No, they can't, because "whatever they want" includes modifying it and running it on the same hardware! In reality, the GPLv2 means that the user can do some -- but not all -- of what they want with the code, and that's just not acceptable.
OK, I think I found the right analogy (no cars, I promise). I understand that Tivoization is not acceptable to you. We weren't talking about you.:P
Consider that someone is writing some application, Foo. Foo uses a library called Bar. Foo's author wants to make sure that Foo uses a specific version of Bar (the reason doesn't really matter). He does some sort of checking in Foo to verify that it's the Bar he wants. If Bar is LGPL2, then Foo can have a proprietary license. If Bar is GPL2, then Foo must be released with a compatible license, and the author of Foo will have to release information about it (in this case, source code, etc). In both cases, he has to make Bar source available.
Now, if you assume that instead of a library, assume that Foo is a piece of hardware. The GPL2 doesn't cover anything about making available information on the hardware. The GPL3 does. So with respect to Tivoization, we can say that GPL2 is to GPL3 as LGPL2 is to GPL2.
We all get that you disagree with this, but you've probably come to grips with the fact that there are people out there who still release their code as LGPL2 (and even things like BSD!). Please stop saying that you think it's wrong. We all got that a while ago. That doesn't mean that it's the Right thing. Ideally, I'd agree with you, too, but back here in the real world, not everyone does, and there are sometimes even legitimate reasons to do so.
The Republicans were given a real kick in the ass in 2006, and ever since then, they've been visibly moving their collective political asses away from Bush.
You're right. They completely abandoned him on the war in Iraq, on expanding SCHIP, budget vetoes. Oh, wait, they didn't do that at all.
He's still unpopular in opinion polls, but he took the initiative back from the Democrats in 2007 after their election gains in 2006.
It's not equivalent at all. It's more like complaining that some GPL'd i386 assembly code won't run on exactly the same i386 it was designed for just because you changed it.
Yes, that's why I said roughly. But the important part was that the analogy had a hardware component.
It's a social requirement, not a hardware one.
Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't make sense without some reference to the hardware. Which was my point. You're talking about requiring them to give information regarding how the hardware operates. I'm not arguing about whether they should or shouldn't, but just the simple fact that GPL3 goes into territory that some people don't agree is a pure software/copyright issue. The user can still do whatever they want with the code, but some hardware will not run it after it's been changed.
Having said that, I think the GPL3 certainly falls in line with the traditions of the FSF and GNU philosophies. But not everyone has the same enthusiasm for those issues as, say RMS, and they may have other reasons for opposing this particular part of the GPL3.
Yes, but as has been pointed out to you, you've wandered outside of strictly software. It obviously doesn't matter to you, but consider that the argument is (roughly) equivalent to complaining that some GPLed i386 assembly code wont run on a PPC. You can still do whatever you want with the code, but the software license shouldn't have anything to do with the hardware (according to those who don't agree with this part of GPLv3).
GPLv3 advocates believe that the software license should also be able to reach out to affect how the hardware interacts with the software. This places requirements on the hardware as well as the software. Yes, you've extended the rights of the user at the expense of the developers, but you've gone beyond only dealing with software.
Just please accept that not everyone thinks that software licenses should do this.
I presume you've read most of the papers, since you seem to understand how it works and why virtually every single climate model is flawed.
Of course not. But that's beside the point. The burden of proof should be on the model makers, and when there are large discrepancies between real world observations and the key outputs of the models (such as their claim that upper atmosphere temperatures should be rising as fast or faster than surface temperatures) cannot be validated, I would tend to take any claims based on said models with large grains of salt.
Or possibly the research showing that while CO2 and temperature are correlated, the rise in CO2 seems to lag the rise in temperature. Given that the main theory is that CO2 causes rises in temperatures (just look at these ice cores!), I think that there is a lot of room for skepticism.
...the Earth is now operating under *entirely* different conditions from every previous +/- 100,000 year warming cycle. For example, during the previous peaks, the planet had things like rainforests which very possibly played a huge part in bringing the CO2 back under control
Maybe, but if CO2 doesn't really cause the warming, and it's really just a bunch of plant food, then what's the point? There are also theories that a warmer world would be better, not worse.
