I don't understand what you're getting at? I'm not saying that any specific video on youtube is a fake. I'm not disputing that the BBC reported a factual inaccuracy. I'm saying that youtube usually isn't an authoritative source on anything and that the BBC made a mistake in not checking information that they were given.
I'm going to stop saying things now, because it's a waste of my time and I need to sleep.
(1) I've already covered this I feel: They probably got the information from a stringer who was somewhere nearby.
(2) Having been fighting the fire inside the building, the firefighters were probably in a very good position to asses whether or not the building was going to come down. It seems that in their opinion it was, and they were right.
(3) Do you have any information about whether this "countdown" coincided with the building collapsing? Some guy hearing "44, 43..." on a radio and then a building falling down later on are not automatically linked events.
I work in the news industry. They had people on the ground. Those people might not have been (a) working directly for them or (b) with the best information or even (c) remotely close, but they were there, in the city, on their cellphones talking to the newsdesks. Someone will have heard a rumour about something and reported that in, which then will have been misunderstood as factual. I know how press secretaries and spokesmen for official departments work, and I'm also well aware that these are not the exclusive source of information for news outlets.
Did the NYFD or mayor's office put out any information that the building had gone down before it actually did? Are you serious in your claim that the only source of information that news outlets use are the "official" ones?
You can say "FACT" all you want, but you still havn't said which radio station you're talking about, or acknowledged the possibility that the BBC made a simple mistake.
You're the government, you want to covertly bring down a building. Now, do you get ready press statements saying that the buildings have fallen over, or do you just blow them up and hope that someone notices? There is no universe in which the "BBC got a press release 20 minutes early" makes any kind of sense.
But not the one I mean? Eh? They reported factually inaccurate information. The only other explanation is that they "predicted the future" and managed to look silly and amateurish doing it. Lets be clear, it was an amateur mistake they made by reporting information without first verifying it. Not their finest hour.
Obviously I am not making this stuff up. It is right there on youtube
No, my theory, if you read my post, is that under stress, confusion occurs and mistakes happen.
Any why on earth is everyone thinking that "official sources" are the only things that news outlets use when reporting on big stories. They had reporters on the ground, phoning in information. They had other stringers on the ground, phoning in information. What the hell is this "official sources that they were quoting" and why do timezones make any difference?
Fire doesn't melt steel. If you did metallurgy in college, you would know that above a certain temperature the most stable crystalline structure of steel becomes one which is a lot weaker. If you really care, you can google to find phase diagrams of steel like this one that tell you exactly how steel behaves when you heat it up.
If you didn't do metallurgy in college, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
The BBC made a mistake, probably because of the huge amounts of confusion that was abound. As for your other claim about a 'NY radio station', that's not something I've heard before, and your lack of detail leads me to believe that you've just made it up.
You're suggesting that in the wake of a large disaster that the media outlets are basing their up-to-the-second event information from press releases? Seriously? Do you understand what a press release is?
When serious events of this suddenness happen, news outlets don't report from press releases, they report from what their guys on the ground are telling them. In this case, the bbc obviously got it wrong, probably due to a combination of a stressed news editor with everyone shouting at him, lots of conflicting and confusing information coming in from the ground and the desire to just get some information out there. My money says that someone on the ground mistakenly said that WTC7 had already gone down, and the editor on a snap decision decided to break it before anyone else. Turns out he was wrong.
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening. Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Simple. Configure your mailserver to block all bounce messages unless they originate from a server that you've sent a mail to in the past 12 hours. Then you'll only get legit bounces.
That is distribution. But you're providing the source for the js anyway. Java is compiled, so you need to make sure you provide the source if the code is GPL'd.
If you're not distributing a binary (or code), then it's not distribution. A website is a service. The website user doesn't execute the code, the service provder's servers do. The user just tells it to.
You're working on a flawed assumption: That by default code (or any creative work) has no restrictions on it.
This is obviously false. If I create some code and don't attach any license to it, that code isn't 'free'. You can't copy it, you can't distribute it. This is covered by copyright law. The GPL license basically says "Here, take this code, it's free. Do what you want with it, except distribute it. If you want to redistribute, you've got to follow these criteria". That's it. There's nothing stopping you taking GPL code, linking it to whatever you want and using that. Google have a ton of GPL code all hooked up to proprietary stuff and have no legal issues because they don't *distribute* that code to customers. They are the end user. They are free to do what they want. GPL code is free to use. GPL code is not free to distribute, unless you follow some criteria.
