I think you overestimate the number of developers at Novell + Xandros = ??. Unless ?? includes at least IBM and RedHat, and MS fork is unlikely to even reach 25% of the current developers.
They've gotten a free ride for a long time, and not contributed anything back, and now they might not get to use some of the free stuff that comes out in the future.
You need to realise that the GPLv3 will change nothing to their contribution. If they did changes to the kernel under GPLv2 (no idea whether they did), they'd already have to release the changes and GPLv3 will change nothing to that. The area where GPLv3 would change things for them is the fact that right now, they distribute the source for the kernel, but people who get that source can't actually *run* it on the hardware because that requires a key only Tivo has. GPLv3 (if they use it) would force then to allow users to run modified programs on the hardware.
About 3000 people were killed in 9/11, and that was how many years ago? The flu kills about 15000 Americans each year. The flu.
Sure, but which one do you think works best when you want to restrict civic liberties? - We declare war on terrorism, so we need to tap everyone's phone in case they're terrorists. or - We declare war on flu, so we need to tap everyone's phone in case they've got the flu.
Wouldn't this also be abusable? Pick a stock, short it, spam the hell out of everybody, watch Ameritrade or whoever blacklist it, and watch the price drop.
You're forgetting a detail here. Pump&dump works because an idiot sees the spam and buys. The reverse wouldn't work because the said idiot cannot sell stocks he doesn't have. It's not like someone will see "oh, transactions are discouraged -- let's sell short".
Furthermore, if Eve1 and Eve2 listen in a distance of only a few meters, they can auto-correlate the signal(s) and find the direction from which it travels.
Not even a need to auto-correlate. If you measure both the current and voltage in one point of the transmission line, you can figure out which way the signals are going. On top of that problem, I can't really see that method scale in the Gbps, while I can easily imagine the single-photon methods scaling that high.
Or, maybe you'd rather be hurt by mold or bacteria than by the preservatives that prevent them?
Actually, preservatives have a lot more to do with keeping stuff on the shelves for a few months than it has to do with bacteria. Speaking of bacteria, sure some can be bad, but the current trend of disinfecting all the food is becoming a bit extreme (and is likely causing immune system-related diseases).
This is what gets me about GMO opponents - they fail to understand that there is a significant proportion of the world that would kill for ANY semblence of nutrition. It's GMO crops and "factory farms" that are feeding most the world.
You fail to see one side of the opposition to GMO: the economic objection. I'm personally not too worried about *eating* GMO food. I am, however, quite worried about having the world depend on it. The potential for disaster is simply enormous. You've got private companies messing around with the crops that feed the planet. What if tomorrow, production of [wheat, rice, corn,...] is destroyed because some new parasite is suddenly able to kill *all* the plants (because there's no diversity in its genes anymore). Yet another problem is that many gains of GMO are short-term. The first few generations are more robust to insects and produce more, but then the insects adapt and non only do you get no benefit, but you're stuck with the GMO crops because if you go back your production will be eaten entirely. Who wins? GMO companies, GMO farmers in the short term. Who loses? GMO-farmers in the long-term *AND* all the ones who didn't use GMOs at all.
We live in a world of risks. Sometimes our chemistry screws up and we end up killing some people. But we rarely kill very many. We live in a world of chemicals, some of which are safe, some of which we know are harmful, and some of which we think are safe but are actually (somewhat) harmful. The vast majority are in either of the first two categories. Some are in the third. We will find more as time goes on. That's a good thing.
The problems is that more chemicals are invented than tested. Because we now eat so many different chemicals, there's simply no way to determine their long-term side effects. Let's say I invent and market a new food preservative that turns out to increase by 200% your chances of getting cancer in 20 years. First, it's likely nobody will notice for the first 20 years. Then people will wonder why cancer rates are up and will have no clue. Because we're eating thousands of different things, it's nearly impossible to separate the long-term effects of everything. Now consider that cancer is currently on the rise and it's not clear why. There are probably many reasons. Some of those could be related to the stuff we eat, but it's really hard to know exactly what (though a few have been identified).
If you want to go after anything, attack our high-fat high-calorie low-excersize lifestyle.
Unless you don't depend on any other infrastructure, then the whole thing is pointless. Are you independent of electricity, oil, garbage collection, food (local production only), communications,...?
