I just don't see the need to spend time worrying about the issue, especially when it sounds natural. Conversions can also change the tone of the sentence, in particular when you change:
"There is no need to notify us about problems that we are already aware of. "
to:
"If we already know about a problem, you do not need to notify us about it again."
Is a somewhat drastic change. The first version sounds more forceful, and may be desired depending on the context.
I'd also like to see what you would change the original example to: "Who did you give it to?"
And I just noticed that I ended my sentence with "to", and started this one with "And". Oh dear. Also, I prefer the British style of putting punctuation outside of quotes, even though I'm American.
This is specifically why we needed the term "Free" for software; open was already taken and it already meant something. [..] No, you can't call it Free, although you can call the plans free.
That's bullshit. Look at the definition for "free software". Do you see any capitalization of "free software" outside of grammatical usage like titles or beginnings of sentences?
Free was already in wide use as "free as in no price", a point of much debate in choosing a name for "free as in freedom" software, and a source of constant confusion for people not familiar with the movement.
"Open source" was not in wide use at all except for in the intelligence community. "Open" vs proprietary never had a precise definition. The term "open source" was defined and promoted into wide usage by the OSI, and then co-opted by people who wanted to get on the bandwagon.
If you're going to criticize "open source" as a term, you should apply the same criticism, if not more, to "free software".
If you can't fork it, it's not open source. Period.
Listen to what you're saying. You don't even care that the science is correct.
I never said that. In fact, I said just the opposite. Part of doing correct science is presenting your results accurately in a scientific manner. When you lack the integrity to do so, when you tell others to delete information, when you withhold information, when you treat the peer-review process as a political game, your integrity as a scientist is gone. You are not trustworthy.
When others then try to whitewash what happened, they corrupt science.
Exactly what "deception" are you suggesting he intended?
Isn't it obvious? Hasn't it already been stated? He took different sets of proxy data, which were labeled as proxy data, and then blended them in with a completely different data set. He said, "Look, all this proxy data points to the same conclusion!" with that graph. That's deception. No scientist of any integrity would have done that.
Maybe the graph should have been labeled in more detail, but that is a ludicrous nit-pick as "evidence" for some global conspiracy theory.
I never said there was a global conspiracy theory, did I? In fact, I discounted it. I just said that the science got corrupted and politicized, leading to biased science that isn't trustworthy.
He wasn't twiddling a knob to get a particular result.
Tossing out data is a manual adjustment. The less of these things you have to do, the better. They need to be done with care, but I don't have the confidence that the climate scientists have been careful with both their data and their methods.
Tree ring temperature data has been directly and indirectly validated as as accurate for dates prior to 1960.
The problem is they don't know exactly why the tree ring data diverges. If it's a wholly modern phenomenon that doesn't occur in the past, then fine. However, if it's a phenomenon that could occur in the past, like for example drought due to higher temperatures, then the effect would be to miss periods of warming in the past.
It's just predicting the size of the effect that is extremely complicated, and predicting secondary climate effects is even harder.
Exactly so, and that's why the science needs to be as honest, unbiased, and transparent as possible.
But denying that it's real is just plain wrong. And theories that ten thousand scientists are in some vast conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax is ridiculous.
Good thing I haven't done that in any of my posts. Feel free to quote something if you feel otherwise.
What an interesting priority of taboos you have. =)
Having your fly own is a silly, if embarrassing, accident. Criticizing somebody's speech patterns is much more fundamental.
Some people [..]
As was mentioned in the usage note I quoted, "who" predominates "whom". Go ahead, listen to everyday conversations, look at movies and television shows, look at newspaper articles and blogs. Count up how many people actually use "whom" on even a semi-regular basis. I'd be shocked if it was even 10%.
I find "alright" to be more jarring.
What I find way more jarring than that are educated people in their 20s who can't get is/are right in even simple cases.
"In general, who tends to predominate over whom in informal contexts. Whom may sound stuffy even when correctly used, and when used where who would be correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? whom may betray grammatical ignorance. Similarly, though traditionalists will insist on whom when the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom is at odds with the relative informality associated with this construction; thus they contend that a sentence such as Who did you give it to? should be regarded as entirely acceptable."
It's as natural to me as he/him, likewise with many people I know
Personally, I don't know anybody who makes a point to use it, especially in conversation. I've never found it's usage natural, and if I were to use it, I'd have to stop and think about it. It's just one of those antiquated forms that have very little actual use in everyday language and is best off left for dead.
and nobody has ever had a problem with that.
Lots of people won't even tell somebody they know that their fly is open, let alone tell them that they don't like their manner of speech.
There is a difference between believing in charity, and believing in forcing others into giving.
