It is safe. But just like a lot of other safe thing, you have to be somewhat inteligent in using it. It is still not a good idea to run with safety scissors just like its not a good idea to walk around the shady parts of nyc showing everyone you pass a wad of cash while asking them where you can find some crack cocaine.
Unless his company disolves or passes the burden of purchaseing laptops onto employees in the future, there will be a need in 3-5 years to get new ones.
However, 1200 laptops, with a company that large it should be using volume licensing and reimaging the computers with their own keyed software. This would negate anything the manufacturer does. Is there something with new laptops making this impractical?
Neither, they are using the standard weight measurement of the target audience of slashdot which is part of the civilized world that you seem to be interested enough to join and make stupid comments in.
Slashdot is an American centric site in case you didn't know.
Ehh.. just get the puritan prude model. All the sex bot will have to do is lay there missionary style. No learning anything necessary. In fact, you could probably just use a water balloon and a poster of some woman you like with a tape recording saying "ouch that hurts" and "I'll call you Mr. Big" over and over.
Correction. Evolution does not disprove anything, it just shows another viable path to the same goals. Saying anything in evolution disproves any other theory is like saying 3+1 disproves that 2+2 equals 4. This is especially true when something is created as the entire idea or concept of evolution can be a product of the creation and thereby incorrect but still useful to reality.
Are you trying to claim that life was created like watches are and although seemingly endlessly complrx, all we have to do is understand the same physics the creator used?
Seriously, when you sign up for 4 meg service, if the ISP takes any steps to purposely deliver less than that, it's fraud. The scenarios outlined can only exist if we overlook consumer protection laws.
Of course someone will chime in saying but but but but they say "up to" 4 megs so if they limit it to 1 meg or 512k, it's still covered. I say when in the hell is limiting anything to 1 meg or 512k "up to" anything other than that specific limit? You see, those weasel words do not work because any connection rate will always "be up" to only what they limit it at and if that is below what they sold you due actions they take because of someone else paying or not, it is still defrauding the customer- you who is not getting what they sold you (up to 1meg as appose to "up to" the 4 meg you purchased).
Not really, they are showing how futile it is to restrict gun ownership in some ideological view that it will restrict access to guns. Anyone who wants a gun illegally can get one eventually or even make one. Taking guns from law abiding citizens will only take the best means of defense away from them and likely not hamper the illegal uses at all.
I just tried it with a similar experience. Looks like it might some day be a replacement but it's still a work in progress.
I'm looking forward to a competent firefox replacement. All the BS with the menu bars and now a chat client being built in is bad enough, but I don't like their politics or how they treat other people's politics.
It appeals to the soldiers in the field who are relying on the A-10 for support. I've read stories that claim nothing can replace them as they are the most effective close combat support unit in service at this time. Of course others might disagree, but if you look around, you will find a lot of service members grateful it was there.
You are confused. The "can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet" is incorrect. The old law already has provisions for the internet and does not allow the regulation of it without legislative action. The FCC since 1970 or so has been dealing with it and regulating it per the "old law" perfectly fine. This change to a title II regulation is outside the scope of the law and needs a law to be passed to make it kosher.
Also, if you need a distinction between the two, the second amendment bars the government from action. The old law is being use (although illegally) to take action that isn't allowed by the law. In both situations, the answer is to amend- not ignore.
Two different concepts and I'm completely sorry you cannot see that fact. I'll try to explain it to you but because of how obvious it already is and you missing it, I'm not sure I will be successful.
Ok, for starters, the second amendment is a bar on the government to act in certain ways. If you think times have changed to the point the second amendment is no longer needed or needs adjusted, then gather support and amend it.
The 1930's act does not directly cover the internet as a title II service because the 1930's act has another category that the FCC was perfectly fine placing it in called an "information service". This information service was defined as
I NFORMATION SERVICE. --The term ''information service'' means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications, and includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use of any such capability for the management, control, or operation of a telecommunications system or the management of a telecommunications service.
In 1970, the FCC attempted to classify the early internet or computer or data processing as an information service with it's computer I inquiry. This attempted to define a bright line to differentiate between communications services/processing as the phone lines would be and computer data processing (think internet or BBS) which is an information service. It left some ambiguity because it created a dual category or hybrid category that were both information services and communication services. Clearly this was not working as more phone systems started automating their networks and more grey area hybrid categories started popping up. So around 1976, the FCC started it's second computer inquiry or "computers II".