The GPL doesn't restrict what you can do with the code, copyright law does. The GPL is permissive, but it's not fully permissive which is what the BSD could be described as being. This is fine, and is an idealogical difference, but please lets not go around saying that the GPL is "OMG TEH MOST RESTRICTIVE THING IN THE WORLD", because that just demonstrates to the world that you don't understand copyright.
You're right, it depends on how much you care about redundancy.
Also, thinking about it, there is a difference between making your connection resilient and your hardware resilient. You have control over your hardware, and have the ability to replace it relatively quickly if it goes down. However, if your connection goes down, you're in the mercy of your provider. And most people I know don't have SLAs with their ISP.
That's the beauty of PKI though. You don't have to trust Verisign - they're not the only root CA out there.
If you decide that you don't trust Verisign, and your bank uses a Verisign cert for their online banking, by extension you don't trust the bank, and should find a new one. I can't think of an example of a situation where you're forced to trust a particular root CA and have zero choice in the matter.
Oh, absolutely. Corporate lawyers don't see it being worth their time into investigating it. For them, it's far easier to basically forbid it, as then they know they're safe.
Quite, but my slighly dodgy understanding of the GPL says that you don't even have to make it available to anyone, just those who "have" (whatever that means - ownership? liense? use?) the binary.
Can someone tell me if I'm reading that one right?
Seeing as you only have to provide the source to those who you have also provided the binary to, your legal department appear to be wrong.
If you're distributing it to yourself, then you have to make the source code available to yourself. Shouldn't be too hard.
Actually, there's a more subtle problem here - if you operate as different legal entities in different parts of the world (Company PLC in the UK, Company INC in the US, Company GMBH in germany, whatever), then I believe you have to make the source available to them. Still, shouldn't be hard.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand what you're getting at? I'm not saying that any specific video on youtube is a fake. I'm not disputing that the BBC reported a factual inaccuracy. I'm saying that youtube usually isn't an authoritative source on anything and that the BBC made a mistake in not checking information that they were given.
I'm going to stop saying things now, because it's a waste of my time and I need to sleep.
Videos? Plural?
I've seen the original BBC broadcast. I don't know what other video you're referring to?
Repeat after me:
"Youtube is not a reliable source of information. Anyone is free to make shit up and post it there. Youtube is not a reliable...."
Fair point :)
I'm sorry, you've lost me. Where do I not know what official sources are again?
(1) I've already covered this I feel: They probably got the information from a stringer who was somewhere nearby.
(2) Having been fighting the fire inside the building, the firefighters were probably in a very good position to asses whether or not the building was going to come down. It seems that in their opinion it was, and they were right.
(3) Do you have any information about whether this "countdown" coincided with the building collapsing? Some guy hearing "44, 43 ..." on a radio and then a building falling down later on are not automatically linked events.
Wait, they cordonned off all of Manhatten?
I work in the news industry. They had people on the ground. Those people might not have been (a) working directly for them or (b) with the best information or even (c) remotely close, but they were there, in the city, on their cellphones talking to the newsdesks. Someone will have heard a rumour about something and reported that in, which then will have been misunderstood as factual. I know how press secretaries and spokesmen for official departments work, and I'm also well aware that these are not the exclusive source of information for news outlets.
Did the NYFD or mayor's office put out any information that the building had gone down before it actually did? Are you serious in your claim that the only source of information that news outlets use are the "official" ones?
You can say "FACT" all you want, but you still havn't said which radio station you're talking about, or acknowledged the possibility that the BBC made a simple mistake.
You're the government, you want to covertly bring down a building. Now, do you get ready press statements saying that the buildings have fallen over, or do you just blow them up and hope that someone notices? There is no universe in which the "BBC got a press release 20 minutes early" makes any kind of sense.
But not the one I mean? Eh? They reported factually inaccurate information. The only other explanation is that they "predicted the future" and managed to look silly and amateurish doing it. Lets be clear, it was an amateur mistake they made by reporting information without first verifying it. Not their finest hour.
Thanks for the chuckle.
No, my theory, if you read my post, is that under stress, confusion occurs and mistakes happen.
Any why on earth is everyone thinking that "official sources" are the only things that news outlets use when reporting on big stories. They had reporters on the ground, phoning in information. They had other stringers on the ground, phoning in information. What the hell is this "official sources that they were quoting" and why do timezones make any difference?
