Why would every state have a nuclear waste disposal facility. That seems... arbitrary.
What's more, some states might not have the requisite geology. And the more such sites there
are, the more vulnerable they are to terrorist attack.
I've always thought that a single site in the Canadian shield, perhaps at the bottom
of an old uranium mine, would do the trick. It's already radioactive as hell, given the
amount of natural uranium in the Athabasca basin. Indeed one current mine is mined entirely
by remote control because of the radioactivity. And the Canadian shield is one of the
hardest and most geologically stable features on the planet.
There were a few inaccuracies right off the bat. For example, Stallman may have issues with
the state of copyright law, but he's not against copyright per se. Indeed, the GPL
is based on copyright law. Lyon also confuses free as in beer with free as in freedom.
But the main point is essentially correct: Stallman is trying to aggressively expand his "freedom empire" with the GPL 3, and it could just bite him on the ass.
The article also insulting, inflammatory, and funny. Gotta love a good dustup.
I understand now. Here's a comment from your original post:
Before everyone wants to shout this down as "religion" consider that no "religion" or "religious belief" has been forwarded here.
And here's a quote from the above post:
His theory was the direct product of sin, and the belief in his theory is also the direct product of sin, because ultimately, sin is the opposition to God, be it in thought or deed.
Might I suggest that your original claim that your argument was not a religious one
was a tad... insincere?
Okay, so let me get this straight - you're blaming Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the
destruction of the environment on Darwin?
While you're at it, make sure to blame Newton for the improvements in artillery that ensued
due to a better understanding of kinetics. Or blame Mendeleev for devising the periodic table,
since improvements in chemistry led to mustard gas.
"Social Darwinism" was never part of Darwin's work. It's a fraudulent extension of it, and to
blame Darwin for that is ludicrous.
And Darwin never said that any species, race, or specimen "deserved to die". He only described why some did and why some didn't.
Almost every trained biologist buys into Darwin's theory of natural selection, and they all abhor the destruction of the environment.
I blame Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the
destruction of the environment on ignorance, the kind that Darwin fought so effectively
against, the kind you are propogating right now.
It could be that both parties want (or at least don't mind) the slow pace.
SCO wanted discovery to drag on so they could continue fishing for evidence
to back an improverished case.
IBM might not mind the slow pace because
they know they'll win a battle of attrition since SCO has limited funds.
Also, IBM couldn't buy this kind of good publicity amongst IT managers.
No kidding. Probably few people who are truly intelligent
want much to do with a mutual admiration society
for people who do well on tests. They prefer the
company of people who accomplish things.
And I'm not just saying that cause I was rejected.
No, really.
My concern is that because BMI is quick and easy to calculate, it's being used
inappropriately. Basing insurance rates on someone's BMI, for example, is clearly
an abuse.
BMI is equivalent to a dirty test tube. My question,
and it's one that needs to be answered to use BMI for any kind of study, is
precisely how dirty is this test tube? For example, what is the statistical
deviation between BMI and DEXA scanning results?
My BMI (body-mass index) is 29.3. That's just on the border
between overweight and obese. And yet no one seems to consider
me overweight. I take a size 34 waste, my belly doesn't overhang my belt,
I can easily run 5 miles at a decent pace, and I keep up to
obviously fit people when circuit training. My doctor has never once told
me I should lose weight.
The problem, of course, is that the BMI doesn't compensate for muscle or stature.
Now everyone knows the BMI is only a rough guide, and that there are better
ways to measure obesity. But if it's the main instrument
for claiming an "obesity epidemic" then we have to know how rough.
If the BMI doesn't work for me, how many others does it not work for?
I don't blame you blame you for finding it hard to believe.
That is probably to your credit, although your language could use some cleaning up.
Perhaps you would like some reading on the subject:
Or just read up on the
Sokal Affair.
Sokal's bogus article,
which he got published in a leading postmodernist journal, is worth reading in its entirety.
A quote from Sokal's article:
Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.
But deep conceptual shifts within twentieth-century science have undermined this Cartesian-Newtonian metaphysics
True, postmodernism and the academic left are
mostly found in the humanities. Sociology, culture studies, women's studies,
black studies, queer studies, and even some anthropology departments
can be hot beds of postmodernism.
So far as "very, very small minority",
well it's probably true that few people buy into extreme postmodernism,
but general postmodernist attitudes have seeped into all of the humanities.
I recommend you read the books "Higher Superstition" or "Intellectual Impostures" if you
want to a get a feel for the extent of anti-scientific postmodern writings.
The academic left (who typically vote for, or are, Democrats)
have their own problems, where the reigning philosphy still appears to be postmodernism.
Postmodernism (depending on the flavour) has a distinctly relativistic and
anti-scientific bent.