In computers II or computers two, the FCC further distinguished between data processing and communications processing and introduced a term called enhanced services. This also distinguished between computer processing to maintain a communications network as remaining regulated under the communications services portions of the law. This enhanced service is defined by Federal Standard 1037C as
Enhanced service is service offered over commercial carrier transmission facilities used in interstate communications, that employs computer processing applications that act on the format, content, code, protocol, or similar aspects of the subscriber's transmitted information; provides the subscriber with additional, different, or restructured information; or involves subscriber interaction with stored information.
which the internet or any reasonable interpretation would group it into. It's design was to clear up the gray areas and insert data processing into either it's information service or communications service category respectfully.
Well, fast forward to 1996 with the telecommunications law. It added under title II of the telecommunications act, a requirement that upon subscription of internet services that providers must inform customers of commercially available content filtering or blocking software commonly known as parental controls and absolved liability of any software or company on the behalf of the customer filtering or screening content for offensive material. It also put the definitions of enhanced services into law as information services copying almost directly from the computers II inquiry findings.
Now the FCC has always maintained that the law classified the internet and versions that led up to the internet as an information service and not a title II regulation. Even for the short time after the Portland cable case which the courts ruled the FCC had to regulate it under title II the FCC held it was not and contributed to the overturning of such order on appeals which was validated by the supreme court.
So in short, here we have a law from 1936 that has historically been interpr
Given the history of terrorism in spain and the nature of the conference (free speech related) and the france issues, they probably used mirrors at an entry point of the conference and did a once over in all cars parking in the event lot on entry. They likely did this looking for cars rigged to explode and found this tracking device and investigated it.
Its a quick and easy way to show a security theatr is present.
Or purchase a burner phone, call it from the devicevwith the sim and record the number on the caller ID. From there you can track down who owns the number.
Of course it probably sends GPS coordinates via sms. You could attempt to study the format and send bogus location reports like saying it is at the center of the fukishima reactor, the rim of some volcano, or in the middle of the ocean.
Just hope it is not a rental car and the car company starts charging you credit card for excess mileage or out of boundry insurance coverages.
Or someone crying in a corner telling her friend that he said he loved her but she couldn't be with him on the secretive trip out of town and not to call while he was gone.
This tech is availible to anyone. There are a ton of possible explainations.
As studies get expanded, results get more precise. Some policies can be drawn from older studies and are available from an early date, but other policy recommendations require further studies. What's so difficult to understand about that?
There is nothing difficult about that. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that they have been using the information and results to shape policy in government and take freedoms away for quite a while and more specifically, when the information was being sought after and refused.
IPCC uses a wide range of studies to arrive at policy recommendations, not one study from a single institution such as the CRU, and beyond that, I've already mentioned that the CRU results weren't invalidated by any investigation. So what is it that you're arguing for here? Either including the CRU results (if they're valid) or excluding them (if they aren't) won't change anything.
Ok, it's obvious that you are more interested in pushing your beliefs than discussing what was said. You fail big time too because all it does is reinforce the skepticism people have when you completely ignore what they say in order to preach your narrative.
I "seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad"? I'm not sure I understand that, but I'm simply arguing that if claims that make something look bad are later found to be invalid, there's no point in perpetuating them. Had those claims been vindicated, that obviously would have been a reason for taking steps against the CRU. You still haven't said what I'm "skirting". We've already concluded that the claims about CRU were found to be unfounded, what else is there to discuss?
I've said what you are skirting in every post I have replied to you. I've said it 5 different ways and you keep ignoring it in order to run the CRU's defense.
You can suspect anything about anyone. That's no reason to take action before the truth is found out. Regarding "suspicions", see below.
So if someone is suspected of a crime, no one should arrest them until the truth is found out?
Except they weren't. Climate change deniers don't need any reason for mistrust.
Lol.. Well, they certainly had enough reasons for it whether they needed it or not.