So we don't want to talk about the killing for 6 million (mainly Jews but of course we have gypsies, POWs, political prisoners, etc) because we will offend some radical Muslims.
If I were Muslim, I'd find that "...for fear of offending Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial" quote from the article insulting. I doubt any but the most fanatic Muslims deny the Holocaust -- even those most oppose what Israel's doing.
If we piss of the Jews they will complain vs. if we piss off the Muslims the radicals will riot, burn things, etc.
It actually depends on where you are. Do that in the US as a politician and you can bet your opponent at the next election will have millions in donations...
The day we stop discussing facts/history because somebody may be offended is the day we are all screwed.
It's already happened. Christian extremists won't hear anything about evolution, the Pope pretty much denies the American (the continent) genocide, Turkey won't tolerate anyone talking about the Armenian genocide, Islamic radicals (and other crackheads) deny the WWII Jewish (+other) genocide, don't mention the Palestinian genocide in Israel or the US either, and so on...
In some sense, the Armenian genocide is "interesting" because Turkey will prosecute you for talking about it, while France will prosecute you for denying. Now, hope you're never interviews by both French and Turkish officials at the same time on the subject. (As far as I'm concerned, denying one of those genocides qualifies you as a hopeless idiot, but should not get you prosecuted)
But to write off studies based purely on the messenger is nothing but an ad hominem attack
No, it means there is an incentive for the people who did the study to be biased. Even without reading the details, if I found a study by Greenpeace saying "there's no global warming" or a study by Exxon saying "we need to cut down on CO2", they'd be a lot more credible (you know they'd at least be honest) than the other way around. The problem with studies (or papers) is that there's only so much fact checking you can do. When I review a scientific paper (I do that too often for my taste these days), I have to assume that what the authors say they did is true. I can't redo the experiments, so I have to trust the results. All I can say is whether what is actually reported in novel, interesting, properly backed up by experiments (which I have to trust). If someone (relatively clever) fakes results, there isn't much I can say. *However*, if the authors of the study have no financial (or otherwise) incentive to find one thing or another, it adds a lot of credibility to the results.
So in summary, I give as much credibility to a study funded by Microsoft on the GPLv3 than to an FSF study on the (de)merits of proprietary software -- regardless of the methodology. At best I'll find a few good arguments supporting one side of the story.
Except, you know...the nuclear radiation that is RF radiation...which is all of it.
While gamma radiation is indeed electromagnetic, what pretty much everyone calls RF is actually whatever is below the infrared (i.e. microwave downward). Also, not all nuclear radiation is electromagnetic. Ever heard of alpha and beta particles -- those are ionising too.
What about UV? That causes mutations too. Does that have as much energy as gamma (the answer: not if the amplitude is the same)? This is just crap. Any kind of radiation can have three effects on cells:
What the hell is "amplitude" supposed to mean. This isn't about the amount of power, but the nature of the radiation (quantum physics 101). Either a certain radiation is ionising or it's not (well of course, there's a range where it depends on the exact molecule). For both UV and gamma, the energy of a photon is enough to eject an electron (or move it where it's not supposed to be) and thus cause damage to the DNA. For microwaves, you can pour as much energy as you like, it's just not going to happen. The only potential harm from microwave is the fact that it can potentially heat up the body (but it takes more than a few mW).
The more energy, the more likely to get #3. However, there are agents in the skin to absorb most of the energy in most of the RF spectrum. Any part of the spectrum can cause mutations if you can get it to do step #2 and not step #3.
No, mutations can only be caused by ionising radiation. A microwave oven will cook you, but it will *not* cause mutations because the microwave photons simply don't have enough energy to displace electrons. Also, why do you think we put sunscreen to protect our skin from UV radiation while leaving it fully exposed to infrared and visible light, which make up most of the total radiated power from the sun (and far more than UVs)?
Your story aside, that much power could easily burn someone to cinders if they happened to be sitting on the focal point of a microwave dish.
No, it will have about the same effect as using a 20 cm magnifier in the sun. Would probably hurt, but not kill you.
I live in Australia and just bought a D820 n-series, which means the only OS it came with was a FreeDOS CD. And it has a WUXGA display as well. I'm quite happy with it -- now that the kernel handles Core2 without crashing.