As a firm believer in a secular government, I agree completely.
However, very few Christians live their own lives or encourage others to live their life as taught by the Christian bible, at least in this respect. What they do is pick and choose which teachings are holy and followed, and which are just ignored. Many of these same people are also not shy about trying to get their Christian views enshrined in government.
That's downright communist. Yep, Jesus and his cult was a communist. Spread the word and watch the religious right trip all over themselves to explain it away.
The phrases "trick" and "hide the decline" certainly can be interpreted out of context in a nefarious manner, but in context the problem he was discussing was that part of his data set had a known problem showing a known FALSE SIGNAL decline in post 1960 temperatures. The "trick" he used was to use real and accurate temperature measurements to accurately present temperatures up to the present day. It was a "trick" to avoid awkwardly ending an illustration at 1960.
Listen to what you're saying. To avoid "awkwardly" showing the actual and accurately labeled data, he just spliced on data from a completely different set. That's deception and shows a complete lack of scientific integrity. You would not accept this from an anti-global warming person. You'd roast them for it.
This is also the same scientist that was telling other scientists to delete emails, withholding data, and treating the peer-review process as a political game to be won in Machiavellian fashion. This isn't just a few emails being taken out of context. This behavior is inexcusable, and trying to excuse it only weakens science as a whole.
As for mixing and matching data, it has to be done rigorously. When you start letting in a bunch of knobs you can turn until you get the answer you expect, it corrupts the science. What I've seen from the scientists with regards to data doesn't fill me with confidence.
Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling its development tools, documentation, etc... to its developer base. [..] That's why they have to obsolete their technology platforms, time and time again. They need revenue.
Tinfoil hat ranting. Do you have references to back this up? Microsoft makes the bulk of their money by selling Windows and Office. Do you think they actually want to drive developers away? Note that "Tools" sales are bundled into "Server and Tools", which includes things like SQL Server, so only a tiny portion of Microsoft's profit comes from selling tools, if any.
The word "trick" can mean a method of deception. The word "trick" can also mean a clever method for reaching a correct result.
Sure. So when the goal of the trick is to "hide the decline", which definition do you think is most applicable? The review admits the result was misleading, and even Mann, in the comment copied into this thread by his defender admits "the figure could indeed have been clearer".
What occurred was that decades of tree ring data was tossed out because it didn't fit thermometer temperatures, but older tree ring data was kept in, and the final result was presented as a smooth graph that blended tree ring data with thermometer temperatures. Does that sound like honest science to you? Would you accept it from an anti-global warming paper?
Words or phrases which could be (innocently or maliciously) misrepresented to the public to paint Global Warming as a vast conspiracy and hoax.
The less extreme position is that the science got politicized and fell below the scientific rigor, transparency, and unbiased and healthy skepticism that we expect from modern science, especially when we are depending on that science to make decisions with global impact.
So the question here is, do you actually care which side is engaging in misrepresentation?
"Trick" and "hide the decline", when presenting scientific evidence to the public, is not a minor indictment. What's really disgusting is how they tried to paper over what they did, and how people like you refuse to acknowledge it. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.
Regarding the comment you copy and pasted, they say:
"this figure is now described as 'an icon' in the Muir Russell report (one of their very few mistakes, how can something be an icon if no-one has ever seen it?)"
Repeating what the report said: given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR)
The point is that versions of the graph gained iconic significance (the famous hockey stick), including, as mentioned, in the extremely important IPCC Third Assessment Report.
"In relation to "hide the decline" we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain -- ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."
The budget was balanced when Bush took office. Where were the tea partiers when he was President?
Where indeed? Even so, the problem of the ballooning debt isn't getting any better after Bush. Quite the opposite. It seems "one more trillion" is the common answer under Obama.
Clinton warned Bush about Bin Laden, Bush didn't listen, the WTC was attacked again and we went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Clinton had a chance to take Bin Laden out but didn't because he feared political repercussions. I'm also pretty sure that Clinton didn't give Bush the precise plans on the 9/11 attack. But go ahead, blame everything on Bush.
Now you want to balance the budget by taking away Social Security amd medicare from my dad, who's been paying SPECIAL TAXES FOR IT all his life?
The joke's on him and us, because we are really paying for the previous generation, not our own healthcare. Now that the baby boomers are retiring, and the cost of healthcare is spiraling out of control, it can't continue.
THAT'S what caused the housing meltdown.
Right, the housing meltdown was caused by the high price of gasoline and not by people acting irrationally and dishonestly in the midst of a gigantic bubble. Here's a clue: If the price of gasoline means you can't afford your mortgage, you paid way too much for your house.