Even with full transparency, they'd still throw accusations at climate scientists that they're conning people to get grants. They're doing that all the time. They were doing that even before the CRU "affair". So that wouldn't prevent the problem in the first place
Yup, they were doing that before the CRU emails were made public- you know, back when democrat staffers cut the AC on capital hill and scheduled James Hansen to talk to congress about global warming on a day they specifically picked to be historically one of the hottest days of the year. You know, the day the hockey stick which has since been revised was introduced to America in large scale. Yep, they were making those claims when statisticians were trying to get the data and being told no because they will just pick it apart. Yep, they were making those claims when it was discovered by someone who was denied access to that data that there was mathematical problems with the claimed temperature records which was dubbed the y2k bug because it became obvious at the year 2000 mark. Yep, they have been making those claims when people started saying meteorologist should lose their credentials if they said something was not because of global warming.
Yeppers, as I said, an entire industry of skeptics has cropped up over the years because of the lack of transparency and appearances of improprieties.
The information wasn't available 25 years ago for the simple reason that this was a different line of research that would happen in the future. I'm sure there will also be a lot of research going on 15 years from now but that doesn't mean we can't draw any conclusions now.
And yet claims were being made from it, demands that policy and law be shaped because of it, and you would have us believe that 15 years ago, it was all infantile studies not worthy of that? And yes, I said 15 years, you seem to be fixated on 25 years (probably because of when you were converted).
That is irrelevant since nobody forces you to shape public law with CRU's research either. You're perfectly free to completely ignore CRU even exists, and the relevant scientific landscape won't change.
It is completely relevant as it was being used to impose changes and this is exactly what the repeatability and availability requirements are for.
If you're calling accepted research performed by multiple independent parties over many decades as "religion", it's obvious 1) where you stand and 2) that any reasonable discussion with you is out of question. Is evolution "a religion"? Is general relativity "a religion"? What kind of science isn't "a religion" to you?
It doesn't matter where I stand but I'm calling your actions religious as you seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad than any fundie I have seen when you throw evolution in their face. You are completely skirting issues and talking past them trying to imagine how that makes things perfect now or something. It's the functional equivalent of "the bible says".
The topic you raised was people (those "skeptics" you talked of) unqualified to make judgments on that affair because they lack either the necessary knowledge, intellect, or both. (And if not, pray tell, what else was the topic?)
The topic I raised was that they largely wouldn't exist today if the information was available then and people were not legitimately running around saying they lost the original data or they will not share the data so it is impossible for them to validate their conclusions. Saying there is nothing wrong with what the CRU and other scientists did is the same as saying there is that is perfectly acceptable. I'm saying it caused an entire industry of skeptics to rise which would not be there if this law was in place and followed at the time.
That's like arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves the prosecutor's point. It's utter rubbish.
No, it's arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves that people suspected him of committing the crimes. I never said their claims were valid, I said they were created by the mistrust caused by the lack of transparency.
Except that as I have demonstrated, that is a logically wrong conclusion to make.
15 years after the fact, yes. Are we to ignore those years when the information wasn't available and those opinions and positions were formed? There is an entire work of art revolving around the mistrust that is now in place because of that. You would be a fool to dismiss it.
Without semantics, sentences are meaningless, even grammatically correct ones. You can't NOT use semantics in communication. I'm not sure what your point is there.
I can see you actually are daft. The point was obvious.
Researchers don't often print or show or present everything. Especially if ongoing research is involved. The Rosetta probe photos, for example, also have a period in which they're available only to the PI's team so that someone else wouldn't steal their thunder before they publish. There's nothing inappropriate about that, especially if you have dozens of lines of independent research about the same going on in different places.
You know, this is like saying busses are yellow. No one was trying to create or shape public law with Rosetta probe photos. No one was or is trying to take freedoms away with them either. It's a little different when you say I found a cure for cancer and no one can do X because it causes cancer. The first, it would be perfectly fine with the information being hidden. With the later, it would create all sorts of skepticism and revolt over the idea when the information is withheld and hidden. You are correct, there is nothing inappropriate about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos. There is however, all sorts of problems about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos and using that information to impose penalties and restrict freedoms as a matter of law and government policy.
It's like you are holding an apple and an orange and trying to talk about cars and cannot see that all three are different.
Nothing was "withheld" or "shrouded by secrecy" when I made my decision a quarter century ago. ANYONE could have done so at that point. So how is it relevant?
Nobody cares about when you found religion. It's not important and others not finding it at the exact same time is not important either.
