Sure, he didn't come out and say that developers shouldn't be paid, but his angle on that is (to me at least) crystal clear.
I agree that there is something in his manner that implies 'money isn't important'. He is an idealist; it makes him seem out of touch with the need to make a living sometimes. I would NOT go to him for career advice, I'm with you on that (which does not contradict the fact that I value his ethical stance and I agree with much of what he believes in).
Still, he doesn't say "developers don't deserve money". And I do not think he believes that (just my guess, of course). I am betting that he would e.g. be very happy if governments paid salaries to FLOSS developers.
In other words, [Stallman is saying that] software developers aught not be paid for their efforts.
You didn't consider the context. Stallman was arguing against the belief that "if people aren't paid, they won't write code". He was mentioning the fact that most FLOSS code is written by nonpaid volunteers, while only a minority are paid.
He did not say that developers shouldn't be paid for their efforts. In fact, his GPL says the opposite: you can write free software and make money from it - by selling warranties for it, or media with your software on it.
>> Yet e.g. GNOME (which I can only assume does lots of calling to kernel functions) is LGPL and not GPL.
> (I assume you meant to have the above "not" that I inserted for you.)
Well, it doesn't matter to the issue at hand, but we were both wrong - I just found out that GNOME is both LGPL and GPL, in a sense: according to Wikipedia, "The GNOME desktop itself is licensed under the LGPL for its libraries, and the GPL for applications that are part of the GNOME project itself." Perhaps I don't understand this fully, but I gather it means that GTK+ and other GNOME shared libraries are LGPL, while the GNOME apps on top of them (gedit, nautilus, etc.) are GPL. But as I said, this isn't crucial to the matter at hand. Let's focus on GTK+, then, which is in fact LGPL, and has calls to the Linux kernel which is GPL.
Now, for the issue itself. Your response is very interesting, that it is the interpretation of the license that is crucial here. So, for Linu[x|s], a derivative work is a modification of the kernel, or a kernel module (in most cases). But an app in userspace is not a derivative work, which lets GTK+ be LGPL and not GPL. On the other hand, if GTK+ were GPL, then you couldn't link to it without being GPL, since there is no interpretation by the copyright holders that allows so. It also makes sense, since for a kernel there is a fairly clear line between kernel modules and userspace, no analogy of which exists for GTK+.
Assuming I got that right, I am much closer to understanding this issue, thanks.
You appear to know about this topic, so let me ask you a question that has been troubling me.
The Linux kernel is GPL. Anything linking to it must, as per the 'strict' interpretation that you mention (and that makes the most sense to me) therefore be GPL as well. Yet e.g. GNOME (which I can only assume does lots of calling to kernel functions) is LGPL and GPL.
The fact that it is LGPL allows proprietary software to link with GNOME. But, imagine that GNOME was just a wrapper for the kernel. Wouldn't this be a way to link to a GPL work, without being GPL? In other words, the kernel is GPL, I have an intermediary which is GPL/LGPL, and I link to the intermediary using the LGPL - but I am proprietary. Hurray, I am now effectively linking to a GPL'ed work without being GPL...?
I assume something is wrong in this reasoning. Any insight on this issue would be appreciated.
Yes, this is a dupe. Still, there was a bit of new and interesting information:
In a written statement, Microsoft's public sector head in India, Rohit Kumar, said the company had tried to keep its prices low to make them accessible to schools, selling one version of Windows for between $25 and $30 per computer.
This would be the 'crippled' version, I presume. Still, it does show how afraid Microsoft are of Linux adoption. Of course, they could do a great job of defending their monopoly by just giving away a 'crippled' version of windows for free (as in beer). I predict that they will eventually do this; in fact, they already are, in a sense: allowing people to run known pirated copies of Windows - which is exactly what WGA does - is to, in effect, give Windows away for free.
Given the presented variables, there are serveral ways to still make money.
1. Distribute the product yourself for free, request donations.
2. Merchandise goods that do not meet the same criteria.
3. Recreate the initial (creative creation) stage in live venues.
4. Control physical access to content.
Let me add
5. Monetize the website
- which seems forgotten in the other responses to this thread, as well. How would this be done? In many ways:
a) Ads.
b) Paid subscriptions for early access to material (works on Slashdot), bigger avatar on messageboards, etc. etc.
c) Leverage the other things mentioned in the parent post - advertise and sell your merchandise.