Son, you must be smoking some powerful meth, because your brain ain't workin' right.
Right back at you.
Stop the war, get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich, and give the middle class a break, and you'll fix both the economy AND the defecit.
I'm all for ending the tax cuts for the ultra-rich, but it isn't going to solve the ballooning costs of healthcare, even if you cut way back on military spending (which we should).
so you write a headline that sums up the story, then you put the specific charges in quotes. just like the WSJ did.
Except that your headline was completely misleading, which sets the tone for the rest of your summary. They weren't put in prison for making iPad2 cases. What you did was dishonest.
What could i have titled this story?
18 Months In Prison For Selling Trade Secrets
Of course, that doesn't sound as outrageous as "For Making iPad2 Cases", now does it?
They got some sensitive information about the secret chips inside the thing, or they got the crypto keys to it, or they did something that would allow unlocking or jailbreaking.
Those are wrong. Those implications are wrong. You have to have the 'cases' thing in there, otherwise you are misleading people about what actually happened.
It still would have been much more accurate than your description. If you insist on being explicit on what was leaked:
18 Months In Prison For Selling iPad2 Case Design Secrets
Cause I really enjoyed the latest.net Framework 3.5 and 4 security updates that was nearly 400 MB... Thank you MS!
I also enjoyed the way it spent over an hour pre-compiling assemblies during the update. Granted, it was on an old machine, but it still would have been ridiculously long on a modern one.
And most people are nice and altruistic; it's how we've evolved.
To a certain extent. Most people are also self-interested, greedy, and competitive. That's also how we evolved.
The Tea Party is a perfect example of what you're talking about here. Started by the billionaire Koch brothers, you have working people who are adamant tea partiers working against their own interests, and ignorant of the fact that they are working against their own interests.
Government spending is ballooning out of control. Even left-leaning voters should realize that.
Some of the Watchmen have super powers, and some don't-- but no one is alone in that respect, which was a key element of his suggestion.
You're nitpicking. Dr. Manhattan was the supreme superhero. His powers were god-like, quite unlike any of the other superheros. He was conflicted about his morals, and the movie did end on a remorseful note. He was so upset by the whole thing that he left the galaxy.
Okay, so apparently you liked The Watchmen. That doesn't mean it's the answer for every viewer who'd like to see something different from superhero films than what is being presented.
For somebody looking for what he described, it's a very good candidate. Just how many films do you think are out there that match exactly? It's fine if you don't like and don't recommend it, to each their own, but my recommendation still stands based on the criteria and my own enjoyment of the movie.
The Watchmen did fit into this suggestion in one way: it took itself very, very seriously-- probably far more so than the actual content warranted.
It was very close to the source material. It wasn't meant to be silly superhero schtick. The whole idea behind Watchmen was "What if we took superheros seriously?"
If you build something, and that does work without a GPL2 library, but can optionally use it, the work does not have to be GPL2. Otherwise all programs on linux would have to be GPL2.
As long as you don't copy the GPL program as part of a whole, there is no issue. The case under discussion is a whole being copied (the firmware for the router).
The distinction between derivative works and independent works is blurry at the moment. And this is what the case is about, as far as TFS goes. So it is good for courts to investigate this line.
It's only blurry because people don't want to follow the rules of the GPL and they latch on to the escape hatch of the aggregate clause, and then ignore the parts talking about a whole.
In this case, AVM made a claim that they owned a copyright to the work as a whole, including GPL parts. If that is the case, the GPL applies.
The articles quotes from engineers who weren't happy with what was going on. The problem is engineers get pressure from management to come to a certain conclusion, even when they have safety concerns.
If you want to see a prime example of that, see the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't see the need to spend time worrying about the issue, especially when it sounds natural. Conversions can also change the tone of the sentence, in particular when you change:
"There is no need to notify us about problems that we are already aware of. "
to:
"If we already know about a problem, you do not need to notify us about it again."
Is a somewhat drastic change. The first version sounds more forceful, and may be desired depending on the context.
I'd also like to see what you would change the original example to: "Who did you give it to?"
And I just noticed that I ended my sentence with "to", and started this one with "And". Oh dear. Also, I prefer the British style of putting punctuation outside of quotes, even though I'm American.
This is specifically why we needed the term "Free" for software; open was already taken and it already meant something. [..] No, you can't call it Free, although you can call the plans free.
That's bullshit. Look at the definition for "free software". Do you see any capitalization of "free software" outside of grammatical usage like titles or beginnings of sentences?
Free was already in wide use as "free as in no price", a point of much debate in choosing a name for "free as in freedom" software, and a source of constant confusion for people not familiar with the movement.