You don't care about people doing flawed reasoning? How can we have any serious discussion on any topic, then?
It appears we cannot because you cannot even stay on topic in the first place. You have not addressed any point I made, you just dance around it proclaiming when you got religion and that numerous official panels declared nothing was done wrong. Hell, the fact that there had to be an investigation and declaration by multiple sources proves my point but you want to change the narrative to how much you believe and how good of a disciple you are.
Interesting, but the first link shows that CRU scientists would be lousy lawyers, and the second is unrelated to CRU completely. And now for a dose of facts about the CRU affair:
lol.. are you daft? those facts are irrelevant as I already stated. No one is arguing or disputing them. You however appear to be dismissing the years of shrouded appearances of impropriety that fueled skepticism about global warming as if it never happened because nothing technically happened that was wrong. It completely misses the entire issue of mistrust it caused a lot of people to generate. You could at this point link to Professor Jones risking his life to save two nuns and an orphan from falling off a cliff to certain death and parade him around as a public hero and it would not change what happened or the skepticism that grew from it one bit at all.
No, I'm not a global warming pusher, CO2 is a global warming pusher. I have no interest in contributing to global warming.
Hmm.. using semantics to deny the obvious. Well, I guess this thread is about the appearance of deceit and proprietary.
No, it isn't. It's about you and presumably some other people apparently being unable to grasp basic principles of reasoning. Even if if you found out evidence of gross academic misconduct having happened within CRU (which didn't happen), it still wouldn't prove anything about global warming (or the lack of it).
Actually, it appears to be moving towards you doing anything possible to ignore what was said just so you can impress what you want into the conversation. Here is a hint, NO ONE SAID IT PROVED ANYTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. I certainly did not, I Specifically said it created two classes of skeptics that would not be skeptical and mistrustful today had it been open and available.
Now before you reply, reread what was just said. Your knee seems to be jerking so hard it knocked the sense right out of you as you seem insistent on arguing something that was never said in order to protect your beliefs instead of realizing the fact that there are people right now who are considered skeptics who would not be if the information was not withheld or shrouded by secrecy in the past. Perhaps this claim I am making is something that is not in the playbook and your scripts doesn't exactly follow so you have to approximate with whatever is closets. I don't know but you certainly are ignoring what was said in order to protect the reputations of some idiots and global warming.
The rest of your drivel is off topic to my point. I do not care about it one bit at all.
IS that what happened? As far as we can tell from the provided links is that the guy in question has copyright in the kernel and somehow the VMware software uses parts of the kernel and can be graphed to look similar to the operations of the linux kernel. I have yet to find anything detailing the exact claim of infringement involved as in what files where.
Actually, I believe the claim is that it was which is why Nvidia ended up using a two part driver module in the early days with one being licensed under the LGPL.
I'm not sure how they do it now but I don't think they use the two part modules any more. I believe Travolds has made statements that binary only blobs in the kernel violate the GPL too as they are derivative. Actually, here is an interesting discussion concerning the linux kernel and derived works the confusion possibilities.
I guess the question is does he have copyrights for the parts infringed upon? If he wrote the scheduler and the infringement is with the driver API which he may not have any copyright, its the same as claiming your dog bit someone else child. Neither the GPL or the copyright law grant you rights to the entire copyrighted entity for partial contribution ( unless it's the same file carrying the copyright). And that is limited further to the extend that the contributed copyright remains (I can rewrite your contributions in a non derivative way and end up with a file that you no longer have a copyright interest in)
I cannot find exactly where they suppose the infringement is other than they used the linux kernel somewhere in the process and the outcomes appear similar. The articles are scarce on details.
Comparing it to a dog bite is a little difficult though. The harm is two parts, first a legal right to control distribution of a copyrighted material and second losses or harm caused by the violation of those rights. If it is the first, they can stop VMware from using the code but they will either need to show that their use deprived him from something concerning his copyright or that he is entitled to royalty for the illegal uses in order to get monetary rewards. Seeing how linux is distributed freely, I suspect he has a good faith belief his copyright is being violated and wants to stop that from happening as outside of recovering court costs, it will be difficult to get much more.