If the official website is slick, it can make a lot of money for an artist. Release a live tour video once a week or so and you will have massive traffic (assuming the band has fans). Put the license for the video as 'free to download, but illegal to redistribute', and you get tons of downloads but no fansites that just mirror you.
This is the 21st century. It is time artists and labels got with the new program.
Starting in the near future, Skype will offer its users the option to download the Google Toolbar, to which Skype will add a custom button. The companies will also explore interoperability between Skype and Google Talk via open standards to enable text chat and online presence.
So this collaboration seems like more than just click-to-call. The Skype/Google Talk interoperability sounds intriguing, and might give the low-market-share Google Talk some more standing in the IM world; perhaps this is a reaction to Yahoo and Microsoft, who are getting their IM clients to interoperate.
Apparently changing the UA string doesn't make a difference.. surely this would suggest to you a bug with the implementation of videos/flash etc under Linux
The point is that videos from the front page do work fine under Linux. So there is no reason to prevent other videos from working.
If this study is based upon when plants flowered, it may not be as much climate change as it is light change.
Good point (and good elaboration of it). Now, TFA mentions that they observed "542 plants and 19 animal species". Which doesn't go against the issue that you raise, since changes in plants can lead directly to changes in animals dependent upon them. So, it might not be climate change but something else that affects plants. However, I am not sure I agree about light being the necessary culprit; when you say
So, this may not be based as much upon climate change as much as light change, which could easily be caused by increasing urbanization (city lights and such providing enough light to change these processes).
- I am led to wonder how many plants are actually affected by light from cities. I'm no expert, so I won't venture a specific guess. But there are other options besides light: radio waves, noise (from planes), etc., which in theory might affect plants (again, not an expert here). I would guess that more plants are bathed by radio waves than by lights, FWIW. So, on the one hand, we know light affects plants, but don't know (I think) about the other factors; yet the other factors may affect more plants, and therefore might be easier to correlate with a mass change in plant behavior.
Interesting questions. Hopefully someone here knows more.
There should be laws against this kind of behavior
There are laws against this sort of thing. It seems 99% of comments about this article are about the wrongdoings of the animal rights extremists. I agree (despite being a vegetarian, and caring about animal rights, btw) that these extremists are in the wrong, and should be put in jail for their crimes. But we should also note that blame lies with law enforcement for not doing so.
This is easier than hunting down Osama in Pakistan. That there isn't more success with these extremists says something about the amount of resources spent on it.
So, when's Linux going to take advantage of the hardware virtualization?
Sarcasm duly noted. Still, I think it should be mentioned that the problems Gartner claim will be solved by this use of virtualization can be solved in other ways than virtualization, and in Linux sometimes are. For example, the kernel and GNOME (or KDE) are separate entities, developed separately, and runnable separately - you can use different kernels with GNOME - e.g. BSD, and you can use KDE/Xfce/etc. instead of GNOME. Perhaps Windows would be easier to maintain and improve if things weren't tied-in as they are, the most famous case of which is perhaps IE.
I really don't see where hardware virtualization used to compartmentalize an OS is a better idea than correct modularization of the OS (which includes choosing the runlevel for the various parts, i.e. it may use 'virtualization', in a sense). Am I missing Gartner's point somehow?
I am wondering about the 75,000 spam mails.. i personaly filter for 3 domains and it totals on average 1 a sec which is 80-90,000 a day.. i am sorry but if your going to say what is with use a true sample for the base..
If your issue is the timeframe, then the article says that the spam was sent over a 1.5 year period. Seems ok.
If your problem is with the size of the sample, then that isn't the issue. A sample size of that size is far more than enough, if the sample is random. Now, according to the article, the messages were received personally by the researcher (not so good), or posted to a board used to warn people about spam (far better). If the latter was the larger group, I would agree that the sampling is good enough.
Given that the record companies' expert opined that the defendant had downloaded over 200 sound recordings during 2005, those requested damages will probably be substantial. Statutory damages under the Copyright Act can go as high as $150,000 per work infringed, in the most egregious cases.
200*$150,000 = $30,000,000. Of course, this is just a maximum, but it's still scary.
From what I remember of the different edititions, there will be no separate x64 edition in the end, hopefully just two images on the same (dual-layer) DVD, except that the cheapo versions will only be 32-bit. (Like XP Starter of today.) Regarding the prediction of 32-bit preinstalled, this would seem like a pretty strong reason NOT to do that, from the OEM point of view.
