In fact that's exactly what the article says:
"This triggers the body's natural repair process, called homologous recombination, which corrects the gene where the DNA was cut, The researchers provided the cells with a copy of the correct gene as a template."
ionizing radiation can but AFAIK you don't get that from a CRT.
You are right, but you do get more electromagnetic radiation than what you need to see a picture. It is debated wether the frequency of these radiations make them bad for health. But UV , microwaves or Gamma rays are also electromagnatic radiations, and are known for a fact to be not good for health.
only those that link with the software
The legal text of the GPL only uses the word independent. And never the word link.
You say If it can be demonstrated that their GUI is entirely their code, and is independent from development of PearPC, then that's fine.
while the GPL doen't talk about development:
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves
IANAL
I do not believe writing a GUI for a piece of GPL'd software is writing software derived from said GPL work.
Nobody said writing for a GPL product or using a GPL product is restrictive. I said that if you distribute a GPL product, all works you distribute with it and that depends on it, must be licensed under the GPL.
( please see my other reply for more details.)
The linux kernel is GPLed and provides a standard ISO POSIX API (that means all apllications that use this standard API can be independents from this kernel since they can run on all other POSIX systems as well)
As for drivers if they are not distributed along with the LInux the kernel (i.e. downloaded separately) there is no problem.
And there is a "laissez faire" attitude if they are distributed with the kernel (no Linux kernel developper seems to care).
I just dowloaded the trial edition (which has to respect the original licenses as well).
I found no GPL license. No authors acknoledgement. And no offer for getting the source code.
I guess the PearPC authors have tried the same thing too , don't you think ?:)
In the GPL there is a HUGE distinction between using and distributing GPL covered code. You can use all that you want. But if you distribute GPL code like CherryOS, here are GPL requirements that are not met by CherryOS - you have to distribute the source of the GPL code, the full text of the GPL license, and a full acknoledgement of the authors. - if you distribute, along with the GPL code a work that is dependant on that code, you have to distribute the whole work under the GPL terms.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
Since the GUI can't run without the backend, you can't say they are independants programs. So the GPL applies.
testing, unstable, experimental and apt-get.org
on
AutoPackaging for Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But what do you do if the software you need are not included with you distro? I usually don't have this problem with Debian (especially with the huge testing and unstable distros), and even the Debian experimental repository is signed.
But if I did, I woud look for some known Debian maintener unofficial packages in apt-get.org .
Look for the CC logo, sometimes embedded inside some comments... (Beta indeed)
As for the copyright notice, CC works usually have one. Only the license grants you more rights. Most CC licenses are quite different from "public domain".
Wether there is one known critical hole is the real question. For example, "allowing cookies to be sent between subdomains of the same domain" is one of the Firefox minor holes that could be a feature (considering Yahoo Mail and others need that feature).
let's keep it to the facts. I'm a big fan of Secunia, the only site i know that offers a page of unpatched known holes for each software. And i can tell you that IE has always more Highly Critical unpatched known holes than Firefox: IE holes Firefox holes
Of course, such a system would have undesirable uses as well, DRM and the like... From the TC faq: "unless your system administrator configures your machine in such a way that TC is mandatory, you can always turn it off. You can then run your PC as before, and use insecure applications.
There is one small problem, though. If you turn TC off, Fritz won't hand out the keys you need to decrypt your files and run your bank account. Your TC-enabled apps won't work as well, or maybe at all. It will be like switching from Windows to Linux nowadays; you may have more freedom, but end up having less choice. If the TC apps are more attractive to most people, or are more profitable to the app vendors, you may end up simply having to use them - just as many people have to use Microsoft Word because all their friends and colleagues send them documents in Microsoft Word. By 2008, you may find that the costs of turning TC off are simply intolerable. "
You should check what Yahoo, Google and the likes are ready to swallow to get their share of the chinese market !
This ruling only affects the french ISPs, like human rights censorship only affect chinese Google portals. Do you think US laws rule the entire planet ?
Slashdot Mirror
The first life was probably a self-reproducing ARN, ,
Ribozyme
that was made from rather simple molecules like
Pyrimidine
ARN is very fragile, so the evolution toward protecting capsules and ADN (which is still a bit fragile) seems logical.
In fact that's exactly what the article says: "This triggers the body's natural repair process, called homologous recombination, which corrects the gene where the DNA was cut, The researchers provided the cells with a copy of the correct gene as a template."
Thus, the rather simple Pyrimidine molecule could be the mother of all life ...