Slashdot Mirror
It is safe. But just like a lot of other safe thing, you have to be somewhat inteligent in using it. It is still not a good idea to run with safety scissors just like its not a good idea to walk around the shady parts of nyc showing everyone you pass a wad of cash while asking them where you can find some crack cocaine.
I for one hate trying to track oddities and buggy software down which is especially harder when there are no logs or evidence of the mibehavior.
Unless his company disolves or passes the burden of purchaseing laptops onto employees in the future, there will be a need in 3-5 years to get new ones.
However, 1200 laptops, with a company that large it should be using volume licensing and reimaging the computers with their own keyed software. This would negate anything the manufacturer does. Is there something with new laptops making this impractical?
Neither, they are using the standard weight measurement of the target audience of slashdot which is part of the civilized world that you seem to be interested enough to join and make stupid comments in.
Slashdot is an American centric site in case you didn't know.
Ehh.. just get the puritan prude model. All the sex bot will have to do is lay there missionary style. No learning anything necessary. In fact, you could probably just use a water balloon and a poster of some woman you like with a tape recording saying "ouch that hurts" and "I'll call you Mr. Big" over and over.
Correction. Evolution does not disprove anything, it just shows another viable path to the same goals. Saying anything in evolution disproves any other theory is like saying 3+1 disproves that 2+2 equals 4. This is especially true when something is created as the entire idea or concept of evolution can be a product of the creation and thereby incorrect but still useful to reality.
More likrly a ruby or noSQL users sinve the bull of the post was centered around why they are not smart. It says nothing of crestion or cteationists.
The original poster doesn't seem as smart as he thinks he is which is likely why you posted AC
Are you trying to claim that life was created like watches are and although seemingly endlessly complrx, all we have to do is understand the same physics the creator used?
Fraud and deceitful or false advertising laws.
Seriously, when you sign up for 4 meg service, if the ISP takes any steps to purposely deliver less than that, it's fraud. The scenarios outlined can only exist if we overlook consumer protection laws.
Of course someone will chime in saying but but but but they say "up to" 4 megs so if they limit it to 1 meg or 512k, it's still covered. I say when in the hell is limiting anything to 1 meg or 512k "up to" anything other than that specific limit? You see, those weasel words do not work because any connection rate will always "be up" to only what they limit it at and if that is below what they sold you due actions they take because of someone else paying or not, it is still defrauding the customer- you who is not getting what they sold you (up to 1meg as appose to "up to" the 4 meg you purchased).
Not really, they are showing how futile it is to restrict gun ownership in some ideological view that it will restrict access to guns. Anyone who wants a gun illegally can get one eventually or even make one. Taking guns from law abiding citizens will only take the best means of defense away from them and likely not hamper the illegal uses at all.
I just tried it with a similar experience. Looks like it might some day be a replacement but it's still a work in progress.
I'm looking forward to a competent firefox replacement. All the BS with the menu bars and now a chat client being built in is bad enough, but I don't like their politics or how they treat other people's politics.
It appeals to the soldiers in the field who are relying on the A-10 for support. I've read stories that claim nothing can replace them as they are the most effective close combat support unit in service at this time. Of course others might disagree, but if you look around, you will find a lot of service members grateful it was there.
You are confused. The "can't work for regulating the Internet simply because its an "old law" that predates the Internet" is incorrect. The old law already has provisions for the internet and does not allow the regulation of it without legislative action. The FCC since 1970 or so has been dealing with it and regulating it per the "old law" perfectly fine. This change to a title II regulation is outside the scope of the law and needs a law to be passed to make it kosher.
Also, if you need a distinction between the two, the second amendment bars the government from action. The old law is being use (although illegally) to take action that isn't allowed by the law. In both situations, the answer is to amend- not ignore.
Two different concepts and I'm completely sorry you cannot see that fact. I'll try to explain it to you but because of how obvious it already is and you missing it, I'm not sure I will be successful.
Ok, for starters, the second amendment is a bar on the government to act in certain ways. If you think times have changed to the point the second amendment is no longer needed or needs adjusted, then gather support and amend it.