The 'starter' edition will not have such support. Other ones seem to be as you say, according to Paul Thurrott. So buying a new version won't be an issue, you appear to be right on this matter. However, if your manufacturer installed the 32-bit version, you would need to install the 64-bit one yourself. Will all computers bought come with the retail DVD? I hope, but perhaps not. Even if so, installing the 64-bit version instead of the 32-bit one is no game in the park for most users.
Already on the way, even the cheapo $75 CPUs have 64-bit support now.
But you need to run 64-bit Vista. Having the right CPU isn't enough. Furthermore, I presume that plenty of PCs will be sold with 32-bit Vista pre-installed. Those users would have to buy 64-bit Vista later on.
Of course, one could argue with any one model of depression in animals. That is why the article mentions that they tested it in 5 models of animal depression. Even more, they showed increased efficacy of seratonin in their brains (which we know can reduce depression in humans), and in addition showed lower corticosterone levels under duress (a common measure of stress in humans and animals), which is indicative of lack of depression in humans (and a good thing in general).
So, yes, you can argue with any one model, but, precisely because of such arguments, articles (in Nature at least) prepare for them in advance - really, as much as is possible. If someone doesn't agree to results like this, then perhaps he/she just have a problem with the whole model of using animals to test human conditions; but this model has been proven time and again in giving eventual benefit to research on humans.
Of course, this result should be replicated by outside labs before we accept it. But it sounds like good research so far.
The project [the Linux kernel] has never asked any contributor to sign over their contributions to the project as a whole, and most of that code is specifically GPL2, not "GPL2 or later."
Perhaps someone can clarify what seems to be an important issue to me. Currently we have GPL2 and "GPL2 or above" (which I'll call GPL2+ from now on) code in the Linux kernel. They are legally able to be formed into a single work (the kernel) only because the GPL2+ are "2 or above", right?
What I mean is this: what would happen if a small part of the kernel were licensed under GPL3 only (say, one developer decided to adopt the GPL3)? Would it be legal to link it with GPL2 code? Of course it would be legal with GPL2+, but the GPL2 seems to be a problem. By my understanding (IANAL), this is illegal.
If this is true, then the kernel couldn't even 'gradually' migrate to GPL3, with each developer deciding when/if to do so.
One of the primary arguments by the PHB's in my company against Linux on the desktop is Microsoft Office. Do not pretend it isn't a big deal.
I've heard much the same myself. Now, on the one hand,
1) If there was MSOffice on Linux, more people would migrate to Linux, while paying for MSOffice, causing revenue gains for MS. 2) Yet, currently, those people are paying for BOTH Windows AND MSOffice licenses.
So this would be a net loss for MS. However, on the other hand,
3) People presently migrating to Linux use either Crossover Office - thus paying for an MSOffice license - or use Openoffice. 4) Now, the ones that would buy MSOffice were it available on Linux are, I conjecture, mostly in the camp of those using Crossover Office - i.e., ALREADY paying for an MSOffice license.
So, assuming my conjecture is mostly right, there seems to be no upside for MS to release MSOffice for Linux. There is one other possibility, however:
5) As TFA states, releasing MSOffice for Linux may cause development of OpenOffice to stall (before it gets good enough to steal market share on Windows).
Besides lowering prices of MSOffice, this seems to be the only way to fight back at OpenOffice. Perhaps for that reason alone, it actually might be a smart move on MS's part.
1. Dolphins have a cognitive sense of self, as shown in their ability to recognize that they are seeing themselves in mirrors. This is an ability only found in dolphins and higher primates (including humans). This is related to their extremely complex social structures, which implies high intelligence. And this is just one area in which dolphins seem to show high intelligence.
2. Glia are no longer considered 'noncomputational' by neuroscientists. Recent research seems to show that glia, and not just neurons, may perform computational tasks. This is highly controversial at present, but we are far from being able to say that just because an animal has lots of glia that that does not indicate a potential for high brain functions.
Is it possible for a bacteriophage to mutate and infect human cells?
Anything is 'possible'. However, the odds of this are quite small. Bacteriophages are highly adapted to their hosts - bacteria. This would make it far less likely to occur than for a virus adapted to, say, a mammal to cross over to humans (which happens, but rarely). Furthermore, as TFA states, humans already come into contact with these particular bacteriophages all the time.
However, there is a risk factor, obviously. We would be creating much more interaction between human beings and these bacteriophages (if these sprays become commonplace), which would give them more time to adapt to us.