No matter what, red flags should be going up all over the bloody place, and we must research and understand this thing as best as humanly possible, no matter what is causing it.
I don't disagree with this, but we should require extraordinary proof from those who want to cause a lot of damage to the world's economies, including stopping people who are currently mired in poverty from climbing out and improving their standard of living. In my opinion, they haven't come anywhere near that standard.
Yes, how can Big Oil possibly compete against all those super-rich scientists?
why would they compete against scientists? There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the debate. It's the politicians and bureaucrats who want to direct the billions who they'd be fighting against. I'm not arguing that oil lobbyists don't have more influence than is healthy, but so do those working against the oil companies.
Of course it doesn't prove anything, but when the natural cycles appear to be so much more dramatic than what we're told is our effect, we might expect a higher level of proof before discounting nature's role. And blaming the majority on a single factor in such a complex system should throw up a few red flags of its own.
Your grasp of the Air Force kill chain and command and control (in unprecedented circumstances, no less!) are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
When we're talking about news, yes, I think that's a fair assessment. Unbiased editorial content (which is what most of the second half is) is an oxymoron. I'm curious to understand how you would measure something like this.
The study makes a certain assumption about how to measure the bias of a show. If the stories from source A are more heavily biased in one direction (as compared to other sources reporting on the same topic), then it's probably a fair assumption that source A is more biased, where the bias is being displayed through either editorial decisions on what to cover, or possibly the way in which the report covered the story.
The report claims (please provide contrary evidence, if you have some) that "Special Report" on Fox News chose to air about the same number of positive and negative stories regarding the groups in question. They were slightly closer to 50/50 with respect to coverage of the Democrats, and were much closer to even than the other sources on coverage of Republicans.
I regularly watch "Special Report," and I have to say that the study agrees with my perception of the first half hour.
Or were you just trying to continue the current low of demagoguery against Fox News? Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your narrative.
I think that you did read it correctly, but you're either confusing the clearly editorial content of the last two segments with the rest of the show, or the only thing you know about the show is that it's on Fox News.
These results are from CMPA's 2008 ElectionNewsWatch Project. They are based on a scientific
content analysis of all 481 election news stories (15 hours 40 minutes of airtime) that aired on the flagship evening news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX (the first 30 minutes of "Special Report with Brit Hume") from October 1 through December 15, 2007.
Who's Fair and Balanced?: Fox News Channel's coverage was more balanced toward both parties
than the broadcast networks were. On FOX, evaluations of all Democratic candidates combined were
split almost evenly - 51% positive vs. 49% negative, as were all evaluations of GOP candidates - 49% positive vs. 51% negative, producing a perfectly balanced 50-50 split for all candidates of both parties.
On the three broadcast networks, opinion on Democratic candidates split 47% positive vs. 53%
negative, while evaluations of Republicans were more negative - 40% positive vs. 60% negative. For both parties combined, network evaluations were almost 3 to 2 negative in tone, i.e. 41% positive vs. 59% negative.
That and the fact that Mandriva is a stupid, stupid name.
Sorry, was this supposed to be an argument for Ubuntu? Gutsy Gibbon? I'm posting from Ubuntu, too, but I haven't fooled myself into thinking that it isn't a weird name. At least in Vista, MS has a name that you aren't embarrassed to say out loud in front of your boss.
The only hope of achieving a global industrial base that can be maintained indefinitely is through improved processes and superior technology. That requires continuous and substantial investment from both the government and private sectors.
Your second sentence dances around the other thing required beyond the processes and technology: customers wealthy enough to be willing and able to pay for it.
Well, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't decide that the meaning of "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" has changed in the last couple of hundred years, this shouldn't be a real concern in the US. Unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed, but it's hard to think of a more airtight way to put this.
What part of these licenses are "look but don't touch?" If these licenses didn't have the Ms- prefix, we wouldn't be having this discussion. RTFLs. These are not at all like the MS Reference license (which is probably what you're confused about).