The 1930's act does not directly cover the internet as a title II service because the 1930's act has another category that the FCC was perfectly fine placing it in called an "information service". This information service was defined as
In 1970, the FCC attempted to classify the early internet or computer or data processing as an information service with it's computer I inquiry. This attempted to define a bright line to differentiate between communications services/processing as the phone lines would be and computer data processing (think internet or BBS) which is an information service. It left some ambiguity because it created a dual category or hybrid category that were both information services and communication services. Clearly this was not working as more phone systems started automating their networks and more grey area hybrid categories started popping up. So around 1976, the FCC started it's second computer inquiry or "computers II".
In computers II or computers two, the FCC further distinguished between data processing and communications processing and introduced a term called enhanced services. This also distinguished between computer processing to maintain a communications network as remaining regulated under the communications services portions of the law. This enhanced service is defined by Federal Standard 1037C as
which the internet or any reasonable interpretation would group it into. It's design was to clear up the gray areas and insert data processing into either it's information service or communications service category respectfully.
Well, fast forward to 1996 with the telecommunications law. It added under title II of the telecommunications act, a requirement that upon subscription of internet services that providers must inform customers of commercially available content filtering or blocking software commonly known as parental controls and absolved liability of any software or company on the behalf of the customer filtering or screening content for offensive material. It also put the definitions of enhanced services into law as information services copying almost directly from the computers II inquiry findings.
Now the FCC has always maintained that the law classified the internet and versions that led up to the internet as an information service and not a title II regulation. Even for the short time after the Portland cable case which the courts ruled the FCC had to regulate it under title II the FCC held it was not and contributed to the overturning of such order on appeals which was validated by the supreme court.
So in short, here we have a law from 1936 that has historically been interpr
Given the history of terrorism in spain and the nature of the conference (free speech related) and the france issues, they probably used mirrors at an entry point of the conference and did a once over in all cars parking in the event lot on entry. They likely did this looking for cars rigged to explode and found this tracking device and investigated it.
Its a quick and easy way to show a security theatr is present.
Idealy they will use a tonsilometer but baring that, the oldschool five knuckle multiplyer will work.
Or purchase a burner phone, call it from the devicevwith the sim and record the number on the caller ID. From there you can track down who owns the number.
Of course it probably sends GPS coordinates via sms. You could attempt to study the format and send bogus location reports like saying it is at the center of the fukishima reactor, the rim of some volcano, or in the middle of the ocean.
Just hope it is not a rental car and the car company starts charging you credit card for excess mileage or out of boundry insurance coverages.
Or someone crying in a corner telling her friend that he said he loved her but she couldn't be with him on the secretive trip out of town and not to call while he was gone.
This tech is availible to anyone. There are a ton of possible explainations.
There is nothing difficult about that. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that they have been using the information and results to shape policy in government and take freedoms away for quite a while and more specifically, when the information was being sought after and refused.
Ok, it's obvious that you are more interested in pushing your beliefs than discussing what was said. You fail big time too because all it does is reinforce the skepticism people have when you completely ignore what they say in order to preach your narrative.
I've said what you are skirting in every post I have replied to you. I've said it 5 different ways and you keep ignoring it in order to run the CRU's defense.
So if someone is suspected of a crime, no one should arrest them until the truth is found out?
Lol.. Well, they certainly had enough reasons for it whether they needed it or not.
Yup, they were doing that before the CRU emails were made public- you know, back when democrat staffers cut the AC on capital hill and scheduled James Hansen to talk to congress about global warming on a day they specifically picked to be historically one of the hottest days of the year. You know, the day the hockey stick which has since been revised was introduced to America in large scale. Yep, they were making those claims when statisticians were trying to get the data and being told no because they will just pick it apart. Yep, they were making those claims when it was discovered by someone who was denied access to that data that there was mathematical problems with the claimed temperature records which was dubbed the y2k bug because it became obvious at the year 2000 mark. Yep, they have been making those claims when people started saying meteorologist should lose their credentials if they said something was not because of global warming.
Yeppers, as I said, an entire industry of skeptics has cropped up over the years because of the lack of transparency and appearances of improprieties.
And yet claims were being made from it, demands that policy and law be shaped because of it, and you would have us believe that 15 years ago, it was all infantile studies not worthy of that? And yes, I said 15 years, you seem to be fixated on 25 years (probably because of when you were converted).
It is completely relevant as it was being used to impose changes and this is exactly what the repeatability and availability requirements are for.