Some postmodernist sincerely posit that there is no such thing as objective truth,
that all knowldege is "situated",
and that science is no more valid than any other belief structure.
For many postmodernists, science is claimed to be just another tool of oppression for the
white, Eurocentric, militaristic, capitalistic patriarchy.
Sure there are many contracts that say one side has the right to change the agreement,
but such contracts generally allow the other side to cancel the agreement at any time.
There is no such ability with the GPL (nor could there be). Once a piece of software
is released under the GPL, it can not be revoked.
The problem with the "any version" clause is not for the user of the software,
but for the copyright holder, who is agreeing that the software can be licensed
at some future date under terms which he is not aware of and has no control over.
I've always had problems with the "any later version" and the "choose any version" clauses in the GPL.
To my way of thinking, neither side of a bargain can reasonably agree to a clause referring
to licenses which do not yet exist, and of whose content neither side has any say in.
I have no idea how the courts view these things - my guess
is they aren't too excited about them. They undoubtedly prefer that all the cards be on
the table right from the get-go.
In other words, the FSF's opinion is the only one that matters because it's their license.
Wrongo. It's the courts' opinions that matter, not FSF. The courts interpret the meaning
and validity of the license, and they don't give a rat's ass what FSF's opinions are.
It's FSF's license only in that they have copyright on the text. Nothing more.
Here we go again. Another company solving all of our energy problems, but
not telling us how. Can you say Steorn? Genesis World Energy? How about Xogen?
Given that duping a journalist, or one's self, is far easier than actually
creating such a device, I shall label this myth "unlikely" until we get some
of that - what's that stuff again? - oh yeah, solid evidence.
By "computers" she means those thingys with the two rows of wires and beads.
In all the time she's worked there, not a single "blue bead of death". Even a power
failure can't stop these babies.
The reason that some software patents are (in)famous is that (1) they have an obvious
manifestation in the user interface, and (2) they are meant for public (rather than
intra-company) use. One-click shopping is an excellent example.
But I would bet most software patents do not have both properties. Certainly in
my industry (geophysical processing) this is the case. The very things that make patents
less known also their violation less obvious. Thus the patents you
are most familiar with are not necessarily typical.
Regarding the second point, I am definitely in favour of anything that would improve
the quality of patents. I am appalled at some of the the quality I have seen. The biggest
problem seems to be vagueness. Either you can't figure out what the patent is supposed
to cover, or it appears to be far too broad. This vagueness is a great weapon - even if the
patent might not stand up in court, competitors are hesitant to challenge it.
if you can simply copy the process by looking at the end results (and or code), chances are it wasn't worth patenting in the first place.
Many brilliant and inventive ideas can often be implemented in a few lines of code.
The Fast Fourier Transform and Quick Sort are just two examples (although neither were
patented).
If I come up with an idea and use that to create a physical working device then I should patent the device... Not the idea of the device.
I'm afraid the idea is exactly what is patentable, not the device.
You can, for example, patent an algorithm
where a software program plays a major role in its implementation,
but you can't patent the software program itself. You
can only copyright that (indeed copyright is automatic).
On Stallman's (probably long) list of things he doesn't like, the following rank at or near
the top:
Software patents.
Proprietary (that is, closed) software.
Here's the thing: Probably the best defense against having to deal with
software patents is to keep the software closed. Don't make the code public
and don't tell how it works. If people don't know you've violated their
patent, they are not likely to sue you, and their software patent won't be
worth very much.
Such a strategy is not dishonest -
even when behaving with the highest integrity,
inadvertent patent violation is not only possible, but likely.
You should not knowingly violate patents, but you aren't required
to help the patent holders identify offenders either.
By hating both simultaneously, RMS has given himself a very tough
row to hoe. Open software is highly vulnerable to patent litigation.
Slashdot Mirror
Gotter down to 1 byte. Not bad at all.
I've always thought that a single site in the Canadian shield, perhaps at the bottom of an old uranium mine, would do the trick. It's already radioactive as hell, given the amount of natural uranium in the Athabasca basin. Indeed one current mine is mined entirely by remote control because of the radioactivity. And the Canadian shield is one of the hardest and most geologically stable features on the planet.
Besides which, they keep shutting down paper mills in Quebec, putting people out of work. They could use a little support.
But the main point is essentially correct: Stallman is trying to aggressively expand his "freedom empire" with the GPL 3, and it could just bite him on the ass.
The article also insulting, inflammatory, and funny. Gotta love a good dustup.
Perhaps not, but you could not defend your position without resorting to religious arguments, suggesting that that was indeed what it was.
