsure or hold a belief that it is unknown or inherently impossible to prove or disprove. Read the damn words that you posted yourself.
And you sources, when they don't contradict themselves, side with me and not you. Answer this, it's a logic question that I asked of you in my last post but you conveniently ignore, how can not knowing be reconciled with a definite statement of the existence or non-existent of a being? As I pointed out before, they can't and you have yet to show how unknown can mean known.
Unless they are a moron who doesn't know what atheist is and things agnostic means atheist or don't understand the difference between knowing and not knowing, then my assumptions will always be correct. I'm sorry that you are so hurt about not being in the club with the popular kids, but truth is, you never should have in the first place.
You should probably look that up too. I don't think it means what you want it to mean. BTW, it is not a universal "I don't agree" clause.
Why? Because communicate is a process designed to convey complete thoughts and if you can't label yourself correctly, then don't get pissy about being accused of something that goes with the label. Tell me again, how does no knowing translate into a knowing there is no something? Tell me, how does that logic work? Not believing in god is not atheist, believing there is no god is. They are two entirely different concepts and don't intertwine.
No, the girls I keep around are the ones I think I might want to get serious with. I probably couldn't handle them sleeping around and me knowing about it. The one night stands are just that, a quit get your rocks off and be done with it. Sometimes it's to prove a point, sometimes it's because she is that hot. But rarely are they hot and worth keeping as far as I have been able to tell.
No, they are not breaking the law. A cop can go anywhere a citizen can go that isn't restricted in some way. They can go into the grocery stores in an official capacity, they can hand out at the public pool or library or public park, there is no difference between that and an online game.
Interesting. I thought they got rid of all their x86 lines but after checking, your right, they still do handle them in the server market.
there used to be a similar procedure called a gama knife which was used on cancers in certain locations as non-evasive treatment. The bursts and focus is so small that there really isn't any heat dissipation to be concerned with.
This apparatus should work in a similar method in which they direct the energy in non-damaging doses from several angles and where the point of intersection happens, they can slightly increase the strength giving the desired action without threatening any other part of the body. I imagine with sound, they sync the waves to a certain pattern which would only be destructive if in proper alignment.
The article said the machines used 1000 transponders and it's likely that on their own and outside the focal point, they are completely harmless until it becomes focused. Think of it like shining 1000 lights onto the same spot, if they aren't focused, it will only be as bright as the brightest light (even though it would carry more energy and heat). Now focus all of the lights with a lenses like they do with multiple LEDs in a flashlight to create a much brighter light then would otherwise be seen.
I didn't exactly find where they said the cost of this was but it is a Swiss study so they could be off a little compared to other countries.
However, you are coming to the wrong conclusions. You are only measuring income disparagement between having and not having the procedure and coming to an arbitrary conclusion. However, this is wrong on so many levels as I can show that a poor person making minimum wage according to your criteria would never be eligable for most major procedures where a high level exec or a millionair who inherited their money might more easily slide through. The differences between making minimum wage and the minimum plus $1-4 dollars or even minimum wage on a reduced workweek compared to a full work weak would have severe problems justifying the costly procedures where someone making 500k a year could earn 750k a year would justify the expenses more readily.
But when you look at the full aspects of human life, you have to consider what the person can't do because of the illness or injury. For instance, what kind of price tag would you put on having to open your home up to outside people to come in an clean it because you can't? What kind of price do you put on needing someone to help bath because you can't bend certain ways without knee bending agony? What kind of price can you place on not being able pick up or to hold your own kids or grandchildren. How about not being able to go outside and playing with them, not smelling their hair and giving them the love and nurturing that they deserve and humans families normally aspire to because of some limitation your disease or illness presents. How about having to give up hobbies and activities that you always found enjoyable or having to purchase hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment in order to still participate. You may think it doesn't matter now, but wait until you are afflicted with something and you are told to just suffer because you don't add enough value to society.
The problem with your line of reasoning is that you assume or expect a gain but don't rationally look the realities. Costs of equipment is one reasons these procedures are so expensive but that works out to be less per patient if you treat more patients. So if you have the equiptment and treat 10 people, it may cost 100,000 per treatment but if you treat 100 people, that drops to 10,000 per treatment. If it's realistic to treat 5 patients a day 5 days a week, then that cost of equipment drops to just 3800 per patient. Now if you pay for a portion of that million dollar piece of equiptment with fund arrived from people who aren't being treated (profits from another division or charity or insurance or taxes) then it can be even lower. That 3800 could become16-1700 if the 91 million tax payers paid just .6 cents more per year in taxes. Now don't read that wrong, it isn't 60 cents, it is six tenths of one cent.