In particular read the blog entries linked to by the Wikipedia article.
He may be a great programmer, but his knowledge of the human sciences is somewhat lacking (e.g. he seems not to know the tricky aspects of 'heritability', which lead him to faulty conclusions about race and IQ).
We CAN'T write and distribute Free Software for most of that stuff because of patents.
We can't write free software - but we can get multimedia stuff to work, if we pay for the license to do so. You can get your DVDs to work 'out-of-the-box' on Linux - just use Linspire. People who believe in the ideals behind Free Software won't (including me), but for those that are worried about 'losing the desktop', options are available.
If this was the thing holding Linux back from being a massive success, Linspire would be selling millions of copies. That they aren't says something.
(Note: I wish Linspire all the luck in the world, even though I don't use their product.)
In the meantime, Microsoft almost seems tentative in their position about standards compliance versus backwards compatibility.
Emphasis mine, changing the meaning a bit, but bear with me. If you read Chris Wilson's blog here, then you can see the following quote:
It's been frustrating, though, to be continually identified as the personal screw-up responsible for IE not supporting more standards today, when it's actually because of my personal influence that CSS is IMPLEMENTED in IE.
Again, emphasis mine (not the caps, though, just the boldface). So - if it weren't for this Chris guy, CSS wouldn't even have been implemented in IE. If he's right, that says a lot about Microsoft. I tend to believe him here.
Your point that innateness and complexity may be related is interesting. Certainly from a scientific point of view I would agree. And indeed we still don't have computers capable of doing language or human vision at even a child's level - so these tasks are 'complex' to solve algorithmically (by computer, I mean).
However, from a philosophical perspective, I wonder if we don't call them 'complex' precisely because they are innate - innate implying that we can only learn them during a 'critical period', which implies they are 'too hard' to learn at another time. (Yet they are also 'complex' in the sense of 'hard to get a computer to do', as before, so this argument isn't conclusive).
I'm trying to think of something 'innate' that we would call 'simple', but I can't. I believe this is because of the argument of the previous paragraph. But I'll keep thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, he didn't come out and say that developers shouldn't be paid, but his angle on that is (to me at least) crystal clear.
I agree that there is something in his manner that implies 'money isn't important'. He is an idealist; it makes him seem out of touch with the need to make a living sometimes. I would NOT go to him for career advice, I'm with you on that (which does not contradict the fact that I value his ethical stance and I agree with much of what he believes in).
Still, he doesn't say "developers don't deserve money". And I do not think he believes that (just my guess, of course). I am betting that he would e.g. be very happy if governments paid salaries to FLOSS developers.
In other words, [Stallman is saying that] software developers aught not be paid for their efforts.
You didn't consider the context. Stallman was arguing against the belief that "if people aren't paid, they won't write code". He was mentioning the fact that most FLOSS code is written by nonpaid volunteers, while only a minority are paid.
He did not say that developers shouldn't be paid for their efforts. In fact, his GPL says the opposite: you can write free software and make money from it - by selling warranties for it, or media with your software on it.
>> Yet e.g. GNOME (which I can only assume does lots of calling to kernel functions) is LGPL and not GPL.
> (I assume you meant to have the above "not" that I inserted for you.)
Well, it doesn't matter to the issue at hand, but we were both wrong - I just found out that GNOME is both LGPL and GPL, in a sense: according to Wikipedia, "The GNOME desktop itself is licensed under the LGPL for its libraries, and the GPL for applications that are part of the GNOME project itself." Perhaps I don't understand this fully, but I gather it means that GTK+ and other GNOME shared libraries are LGPL, while the GNOME apps on top of them (gedit, nautilus, etc.) are GPL. But as I said, this isn't crucial to the matter at hand. Let's focus on GTK+, then, which is in fact LGPL, and has calls to the Linux kernel which is GPL.
Now, for the issue itself. Your response is very interesting, that it is the interpretation of the license that is crucial here. So, for Linu[x|s], a derivative work is a modification of the kernel, or a kernel module (in most cases). But an app in userspace is not a derivative work, which lets GTK+ be LGPL and not GPL. On the other hand, if GTK+ were GPL, then you couldn't link to it without being GPL, since there is no interpretation by the copyright holders that allows so. It also makes sense, since for a kernel there is a fairly clear line between kernel modules and userspace, no analogy of which exists for GTK+.