I don't think you realise how serious this is. Any kid that really *did* believe this was real (and that he was going to die) might end up with the same long-term psychological effects that children involved in *real* shootings have. Or do you think none of the teens in (e.g.) Columbine really needed psychotherapy, because if they're still alive it's no different from someone saying boo to them?
Not in a world where copyright actually exists. Someone can take your BSD source, modify it and then prevent you from copying it. With the GPL they have to let you re-distribute it. Thus, what happens with a piece of GPL software is *closer* (not the same) as the no-copyright case as BSD is. Plus if you remove copyright law, then BSD==GPL(==nothing) anyway.
You can't support GPL without supporting copyright, as it would be unenforceable without copyright.
While that's *not* my opinion, one *can* (logically) support the GPL without supporting copyright. That person would then consider that the GPL is a "stop-gap" measure that "prevents some people from taking advantage of copyright law" for a particular piece of software [until copyright law is abolished or something].
In an other announcement, the IOC said that for the 2016 olympics, medalists will also be Chosen by Sponsorship. Ronald McDonals is expected to win a record of 10 gold medals.
The company is almost dead now, let them die alright. It'll be a history lesson for future companies.
Actually, it's much more effective if we keep reminding people that they're dying. Sort of like the middle ages practice of leaving the body of executed convicts rot on a public place -- just to maximise the impact.
Where did I say he committed a genocide? I'm just saying that "had done more in his life for his beliefs than we can only hope to achieve" fits just as much for really great people, as well as really bad people (genocide being the extreme in that case).
had done more in his life for his beliefs than we can only hope to achieve
And that should always be a good thing? I'm sure most genocides have been carried out by people that fit the description above. It's the same for intelligence. You can use it to do really good things or really bad things.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you overestimate the number of developers at Novell + Xandros = ??. Unless ?? includes at least IBM and RedHat, and MS fork is unlikely to even reach 25% of the current developers.
Doesn't work, the GPLv3 has a definition of conveying that covers that properly. You're not the first to think of this (non-existing) loophole.
They've gotten a free ride for a long time, and not contributed anything back, and now they might not get to use some of the free stuff that comes out in the future.
You need to realise that the GPLv3 will change nothing to their contribution. If they did changes to the kernel under GPLv2 (no idea whether they did), they'd already have to release the changes and GPLv3 will change nothing to that. The area where GPLv3 would change things for them is the fact that right now, they distribute the source for the kernel, but people who get that source can't actually *run* it on the hardware because that requires a key only Tivo has. GPLv3 (if they use it) would force then to allow users to run modified programs on the hardware.
About 3000 people were killed in 9/11, and that was how many years ago? The flu kills about 15000 Americans each year. The flu.
Sure, but which one do you think works best when you want to restrict civic liberties?
- We declare war on terrorism, so we need to tap everyone's phone in case they're terrorists.
or
- We declare war on flu, so we need to tap everyone's phone in case they've got the flu.
Wouldn't this also be abusable? Pick a stock, short it, spam the hell out of everybody, watch Ameritrade or whoever blacklist it, and watch the price drop.
You're forgetting a detail here. Pump&dump works because an idiot sees the spam and buys. The reverse wouldn't work because the said idiot cannot sell stocks he doesn't have. It's not like someone will see "oh, transactions are discouraged -- let's sell short".
Try FlowDesigner</Blatant plug>
Furthermore, if Eve1 and Eve2 listen in a distance of only a few meters, they can auto-correlate the signal(s) and find the direction from which it travels.
Not even a need to auto-correlate. If you measure both the current and voltage in one point of the transmission line, you can figure out which way the signals are going. On top of that problem, I can't really see that method scale in the Gbps, while I can easily imagine the single-photon methods scaling that high.
Or, maybe you'd rather be hurt by mold or bacteria than by the preservatives that prevent them?
...] is destroyed because some new parasite is suddenly able to kill *all* the plants (because there's no diversity in its genes anymore). Yet another problem is that many gains of GMO are short-term. The first few generations are more robust to insects and produce more, but then the insects adapt and non only do you get no benefit, but you're stuck with the GMO crops because if you go back your production will be eaten entirely. Who wins? GMO companies, GMO farmers in the short term. Who loses? GMO-farmers in the long-term *AND* all the ones who didn't use GMOs at all.