It doesn't matter where I stand but I'm calling your actions religious as you seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad than any fundie I have seen when you throw evolution in their face. You are completely skirting issues and talking past them trying to imagine how that makes things perfect now or something. It's the functional equivalent of "the bible says".
The topic I raised was that they largely wouldn't exist today if the information was available then and people were not legitimately running around saying they lost the original data or they will not share the data so it is impossible for them to validate their conclusions. Saying there is nothing wrong with what the CRU and other scientists did is the same as saying there is that is perfectly acceptable. I'm saying it caused an entire industry of skeptics to rise which would not be there if this law was in place and followed at the time.
No, it's arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves that people suspected him of committing the crimes. I never said their claims were valid, I said they were created by the mistrust caused by the lack of transparency.
15 years after the fact, yes. Are we to ignore those years when the information wasn't available and those opinions and positions were formed? There is an entire work of art revolving around the mistrust that is now in place because of that. You would be a fool to dismiss it.
I can see you actually are daft. The point was obvious.
You know, this is like saying busses are yellow. No one was trying to create or shape public law with Rosetta probe photos. No one was or is trying to take freedoms away with them either. It's a little different when you say I found a cure for cancer and no one can do X because it causes cancer. The first, it would be perfectly fine with the information being hidden. With the later, it would create all sorts of skepticism and revolt over the idea when the information is withheld and hidden. You are correct, there is nothing inappropriate about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos. There is however, all sorts of problems about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos and using that information to impose penalties and restrict freedoms as a matter of law and government policy.
It's like you are holding an apple and an orange and trying to talk about cars and cannot see that all three are different.
Nobody cares about when you found religion. It's not important and others not finding it at the exact same time is not important either.
It appears we cannot because you cannot even stay on topic in the first place. You have not addressed any point I made, you just dance around it proclaiming when you got religion and that numerous official panels declared nothing was done wrong. Hell, the fact that there had to be an investigation and declaration by multiple sources proves my point but you want to change the narrative to how much you believe and how good of a disciple you are.
lol.. are you daft? those facts are irrelevant as I already stated. No one is arguing or disputing them. You however appear to be dismissing the years of shrouded appearances of impropriety that fueled skepticism about global warming as if it never happened because nothing technically happened that was wrong. It completely misses the entire issue of mistrust it caused a lot of people to generate. You could at this point link to Professor Jones risking his life to save two nuns and an orphan from falling off a cliff to certain death and parade him around as a public hero and it would not change what happened or the skepticism that grew from it one bit at all.
Hmm.. using semantics to deny the obvious. Well, I guess this thread is about the appearance of deceit and proprietary.
IS that what happened? As far as we can tell from the provided links is that the guy in question has copyright in the kernel and somehow the VMware software uses parts of the kernel and can be graphed to look similar to the operations of the linux kernel. I have yet to find anything detailing the exact claim of infringement involved as in what files where.
Actually, I believe the claim is that it was which is why Nvidia ended up using a two part driver module in the early days with one being licensed under the LGPL.
I'm not sure how they do it now but I don't think they use the two part modules any more. I believe Travolds has made statements that binary only blobs in the kernel violate the GPL too as they are derivative. Actually, here is an interesting discussion concerning the linux kernel and derived works the confusion possibilities.
I guess the question is does he have copyrights for the parts infringed upon? If he wrote the scheduler and the infringement is with the driver API which he may not have any copyright, its the same as claiming your dog bit someone else child. Neither the GPL or the copyright law grant you rights to the entire copyrighted entity for partial contribution ( unless it's the same file carrying the copyright). And that is limited further to the extend that the contributed copyright remains (I can rewrite your contributions in a non derivative way and end up with a file that you no longer have a copyright interest in)
I cannot find exactly where they suppose the infringement is other than they used the linux kernel somewhere in the process and the outcomes appear similar. The articles are scarce on details.
Comparing it to a dog bite is a little difficult though. The harm is two parts, first a legal right to control distribution of a copyrighted material and second losses or harm caused by the violation of those rights. If it is the first, they can stop VMware from using the code but they will either need to show that their use deprived him from something concerning his copyright or that he is entitled to royalty for the illegal uses in order to get monetary rewards. Seeing how linux is distributed freely, I suspect he has a good faith belief his copyright is being violated and wants to stop that from happening as outside of recovering court costs, it will be difficult to get much more.