Assuming I got that right, I am much closer to understanding this issue, thanks.
You appear to know about this topic, so let me ask you a question that has been troubling me.
The Linux kernel is GPL. Anything linking to it must, as per the 'strict' interpretation that you mention (and that makes the most sense to me) therefore be GPL as well. Yet e.g. GNOME (which I can only assume does lots of calling to kernel functions) is LGPL and GPL.
The fact that it is LGPL allows proprietary software to link with GNOME. But, imagine that GNOME was just a wrapper for the kernel. Wouldn't this be a way to link to a GPL work, without being GPL? In other words, the kernel is GPL, I have an intermediary which is GPL/LGPL, and I link to the intermediary using the LGPL - but I am proprietary. Hurray, I am now effectively linking to a GPL'ed work without being GPL...?
I assume something is wrong in this reasoning. Any insight on this issue would be appreciated.
Yes, this is a dupe. Still, there was a bit of new and interesting information:
In a written statement, Microsoft's public sector head in India, Rohit Kumar, said the company had tried to keep its prices low to make them accessible to schools, selling one version of Windows for between $25 and $30 per computer.
This would be the 'crippled' version, I presume. Still, it does show how afraid Microsoft are of Linux adoption. Of course, they could do a great job of defending their monopoly by just giving away a 'crippled' version of windows for free (as in beer). I predict that they will eventually do this; in fact, they already are, in a sense: allowing people to run known pirated copies of Windows - which is exactly what WGA does - is to, in effect, give Windows away for free.
Given the presented variables, there are serveral ways to still make money.
1. Distribute the product yourself for free, request donations.
2. Merchandise goods that do not meet the same criteria.
3. Recreate the initial (creative creation) stage in live venues.
4. Control physical access to content.
Let me add
5. Monetize the website
- which seems forgotten in the other responses to this thread, as well. How would this be done? In many ways:
a) Ads.
b) Paid subscriptions for early access to material (works on Slashdot), bigger avatar on messageboards, etc. etc.
c) Leverage the other things mentioned in the parent post - advertise and sell your merchandise.
If the official website is slick, it can make a lot of money for an artist. Release a live tour video once a week or so and you will have massive traffic (assuming the band has fans). Put the license for the video as 'free to download, but illegal to redistribute', and you get tons of downloads but no fansites that just mirror you.
This is the 21st century. It is time artists and labels got with the new program.
from the press release at Google:
Starting in the near future, Skype will offer its users the option to download the Google Toolbar, to which Skype will add a custom button. The companies will also explore interoperability between Skype and Google Talk via open standards to enable text chat and online presence.
So this collaboration seems like more than just click-to-call. The Skype/Google Talk interoperability sounds intriguing, and might give the low-market-share Google Talk some more standing in the IM world; perhaps this is a reaction to Yahoo and Microsoft, who are getting their IM clients to interoperate.
Apparently changing the UA string doesn't make a difference.. surely this would suggest to you a bug with the implementation of videos/flash etc under Linux
The point is that videos from the front page do work fine under Linux. So there is no reason to prevent other videos from working.
If this study is based upon when plants flowered, it may not be as much climate change as it is light change.
Good point (and good elaboration of it). Now, TFA mentions that they observed "542 plants and 19 animal species". Which doesn't go against the issue that you raise, since changes in plants can lead directly to changes in animals dependent upon them. So, it might not be climate change but something else that affects plants. However, I am not sure I agree about light being the necessary culprit; when you say
So, this may not be based as much upon climate change as much as light change, which could easily be caused by increasing urbanization (city lights and such providing enough light to change these processes).
- I am led to wonder how many plants are actually affected by light from cities. I'm no expert, so I won't venture a specific guess. But there are other options besides light: radio waves, noise (from planes), etc., which in theory might affect plants (again, not an expert here). I would guess that more plants are bathed by radio waves than by lights, FWIW. So, on the one hand, we know light affects plants, but don't know (I think) about the other factors; yet the other factors may affect more plants, and therefore might be easier to correlate with a mass change in plant behavior.
Interesting questions. Hopefully someone here knows more.
There should be laws against this kind of behavior
There are laws against this sort of thing. It seems 99% of comments about this article are about the wrongdoings of the animal rights extremists. I agree (despite being a vegetarian, and caring about animal rights, btw) that these extremists are in the wrong, and should be put in jail for their crimes. But we should also note that blame lies with law enforcement for not doing so.