There's a difference between something that is the right thing to do, and something that should be enforced at the point of a gun. I don't think that anyone's arguing that it's a good idea to exclude blind people. They're arguing that the government shouldn't have anything to say about that, at least when it comes to private enterprise. Will the next step be to require alternative languages? Once they start regulating a thing, it just gets easier to do it again.
We should be very careful before we invite such a thing.
Yeah, but what you missed is that when you reveal your methods, the terrorists can take counter-measures designed to thwart your methods. It can be as simple as, stop talking on a sat-phone (as bin Laden did in the 90s when it slipped out that we were listening to it). Having the other side suspect what your intelligence gathering methods are is one thing, but confirming them is another thing entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I think I found the right analogy (no cars, I promise). I understand that Tivoization is not acceptable to you. We weren't talking about you. :P
Consider that someone is writing some application, Foo. Foo uses a library called Bar. Foo's author wants to make sure that Foo uses a specific version of Bar (the reason doesn't really matter). He does some sort of checking in Foo to verify that it's the Bar he wants. If Bar is LGPL2, then Foo can have a proprietary license. If Bar is GPL2, then Foo must be released with a compatible license, and the author of Foo will have to release information about it (in this case, source code, etc). In both cases, he has to make Bar source available.
Now, if you assume that instead of a library, assume that Foo is a piece of hardware. The GPL2 doesn't cover anything about making available information on the hardware. The GPL3 does. So with respect to Tivoization, we can say that GPL2 is to GPL3 as LGPL2 is to GPL2.
We all get that you disagree with this, but you've probably come to grips with the fact that there are people out there who still release their code as LGPL2 (and even things like BSD!). Please stop saying that you think it's wrong. We all got that a while ago. That doesn't mean that it's the Right thing. Ideally, I'd agree with you, too, but back here in the real world, not everyone does, and there are sometimes even legitimate reasons to do so.
You're right. They completely abandoned him on the war in Iraq, on expanding SCHIP, budget vetoes. Oh, wait, they didn't do that at all.
He's still unpopular in opinion polls, but he took the initiative back from the Democrats in 2007 after their election gains in 2006.
Yes, that's why I said roughly. But the important part was that the analogy had a hardware component.
Call it whatever you want, but it doesn't make sense without some reference to the hardware. Which was my point. You're talking about requiring them to give information regarding how the hardware operates. I'm not arguing about whether they should or shouldn't, but just the simple fact that GPL3 goes into territory that some people don't agree is a pure software/copyright issue. The user can still do whatever they want with the code, but some hardware will not run it after it's been changed.
Having said that, I think the GPL3 certainly falls in line with the traditions of the FSF and GNU philosophies. But not everyone has the same enthusiasm for those issues as, say RMS, and they may have other reasons for opposing this particular part of the GPL3.
Yes, but as has been pointed out to you, you've wandered outside of strictly software. It obviously doesn't matter to you, but consider that the argument is (roughly) equivalent to complaining that some GPLed i386 assembly code wont run on a PPC. You can still do whatever you want with the code, but the software license shouldn't have anything to do with the hardware (according to those who don't agree with this part of GPLv3).
GPLv3 advocates believe that the software license should also be able to reach out to affect how the hardware interacts with the software. This places requirements on the hardware as well as the software. Yes, you've extended the rights of the user at the expense of the developers, but you've gone beyond only dealing with software.
Just please accept that not everyone thinks that software licenses should do this.
Then I guess they were right when they said that the only way to save the village was to burn the village.
Of course not. But that's beside the point. The burden of proof should be on the model makers, and when there are large discrepancies between real world observations and the key outputs of the models (such as their claim that upper atmosphere temperatures should be rising as fast or faster than surface temperatures) cannot be validated, I would tend to take any claims based on said models with large grains of salt.
Or possibly the research showing that while CO2 and temperature are correlated, the rise in CO2 seems to lag the rise in temperature. Given that the main theory is that CO2 causes rises in temperatures (just look at these ice cores!), I think that there is a lot of room for skepticism.