Actually, preservatives have a lot more to do with keeping stuff on the shelves for a few months than it has to do with bacteria. Speaking of bacteria, sure some can be bad, but the current trend of disinfecting all the food is becoming a bit extreme (and is likely causing immune system-related diseases).
This is what gets me about GMO opponents - they fail to understand that there is a significant proportion of the world that would kill for ANY semblence of nutrition. It's GMO crops and "factory farms" that are feeding most the world.
You fail to see one side of the opposition to GMO: the economic objection. I'm personally not too worried about *eating* GMO food. I am, however, quite worried about having the world depend on it. The potential for disaster is simply enormous. You've got private companies messing around with the crops that feed the planet. What if tomorrow, production of [wheat, rice, corn,
We live in a world of risks. Sometimes our chemistry screws up and we end up killing some people. But we rarely kill very many. We live in a world of chemicals, some of which are safe, some of which we know are harmful, and some of which we think are safe but are actually (somewhat) harmful. The vast majority are in either of the first two categories. Some are in the third. We will find more as time goes on. That's a good thing.
The problems is that more chemicals are invented than tested. Because we now eat so many different chemicals, there's simply no way to determine their long-term side effects. Let's say I invent and market a new food preservative that turns out to increase by 200% your chances of getting cancer in 20 years. First, it's likely nobody will notice for the first 20 years. Then people will wonder why cancer rates are up and will have no clue. Because we're eating thousands of different things, it's nearly impossible to separate the long-term effects of everything. Now consider that cancer is currently on the rise and it's not clear why. There are probably many reasons. Some of those could be related to the stuff we eat, but it's really hard to know exactly what (though a few have been identified).
If you want to go after anything, attack our high-fat high-calorie low-excersize lifestyle.
Of course, we *also* need to attack that.
Unless you don't depend on any other infrastructure, then the whole thing is pointless. Are you independent of electricity, oil, garbage collection, food (local production only), communications, ...?
So we don't want to talk about the killing for 6 million (mainly Jews but of course we have gypsies, POWs, political prisoners, etc) because we will offend some radical Muslims.
If I were Muslim, I'd find that "...for fear of offending Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial" quote from the article insulting. I doubt any but the most fanatic Muslims deny the Holocaust -- even those most oppose what Israel's doing.
If we piss of the Jews they will complain vs. if we piss off the Muslims the radicals will riot, burn things, etc.
It actually depends on where you are. Do that in the US as a politician and you can bet your opponent at the next election will have millions in donations...
The day we stop discussing facts/history because somebody may be offended is the day we are all screwed.
It's already happened. Christian extremists won't hear anything about evolution, the Pope pretty much denies the American (the continent) genocide, Turkey won't tolerate anyone talking about the Armenian genocide, Islamic radicals (and other crackheads) deny the WWII Jewish (+other) genocide, don't mention the Palestinian genocide in Israel or the US either, and so on...
In some sense, the Armenian genocide is "interesting" because Turkey will prosecute you for talking about it, while France will prosecute you for denying. Now, hope you're never interviews by both French and Turkish officials at the same time on the subject. (As far as I'm concerned, denying one of those genocides qualifies you as a hopeless idiot, but should not get you prosecuted)
How long 'til a plane runs out of fuel because someone forgot to add some more to cover the extra distance?
But to write off studies based purely on the messenger is nothing but an ad hominem attack
No, it means there is an incentive for the people who did the study to be biased. Even without reading the details, if I found a study by Greenpeace saying "there's no global warming" or a study by Exxon saying "we need to cut down on CO2", they'd be a lot more credible (you know they'd at least be honest) than the other way around. The problem with studies (or papers) is that there's only so much fact checking you can do. When I review a scientific paper (I do that too often for my taste these days), I have to assume that what the authors say they did is true. I can't redo the experiments, so I have to trust the results. All I can say is whether what is actually reported in novel, interesting, properly backed up by experiments (which I have to trust). If someone (relatively clever) fakes results, there isn't much I can say. *However*, if the authors of the study have no financial (or otherwise) incentive to find one thing or another, it adds a lot of credibility to the results.
So in summary, I give as much credibility to a study funded by Microsoft on the GPLv3 than to an FSF study on the (de)merits of proprietary software -- regardless of the methodology. At best I'll find a few good arguments supporting one side of the story.