This is easier than hunting down Osama in Pakistan. That there isn't more success with these extremists says something about the amount of resources spent on it.
So, when's Linux going to take advantage of the hardware virtualization?
Sarcasm duly noted. Still, I think it should be mentioned that the problems Gartner claim will be solved by this use of virtualization can be solved in other ways than virtualization, and in Linux sometimes are. For example, the kernel and GNOME (or KDE) are separate entities, developed separately, and runnable separately - you can use different kernels with GNOME - e.g. BSD, and you can use KDE/Xfce/etc. instead of GNOME. Perhaps Windows would be easier to maintain and improve if things weren't tied-in as they are, the most famous case of which is perhaps IE.
I really don't see where hardware virtualization used to compartmentalize an OS is a better idea than correct modularization of the OS (which includes choosing the runlevel for the various parts, i.e. it may use 'virtualization', in a sense). Am I missing Gartner's point somehow?
I am wondering about the 75,000 spam mails.. i personaly filter for 3 domains and it totals on average 1 a sec which is 80-90,000 a day.. i am sorry but if your going to say what is with use a true sample for the base..
If your issue is the timeframe, then the article says that the spam was sent over a 1.5 year period. Seems ok.
If your problem is with the size of the sample, then that isn't the issue. A sample size of that size is far more than enough, if the sample is random. Now, according to the article, the messages were received personally by the researcher (not so good), or posted to a board used to warn people about spam (far better). If the latter was the larger group, I would agree that the sampling is good enough.
Wow, indeed:
Given that the record companies' expert opined that the defendant had downloaded over 200 sound recordings during 2005, those requested damages will probably be substantial. Statutory damages under the Copyright Act can go as high as $150,000 per work infringed, in the most egregious cases.
200*$150,000 = $30,000,000. Of course, this is just a maximum, but it's still scary.
From what I remember of the different edititions, there will be no separate x64 edition in the end, hopefully just two images on the same (dual-layer) DVD, except that the cheapo versions will only be 32-bit. (Like XP Starter of today.) Regarding the prediction of 32-bit preinstalled, this would seem like a pretty strong reason NOT to do that, from the OEM point of view.
The 'starter' edition will not have such support. Other ones seem to be as you say, according to Paul Thurrott. So buying a new version won't be an issue, you appear to be right on this matter. However, if your manufacturer installed the 32-bit version, you would need to install the 64-bit one yourself. Will all computers bought come with the retail DVD? I hope, but perhaps not. Even if so, installing the 64-bit version instead of the 32-bit one is no game in the park for most users.
Already on the way, even the cheapo $75 CPUs have 64-bit support now.
But you need to run 64-bit Vista. Having the right CPU isn't enough. Furthermore, I presume that plenty of PCs will be sold with 32-bit Vista pre-installed. Those users would have to buy 64-bit Vista later on.
Seem fair to you?
"If you're incapable of depression, and you're always happy, how do you know if you really are happy?"
You find that you spend less time planning your suicide than you used to.
Of course, one could argue with any one model of depression in animals. That is why the article mentions that they tested it in 5 models of animal depression. Even more, they showed increased efficacy of seratonin in their brains (which we know can reduce depression in humans), and in addition showed lower corticosterone levels under duress (a common measure of stress in humans and animals), which is indicative of lack of depression in humans (and a good thing in general).
So, yes, you can argue with any one model, but, precisely because of such arguments, articles (in Nature at least) prepare for them in advance - really, as much as is possible. If someone doesn't agree to results like this, then perhaps he/she just have a problem with the whole model of using animals to test human conditions; but this model has been proven time and again in giving eventual benefit to research on humans.
Of course, this result should be replicated by outside labs before we accept it. But it sounds like good research so far.
The project [the Linux kernel] has never asked any contributor to sign over their contributions to the project as a whole, and most of that code is specifically GPL2, not "GPL2 or later."
Perhaps someone can clarify what seems to be an important issue to me. Currently we have GPL2 and "GPL2 or above" (which I'll call GPL2+ from now on) code in the Linux kernel. They are legally able to be formed into a single work (the kernel) only because the GPL2+ are "2 or above", right?
What I mean is this: what would happen if a small part of the kernel were licensed under GPL3 only (say, one developer decided to adopt the GPL3)? Would it be legal to link it with GPL2 code? Of course it would be legal with GPL2+, but the GPL2 seems to be a problem. By my understanding (IANAL), this is illegal.