Maybe, but if CO2 doesn't really cause the warming, and it's really just a bunch of plant food, then what's the point? There are also theories that a warmer world would be better, not worse. I don't disagree with this, but we should require extraordinary proof from those who want to cause a lot of damage to the world's economies, including stopping people who are currently mired in poverty from climbing out and improving their standard of living. In my opinion, they haven't come anywhere near that standard.why would they compete against scientists? There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the debate. It's the politicians and bureaucrats who want to direct the billions who they'd be fighting against. I'm not arguing that oil lobbyists don't have more influence than is healthy, but so do those working against the oil companies.
Bad for the goose, bad for the gander.
Of course it doesn't prove anything, but when the natural cycles appear to be so much more dramatic than what we're told is our effect, we might expect a higher level of proof before discounting nature's role. And blaming the majority on a single factor in such a complex system should throw up a few red flags of its own.
How much does the oil company shill position pay? Apparently not as good as AGW shill.
Your grasp of the Air Force kill chain and command and control (in unprecedented circumstances, no less!) are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Brillant. Come back when you've actually read my comment. Or watched the show. Or something.
When we're talking about news, yes, I think that's a fair assessment. Unbiased editorial content (which is what most of the second half is) is an oxymoron. I'm curious to understand how you would measure something like this.
The study makes a certain assumption about how to measure the bias of a show. If the stories from source A are more heavily biased in one direction (as compared to other sources reporting on the same topic), then it's probably a fair assumption that source A is more biased, where the bias is being displayed through either editorial decisions on what to cover, or possibly the way in which the report covered the story.
The report claims (please provide contrary evidence, if you have some) that "Special Report" on Fox News chose to air about the same number of positive and negative stories regarding the groups in question. They were slightly closer to 50/50 with respect to coverage of the Democrats, and were much closer to even than the other sources on coverage of Republicans.
I regularly watch "Special Report," and I have to say that the study agrees with my perception of the first half hour.
Or were you just trying to continue the current low of demagoguery against Fox News? Sorry if the truth doesn't fit your narrative.
I think that you did read it correctly, but you're either confusing the clearly editorial content of the last two segments with the rest of the show, or the only thing you know about the show is that it's on Fox News.
From the pdf at http://www.cmpa.com/releases.html PDF: http://www.cmpa.com/releases/07_12_21_Election_Study.pdf
I never realized that saving money could do so much good.
No more than Sierra Leoneans, I'd expect.
Yes."
Yeah, yeah, I knew someone would say that (almost did myself).
Well, assuming the Supreme Court doesn't decide that the meaning of "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" has changed in the last couple of hundred years, this shouldn't be a real concern in the US. Unfortunately, this isn't guaranteed, but it's hard to think of a more airtight way to put this.
What part of these licenses are "look but don't touch?" If these licenses didn't have the Ms- prefix, we wouldn't be having this discussion. RTFLs. These are not at all like the MS Reference license (which is probably what you're confused about).
There's a difference between something that is the right thing to do, and something that should be enforced at the point of a gun. I don't think that anyone's arguing that it's a good idea to exclude blind people. They're arguing that the government shouldn't have anything to say about that, at least when it comes to private enterprise. Will the next step be to require alternative languages? Once they start regulating a thing, it just gets easier to do it again.
We should be very careful before we invite such a thing.
Just because it's "common sense" doesn't mean it's true. Actually, some research is showing just the opposite:
Body mass index and cognitive decline in a biracial community population
Change in body mass index and risk of incident Alzheimer disease
The metabolic syndrome is associated with decelerated cognitive decline in the oldest old
Yeah, but what you missed is that when you reveal your methods, the terrorists can take counter-measures designed to thwart your methods. It can be as simple as, stop talking on a sat-phone (as bin Laden did in the 90s when it slipped out that we were listening to it). Having the other side suspect what your intelligence gathering methods are is one thing, but confirming them is another thing entirely.
Apparently far too many people on /. Tonight, we could sit around with flashlights and scare each other by telling ghost stories.