Fire doesn't melt steel. If you did metallurgy in college, you would know that above a certain temperature the most stable crystalline structure of steel becomes one which is a lot weaker. If you really care, you can google to find phase diagrams of steel like this one that tell you exactly how steel behaves when you heat it up.
If you didn't do metallurgy in college, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
What evidence?
The BBC made a mistake, probably because of the huge amounts of confusion that was abound. As for your other claim about a 'NY radio station', that's not something I've heard before, and your lack of detail leads me to believe that you've just made it up.
You're suggesting that in the wake of a large disaster that the media outlets are basing their up-to-the-second event information from press releases? Seriously? Do you understand what a press release is?
When serious events of this suddenness happen, news outlets don't report from press releases, they report from what their guys on the ground are telling them. In this case, the bbc obviously got it wrong, probably due to a combination of a stressed news editor with everyone shouting at him, lots of conflicting and confusing information coming in from the ground and the desire to just get some information out there. My money says that someone on the ground mistakenly said that WTC7 had already gone down, and the editor on a snap decision decided to break it before anyone else. Turns out he was wrong.
I'm guessing that they made a mistake in the confusion of not having very many facts in the wake of something huge happening. Unless you're suggesting that the entire BBC is in on a conspiracy?
Simple. Configure your mailserver to block all bounce messages unless they originate from a server that you've sent a mail to in the past 12 hours. Then you'll only get legit bounces.
That is distribution. But you're providing the source for the js anyway. Java is compiled, so you need to make sure you provide the source if the code is GPL'd.
If you're not distributing a binary (or code), then it's not distribution. A website is a service. The website user doesn't execute the code, the service provder's servers do. The user just tells it to.
You're working on a flawed assumption: That by default code (or any creative work) has no restrictions on it.
This is obviously false. If I create some code and don't attach any license to it, that code isn't 'free'. You can't copy it, you can't distribute it. This is covered by copyright law. The GPL license basically says "Here, take this code, it's free. Do what you want with it, except distribute it. If you want to redistribute, you've got to follow these criteria". That's it. There's nothing stopping you taking GPL code, linking it to whatever you want and using that. Google have a ton of GPL code all hooked up to proprietary stuff and have no legal issues because they don't *distribute* that code to customers. They are the end user. They are free to do what they want. GPL code is free to use. GPL code is not free to distribute, unless you follow some criteria.
The GPL doesn't restrict what you can do with the code, copyright law does. The GPL is permissive, but it's not fully permissive which is what the BSD could be described as being. This is fine, and is an idealogical difference, but please lets not go around saying that the GPL is "OMG TEH MOST RESTRICTIVE THING IN THE WORLD", because that just demonstrates to the world that you don't understand copyright.
This seems to me to be *exactly* what an ISP's job is. If they don't like doing this, they should get on out of the business.
You're right, it depends on how much you care about redundancy.
Also, thinking about it, there is a difference between making your connection resilient and your hardware resilient. You have control over your hardware, and have the ability to replace it relatively quickly if it goes down. However, if your connection goes down, you're in the mercy of your provider. And most people I know don't have SLAs with their ISP.
Does it support HSRP?
Bit pointless spending the money on two connections and then running it through one box. Either you have redundancy or you don't.
That's the beauty of PKI though. You don't have to trust Verisign - they're not the only root CA out there.
If you decide that you don't trust Verisign, and your bank uses a Verisign cert for their online banking, by extension you don't trust the bank, and should find a new one. I can't think of an example of a situation where you're forced to trust a particular root CA and have zero choice in the matter.
Oh, absolutely. Corporate lawyers don't see it being worth their time into investigating it. For them, it's far easier to basically forbid it, as then they know they're safe.
Quite, but my slighly dodgy understanding of the GPL says that you don't even have to make it available to anyone, just those who "have" (whatever that means - ownership? liense? use?) the binary.
Can someone tell me if I'm reading that one right?
Seeing as you only have to provide the source to those who you have also provided the binary to, your legal department appear to be wrong.
If you're distributing it to yourself, then you have to make the source code available to yourself. Shouldn't be too hard.
Actually, there's a more subtle problem here - if you operate as different legal entities in different parts of the world (Company PLC in the UK, Company INC in the US, Company GMBH in germany, whatever), then I believe you have to make the source available to them. Still, shouldn't be hard.