But, that doesn't even address why the prices of the machine is high to begin with. Or why the costs of the tech and doctor is so expensive. Get those trimmed down, and that 6/10ths of one cent could be less then one tenth of one cent. Anyways, the point is that if the machines exist, then the more they are used, the less it costs per treatment. Your withholding treatment because someone isn't worthy plan would only result in increased costs and less people qualifying.
So your one of those people who pick fights to break up for a short time so cheating isn't really cheating too. I generally prefer to do it over the phone rather then by SMS, I suppose that just seems cold for me.
Only if you are a moron and don't pay attention to the rest of the statement. The mechanism is not in not believing, but in stating one over the other without any empirical or testable proof. I do not believe is not the same as there is no god or pixies. If you would have kept the comment in context, you would see that I didn't preclude the possibilities of a god or pixies, that I'm just not convinced they are here. That is agnostic and no atheist or apixies and doesn't involve faith at all- it involves not being convinced one way or the opposite. If I was to say either doesn't exist, then I would be reaching with faith because there is no evidence of that. There is only the lack of evidence showing they do and as we know, the lack of something does not prove something.
Actually, all atheist do go so far as to exclude the possibility. Otherwise they would be agnostic which can easily be defined as in not knowing the existence or nonexistence of either. If they are jumping under a label in order to get in on a fad, then that is on them, not the definitions.
And no, it is not a strawman, it is the difference between two defined terms. You seem to be insisting that an apple should be called an orange just because you have done it in the past or know someone who has. That doesn't make it so, it makes incorrect label or name use. And yes, it is better then you jumping to conclusions over the possibility of pixies because I clearly stated that I wasn't denying their possibility where you ignored the statement and asserted I was. Also you will note that the conversation is about proper labeling because of the differences in terminology that is derived from actions or positions taken. Your jumping to conclusions was nothing more then being an ass in order to perpetuate an incorrect point.
Then you should get out more. It's within the first paragraph at wikipedia, In the context and spirit of the definition from Merriam Webster, and in philosophy circles.
Actually, the term goes past a god or gods existences and refers to the ultimate knowledge in any particular subject. It is often used in terms of gods and is so in this conversation. And no, you can't be agnostic and atheist because the act of atheist is a known assertion(there is no god). It removes the unknowable portion of agnostic. How can you hold a position of not knowing something while asserting to know that same something doesn't exist or is untrue? Go ahead, work that out as a logic problem, -2+2=0, you have nothing, it doesn't work. Atheist assert they know, you can't hold a belief of not knowing while asserting you know. It just doesn't work. I'm sorry I shattered your world view and you might not fit into the popular groups anymore but that's just the logic working, not me. If you don't know there is a god well enough to believe in him, but leave the possibility open, you are agnostic. If you deny the existence of a god, you are atheist and making a definite assertion.
Not in the x86 style markets.
IBM sold their x86 lines to Lenovo. Well either sold or created Lenovo, I don't quite remember which right now, but that division which would account for quite a bit of smaller scale servers in the world (and MS installs) is doing business under the Lenovo brand now.
Early cars and farm machinery used to do that for the same reasons too- to control corrosion especially in salt water environments. Of course they were primarily 6 and 12 volt system with a few occasional 24 and 48 volt implementations. But the principles were primarily the same.
It wouldn't really matter is there was an NSA type watching the game and chat logs. You have no idea if the person next to you is a cop on duty or off or some government spy or some researcher trolling for information on behavioral patterns. As long as they are not cheating to get access, it doesn't matter any more then it does that you might be part of the game.
The problem is that all the variants can be bred back to the original using nothing but anomalies in the pure strain of the species. If you take X to Y and Y back to X, without introducing anything new, have you actually created something new or are you simply manipulating the same things? Even if X and Y seem to be incompatible?