And here's a quote from the above post: Might I suggest that your original claim that your argument was not a religious one was a tad
While you're at it, make sure to blame Newton for the improvements in artillery that ensued due to a better understanding of kinetics. Or blame Mendeleev for devising the periodic table, since improvements in chemistry led to mustard gas.
"Social Darwinism" was never part of Darwin's work. It's a fraudulent extension of it, and to blame Darwin for that is ludicrous.
And Darwin never said that any species, race, or specimen "deserved to die". He only described why some did and why some didn't. Almost every trained biologist buys into Darwin's theory of natural selection, and they all abhor the destruction of the environment.
I blame Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the destruction of the environment on ignorance, the kind that Darwin fought so effectively against, the kind you are propogating right now.
Witty losers, you say?
Have I got a web site for you!
It could be that both parties want (or at least don't mind) the slow pace.
SCO wanted discovery to drag on so they could continue fishing for evidence to back an improverished case.
IBM might not mind the slow pace because they know they'll win a battle of attrition since SCO has limited funds. Also, IBM couldn't buy this kind of good publicity amongst IT managers.
And I'm not just saying that cause I was rejected. No, really.
BMI is equivalent to a dirty test tube. My question, and it's one that needs to be answered to use BMI for any kind of study, is precisely how dirty is this test tube? For example, what is the statistical deviation between BMI and DEXA scanning results?
You can see why my BMI is so out of wack.
The problem, of course, is that the BMI doesn't compensate for muscle or stature. Now everyone knows the BMI is only a rough guide, and that there are better ways to measure obesity. But if it's the main instrument for claiming an "obesity epidemic" then we have to know how rough.
If the BMI doesn't work for me, how many others does it not work for?
Or just read up on the Sokal Affair. Sokal's bogus article, which he got published in a leading postmodernist journal, is worth reading in its entirety. A quote from Sokal's article:
Still think I'm full of shit?
So far as "very, very small minority", well it's probably true that few people buy into extreme postmodernism, but general postmodernist attitudes have seeped into all of the humanities.
I recommend you read the books "Higher Superstition" or "Intellectual Impostures" if you want to a get a feel for the extent of anti-scientific postmodern writings.
Postmodernism (depending on the flavour) has a distinctly relativistic and anti-scientific bent. Some postmodernist sincerely posit that there is no such thing as objective truth, that all knowldege is "situated", and that science is no more valid than any other belief structure.
For many postmodernists, science is claimed to be just another tool of oppression for the white, Eurocentric, militaristic, capitalistic patriarchy.
The problem with the "any version" clause is not for the user of the software, but for the copyright holder, who is agreeing that the software can be licensed at some future date under terms which he is not aware of and has no control over.
I have no idea how the courts view these things - my guess is they aren't too excited about them. They undoubtedly prefer that all the cards be on the table right from the get-go.
It's FSF's license only in that they have copyright on the text. Nothing more.
Perhaps not enough to make IBM to actually want these difficulties, but they're smart enough to recognize and exploit the benefits.
Given that duping a journalist, or one's self, is far easier than actually creating such a device, I shall label this myth "unlikely" until we get some of that - what's that stuff again? - oh yeah, solid evidence.
By "computers" she means those thingys with the two rows of wires and beads. In all the time she's worked there, not a single "blue bead of death". Even a power failure can't stop these babies.
But I would bet most software patents do not have both properties. Certainly in my industry (geophysical processing) this is the case. The very things that make patents less known also their violation less obvious. Thus the patents you are most familiar with are not necessarily typical.
Regarding the second point, I am definitely in favour of anything that would improve the quality of patents. I am appalled at some of the the quality I have seen. The biggest problem seems to be vagueness. Either you can't figure out what the patent is supposed to cover, or it appears to be far too broad. This vagueness is a great weapon - even if the patent might not stand up in court, competitors are hesitant to challenge it.
Many brilliant and inventive ideas can often be implemented in a few lines of code. The Fast Fourier Transform and Quick Sort are just two examples (although neither were patented).
I'm afraid the idea is exactly what is patentable, not the device. You can, for example, patent an algorithm where a software program plays a major role in its implementation, but you can't patent the software program itself. You can only copyright that (indeed copyright is automatic).
- Software patents.
- Proprietary (that is, closed) software.
Here's the thing: Probably the best defense against having to deal with software patents is to keep the software closed. Don't make the code public and don't tell how it works. If people don't know you've violated their patent, they are not likely to sue you, and their software patent won't be worth very much.Such a strategy is not dishonest - even when behaving with the highest integrity, inadvertent patent violation is not only possible, but likely. You should not knowingly violate patents, but you aren't required to help the patent holders identify offenders either.
By hating both simultaneously, RMS has given himself a very tough row to hoe. Open software is highly vulnerable to patent litigation.