If this is true, then the kernel couldn't even 'gradually' migrate to GPL3, with each developer deciding when/if to do so.
>>> Who will use this?
One of the primary arguments by the PHB's in my company against Linux on the desktop is Microsoft Office. Do not pretend it isn't a big deal.
I've heard much the same myself. Now, on the one hand,
1) If there was MSOffice on Linux, more people would migrate to Linux, while paying for MSOffice, causing revenue gains for MS.
2) Yet, currently, those people are paying for BOTH Windows AND MSOffice licenses.
So this would be a net loss for MS. However, on the other hand,
3) People presently migrating to Linux use either Crossover Office - thus paying for an MSOffice license - or use Openoffice.
4) Now, the ones that would buy MSOffice were it available on Linux are, I conjecture, mostly in the camp of those using Crossover Office - i.e., ALREADY paying for an MSOffice license.
So, assuming my conjecture is mostly right, there seems to be no upside for MS to release MSOffice for Linux. There is one other possibility, however:
5) As TFA states, releasing MSOffice for Linux may cause development of OpenOffice to stall (before it gets good enough to steal market share on Windows).
Besides lowering prices of MSOffice, this seems to be the only way to fight back at OpenOffice. Perhaps for that reason alone, it actually might be a smart move on MS's part.
1. Dolphins have a cognitive sense of self, as shown in their ability to recognize that they are seeing themselves in mirrors. This is an ability only found in dolphins and higher primates (including humans). This is related to their extremely complex social structures, which implies high intelligence. And this is just one area in which dolphins seem to show high intelligence.
2. Glia are no longer considered 'noncomputational' by neuroscientists. Recent research seems to show that glia, and not just neurons, may perform computational tasks. This is highly controversial at present, but we are far from being able to say that just because an animal has lots of glia that that does not indicate a potential for high brain functions.
Is it possible for a bacteriophage to mutate and infect human cells?
Anything is 'possible'. However, the odds of this are quite small. Bacteriophages are highly adapted to their hosts - bacteria. This would make it far less likely to occur than for a virus adapted to, say, a mammal to cross over to humans (which happens, but rarely). Furthermore, as TFA states, humans already come into contact with these particular bacteriophages all the time.
However, there is a risk factor, obviously. We would be creating much more interaction between human beings and these bacteriophages (if these sprays become commonplace), which would give them more time to adapt to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond
In particular read the blog entries linked to by the Wikipedia article.
He may be a great programmer, but his knowledge of the human sciences is somewhat lacking (e.g. he seems not to know the tricky aspects of 'heritability', which lead him to faulty conclusions about race and IQ).
We CAN'T write and distribute Free Software for most of that stuff because of patents.
We can't write free software - but we can get multimedia stuff to work, if we pay for the license to do so. You can get your DVDs to work 'out-of-the-box' on Linux - just use Linspire. People who believe in the ideals behind Free Software won't (including me), but for those that are worried about 'losing the desktop', options are available.
If this was the thing holding Linux back from being a massive success, Linspire would be selling millions of copies. That they aren't says something.
(Note: I wish Linspire all the luck in the world, even though I don't use their product.)
In the meantime, Microsoft almost seems tentative in their position about standards compliance versus backwards compatibility.
Emphasis mine, changing the meaning a bit, but bear with me. If you read Chris Wilson's blog here, then you can see the following quote:
It's been frustrating, though, to be continually identified as the personal screw-up responsible for IE not supporting more standards today, when it's actually because of my personal influence that CSS is IMPLEMENTED in IE.
Again, emphasis mine (not the caps, though, just the boldface). So - if it weren't for this Chris guy, CSS wouldn't even have been implemented in IE. If he's right, that says a lot about Microsoft. I tend to believe him here.
Your point that innateness and complexity may be related is interesting. Certainly from a scientific point of view I would agree. And indeed we still don't have computers capable of doing language or human vision at even a child's level - so these tasks are 'complex' to solve algorithmically (by computer, I mean).
However, from a philosophical perspective, I wonder if we don't call them 'complex' precisely because they are innate - innate implying that we can only learn them during a 'critical period', which implies they are 'too hard' to learn at another time. (Yet they are also 'complex' in the sense of 'hard to get a computer to do', as before, so this argument isn't conclusive).
I'm trying to think of something 'innate' that we would call 'simple', but I can't. I believe this is because of the argument of the previous paragraph. But I'll keep thinking.