Except, you know...the nuclear radiation that is RF radiation...which is all of it.
While gamma radiation is indeed electromagnetic, what pretty much everyone calls RF is actually whatever is below the infrared (i.e. microwave downward). Also, not all nuclear radiation is electromagnetic. Ever heard of alpha and beta particles -- those are ionising too.
What about UV? That causes mutations too. Does that have as much energy as gamma (the answer: not if the amplitude is the same)? This is just crap. Any kind of radiation can have three effects on cells:
What the hell is "amplitude" supposed to mean. This isn't about the amount of power, but the nature of the radiation (quantum physics 101). Either a certain radiation is ionising or it's not (well of course, there's a range where it depends on the exact molecule). For both UV and gamma, the energy of a photon is enough to eject an electron (or move it where it's not supposed to be) and thus cause damage to the DNA. For microwaves, you can pour as much energy as you like, it's just not going to happen. The only potential harm from microwave is the fact that it can potentially heat up the body (but it takes more than a few mW).
The more energy, the more likely to get #3. However, there are agents in the skin to absorb most of the energy in most of the RF spectrum. Any part of the spectrum can cause mutations if you can get it to do step #2 and not step #3.
No, mutations can only be caused by ionising radiation. A microwave oven will cook you, but it will *not* cause mutations because the microwave photons simply don't have enough energy to displace electrons. Also, why do you think we put sunscreen to protect our skin from UV radiation while leaving it fully exposed to infrared and visible light, which make up most of the total radiated power from the sun (and far more than UVs)?
Your story aside, that much power could easily burn someone to cinders if they happened to be sitting on the focal point of a microwave dish.
No, it will have about the same effect as using a 20 cm magnifier in the sun. Would probably hurt, but not kill you.
I live in Australia and just bought a D820 n-series, which means the only OS it came with was a FreeDOS CD. And it has a WUXGA display as well. I'm quite happy with it -- now that the kernel handles Core2 without crashing.
And how cool would it be to pick coconuts in my back yard?
;-)
You mean "how cool would it be to go surfing in my back yard?", right?
A state should not be in the business of suing companies for bad customer service!
I tend to read that as "companies should be free to screw a state government over customer support without fear of being sued".
I don't think you realise how serious this is. Any kid that really *did* believe this was real (and that he was going to die) might end up with the same long-term psychological effects that children involved in *real* shootings have. Or do you think none of the teens in (e.g.) Columbine really needed psychotherapy, because if they're still alive it's no different from someone saying boo to them?
Sure, but the GPL is the closest thing you can get to "copyright will never apply to this program (and its derivatives)".
Not in a world where copyright actually exists. Someone can take your BSD source, modify it and then prevent you from copying it. With the GPL they have to let you re-distribute it. Thus, what happens with a piece of GPL software is *closer* (not the same) as the no-copyright case as BSD is. Plus if you remove copyright law, then BSD==GPL(==nothing) anyway.
You can't support GPL without supporting copyright, as it would be unenforceable without copyright.
While that's *not* my opinion, one *can* (logically) support the GPL without supporting copyright. That person would then consider that the GPL is a "stop-gap" measure that "prevents some people from taking advantage of copyright law" for a particular piece of software [until copyright law is abolished or something].
In an other announcement, the IOC said that for the 2016 olympics, medalists will also be Chosen by Sponsorship. Ronald McDonals is expected to win a record of 10 gold medals.
The company is almost dead now, let them die alright. It'll be a history lesson for future companies.
Actually, it's much more effective if we keep reminding people that they're dying. Sort of like the middle ages practice of leaving the body of executed convicts rot on a public place -- just to maximise the impact.
Where did I say he committed a genocide? I'm just saying that "had done more in his life for his beliefs than we can only hope to achieve" fits just as much for really great people, as well as really bad people (genocide being the extreme in that case).
had done more in his life for his beliefs than we can only hope to achieve
And that should always be a good thing? I'm sure most genocides have been carried out by people that fit the description above. It's the same for intelligence. You can use it to do really good things or really bad things.
Someone call me when they make a "Phone Camera"
And I'll laugh when I see you trying to talk with your new Canon EOS 450D phone camera.