This brings us to the concept of a ring species which is within the same species and not separate. There is often a concept of a Great Dane and a Chihuahua not being able to mate and is pointed to often as a sign of speciation even though it is classified as the same species. However, Chihuahua's are only the size they are now because of arbitrary limits placed on them for competition by the kennel clubs. They (some of them) list that they need to be under 9 lbs to compete. What this does is primarily reduce the breed to a set that couldn't reproduce with a larger animal without significant problems resulting in the death of the offspring before birth, the mother, or a mechanical impossibility of breeding. However, what this neglects is that the original Chihuahua's were around 40 lbs dogs (used to hunt deer) and can be bred back to that size purely within the breed which overcomes all limitations of the two breeds both biologically and mechanically. So the question is, does the tea cup Chihuahua get classified as a separate species as the Great Dane or the traditional Chihuahua, or is it just a breed taken to one extreme that creates a ring open on one end. Of course the answer is they are the same species just taken to extreme opposites where something changed enough to not be compatible.
Now the Evening primrose's (Oenothera) new variant is just that, a new variant. And it has been known since 1943 at least that this was the case with Davis, B.M., An amphidiploid in the F1 generation from the cross Oenothera franciscana x Oenothera biennis, and its progeny, Genetics 28(4):275-285, July 1943, . In that paper, it was noted that the offspring without constant care and manipulation from human intervention, would revert back to normal varients within the species and the chromosome pairings would vary greatly.
On page 78 of the linked PDF, In summary it should be emphasized that this amphidiploid did not present a settled behaviour of all pairing on the part of the chromosomes at diakinesis. On the contrary, there was much irregularity in the process of chromosome segregation during meiosis. Accounts of amphidiploids have frequently assumed that these plants even from hybrids would breed true because the double set of chromosomes would permit a regular pairing between homologues. It will be noted that here is an amphidiploid Oenothera hybrid in which the pairing is far from regular with the result that the plant does not breed true, as will appear in the accounts of later generations.
Amphidiploid is a synonym of allopolyploid. These have chromosomes from different species. See also Batten, D., Eat your Brussels sprouts!, Creation 28(3):36-40, 2006. And yes, I copied and pasted that from another site. But this is important because we don't call a species as in speciation when the plant will mutate back to a compatible variant if left on it's own.
Talk origins is one of those sites which only grabs the information it thinks it needs in order to push an agenda. If you had all the availible information, would you have posted your comment in the way you did? We should be very skeptical of sites like that as well as counter sites like answers in genesis (which attempts to push a biblical creation accounting) or answers in creation (which is actually an evolution site masquerading as a creation site in an attempt to fool people by claiming evolution and creation fit hand in hand even though better then 80 percent of their articles is why the bible isn't true). To some degree, they will present information just enough to push their agendas and ideals but not enough to get the complete picture.
You are conflating a statement made with the TSP program as if it was one and the same. They aren't. The TSP and the warrantless wiretaps were between international calls in which one person was believed to have been a terrorist or had connections to terrorist. Echelon and magic lantern already do what he said needed to be done and both have been shown to be legal by all the challenges to date in a court.
Really? So all your records on your laptop are open at the borders right? Yes, the courts have already supported that. And this is different from inspecting anything that crosses the border in what way? I mean the TSP only dealt with calls in which one party was outside our borders. Attaching the words spying is disingenuous. It implies something more then there ever was as some point of separate to make the claim worse. It doesn't, it's no different outside of the person knowing they were being searched. And within 2 years of the TSP, everyone had reason to believe that their international calls were being monitored so again, were is the separation?
You really don't get it do you? You are stating opinion as fact when it is nothing but opinion. You have so many things wrong in your attempts to do so, you have admited that all your proof is nothing more then a mental construct in your own head, and here, you claim that you not knowing proves your point. It doesn't, it only makes you jump to conclusions derived from within you mind completely that lack support in the real world. For instance, what was their end goal of doing this maliciously? If you say the collection of power, then how do you explain them willingly and peacefully giving that power up when the term was over or the Vice President not running for office to continue that power grab. In your other post, you attempted to claim absolute power corrupts yet you also maintained there was no absolute power because he was still attempting to acquire power.
Unknowable doesn't mean the lack of malice, it means your accusation of malice is nothing more then your opinion. It is not fact and never will be until such time as someone actually knows.
It's only unlikely when you add your own made up information to the mix. That does not make it so, it only makes you think it is so. And yes, there are mammals that smell like fish which aren't fish as all. Dolphin for instance smell like fish but aren't fish. Occam's logic is more then a singular completion, a more accurate piece of knowledge would be "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it is probably a duck". You see, more then one piece of real and not made up validation with a probable and not a definite explanation.