Pyrimidine
Yes, RNA enzymes can reproduce themselves.
See this somewhat satisfying Wikipedia article:
Ribozyme
Obviously, at such a speed, the "Titanic 2" captain has lost it completely.
ionizing radiation can but AFAIK you don't get that from a CRT. You are right, but you do get more electromagnetic radiation than what you need to see a picture. It is debated wether the frequency of these radiations make them bad for health. But UV , microwaves or Gamma rays are also electromagnatic radiations, and are known for a fact to be not good for health.
only those that link with the software The legal text of the GPL only uses the word independent. And never the word link. You say If it can be demonstrated that their GUI is entirely their code, and is independent from development of PearPC, then that's fine. while the GPL doen't talk about development: can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves IANAL
I do not believe writing a GUI for a piece of GPL'd software is writing software derived from said GPL work.
Nobody said writing for a GPL product or using a GPL product is restrictive.
I said that if you distribute a GPL product, all works you distribute with it and that depends on it, must be licensed under the GPL.
I add that the libc (C library) that is used to compile applications for Linux is licensed under the LGPL.
( please see my other reply for more details.) The linux kernel is GPLed and provides a standard ISO POSIX API (that means all apllications that use this standard API can be independents from this kernel since they can run on all other POSIX systems as well) As for drivers if they are not distributed along with the LInux the kernel (i.e. downloaded separately) there is no problem. And there is a "laissez faire" attitude if they are distributed with the kernel (no Linux kernel developper seems to care).
I just dowloaded the trial edition (which has to respect the original licenses as well). I found no GPL license. No authors acknoledgement. And no offer for getting the source code. I guess the PearPC authors have tried the same thing too , don't you think ? :)
In the GPL there is a HUGE distinction between using and distributing GPL covered code.
You can use all that you want.
But if you distribute GPL code like CherryOS, here are GPL requirements that are not met by CherryOS
- you have to distribute the source of the GPL code, the full text of the GPL license, and a full acknoledgement of the authors.
- if you distribute, along with the GPL code a work that is dependant on that code, you have to distribute the whole work under the GPL terms.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Since the GUI can't run without the backend, you can't say they are independants programs.
So the GPL applies.
But what do you do if the software you need are not included with you distro?
I usually don't have this problem with Debian (especially with the huge testing and unstable distros), and even the Debian experimental repository is signed.
But if I did, I woud look for some known Debian maintener unofficial packages in apt-get.org .
Look for the CC logo, sometimes embedded inside some comments... (Beta indeed)
As for the copyright notice, CC works usually have one. Only the license grants you more rights.
Most CC licenses are quite different from "public domain".
Wether there is one known critical hole is the real question.
For example, "allowing cookies to be sent between subdomains of the same domain" is one of the Firefox minor holes that could be a feature (considering Yahoo Mail and others need that feature).
let's keep it to the facts.
I'm a big fan of Secunia, the only site i know that offers a page of unpatched known holes for each software.
And i can tell you that IE has always more Highly Critical unpatched known holes than Firefox:
IE holes
Firefox holes
Of course, such a system would have undesirable uses as well, DRM and the like...
From the TC faq:
"unless your system administrator configures your machine in such a way that TC is mandatory, you can always turn it off. You can then run your PC as before, and use insecure applications.
There is one small problem, though. If you turn TC off, Fritz won't hand out the keys you need to decrypt your files and run your bank account. Your TC-enabled apps won't work as well, or maybe at all. It will be like switching from Windows to Linux nowadays; you may have more freedom, but end up having less choice. If the TC apps are more attractive to most people, or are more profitable to the app vendors, you may end up simply having to use them - just as many people have to use Microsoft Word because all their friends and colleagues send them documents in Microsoft Word. By 2008, you may find that the costs of turning TC off are simply intolerable. "
Cloaking: providing a different content to search engines bots in order to get a better rank
You can achieve this by looking at the UserAgent string or, more surely, at the remote IP.
I'm willing to bed anyone, and they don't have to pay something to favour them.
ardour is another good free recorder (ardour looks more like protools than cubase)
ardour
which algorithms are safe now ?
Don't forget the increasing need for a Gates/Ballmer filter on Slashdot !
(and I think i saw more Windows news than Linux ones, lately on this site)
You should check what Yahoo, Google and the likes are ready to swallow to get their share of the chinese market !
This ruling only affects the french ISPs, like human rights censorship only affect chinese Google portals. Do you think US laws rule the entire planet ?
working URL