"Open source" was not in wide use at all except for in the intelligence community. "Open" vs proprietary never had a precise definition. The term "open source" was defined and promoted into wide usage by the OSI, and then co-opted by people who wanted to get on the bandwagon.
If you're going to criticize "open source" as a term, you should apply the same criticism, if not more, to "free software".
If you can't fork it, it's not open source. Period.
Which just means that nobody ever told them not to end a sentence with a preposition....
It's Usually Not Wrong to End a Sentence with a Preposition
Listen to what you're saying. You don't even care that the science is correct.
I never said that. In fact, I said just the opposite. Part of doing correct science is presenting your results accurately in a scientific manner. When you lack the integrity to do so, when you tell others to delete information, when you withhold information, when you treat the peer-review process as a political game, your integrity as a scientist is gone. You are not trustworthy.
When others then try to whitewash what happened, they corrupt science.
Exactly what "deception" are you suggesting he intended?
Isn't it obvious? Hasn't it already been stated? He took different sets of proxy data, which were labeled as proxy data, and then blended them in with a completely different data set. He said, "Look, all this proxy data points to the same conclusion!" with that graph. That's deception. No scientist of any integrity would have done that.
Maybe the graph should have been labeled in more detail, but that is a ludicrous nit-pick as "evidence" for some global conspiracy theory.
I never said there was a global conspiracy theory, did I? In fact, I discounted it. I just said that the science got corrupted and politicized, leading to biased science that isn't trustworthy.
He wasn't twiddling a knob to get a particular result.
Tossing out data is a manual adjustment. The less of these things you have to do, the better. They need to be done with care, but I don't have the confidence that the climate scientists have been careful with both their data and their methods.
Tree ring temperature data has been directly and indirectly validated as as accurate for dates prior to 1960.
The problem is they don't know exactly why the tree ring data diverges. If it's a wholly modern phenomenon that doesn't occur in the past, then fine. However, if it's a phenomenon that could occur in the past, like for example drought due to higher temperatures, then the effect would be to miss periods of warming in the past.
It's just predicting the size of the effect that is extremely complicated, and predicting secondary climate effects is even harder.
Exactly so, and that's why the science needs to be as honest, unbiased, and transparent as possible.
But denying that it's real is just plain wrong. And theories that ten thousand scientists are in some vast conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax is ridiculous.
Good thing I haven't done that in any of my posts. Feel free to quote something if you feel otherwise.
What an interesting priority of taboos you have. =)
Having your fly own is a silly, if embarrassing, accident. Criticizing somebody's speech patterns is much more fundamental.
Some people [..]
As was mentioned in the usage note I quoted, "who" predominates "whom". Go ahead, listen to everyday conversations, look at movies and television shows, look at newspaper articles and blogs. Count up how many people actually use "whom" on even a semi-regular basis. I'd be shocked if it was even 10%.
I find "alright" to be more jarring.
What I find way more jarring than that are educated people in their 20s who can't get is/are right in even simple cases.
Since when?
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/who
"In general, who tends to predominate over whom in informal contexts. Whom may sound stuffy even when correctly used, and when used where who would be correct, as in Whom shall I say is calling? whom may betray grammatical ignorance. Similarly, though traditionalists will insist on whom when the relative pronoun is the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom is at odds with the relative informality associated with this construction; thus they contend that a sentence such as Who did you give it to? should be regarded as entirely acceptable."
It's as natural to me as he/him, likewise with many people I know
Personally, I don't know anybody who makes a point to use it, especially in conversation. I've never found it's usage natural, and if I were to use it, I'd have to stop and think about it. It's just one of those antiquated forms that have very little actual use in everyday language and is best off left for dead.
and nobody has ever had a problem with that.
Lots of people won't even tell somebody they know that their fly is open, let alone tell them that they don't like their manner of speech.
[..] consider offering some easy ways to know when to use which version.
That's easy. Just don't use "whom", ever. It's overly stuffy, even in formal writing.
There is a difference between believing in charity, and believing in forcing others into giving.
As a firm believer in a secular government, I agree completely.
However, very few Christians live their own lives or encourage others to live their life as taught by the Christian bible, at least in this respect. What they do is pick and choose which teachings are holy and followed, and which are just ignored. Many of these same people are also not shy about trying to get their Christian views enshrined in government.
I have some extra capitals. Free free to borrow them:
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Can you imagine paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars on eBay for something that only exists in one of these games
Nope.
I think Jesus and his posse were Socialists
That's downright communist. Yep, Jesus and his cult was a communist. Spread the word and watch the religious right trip all over themselves to explain it away.
The phrases "trick" and "hide the decline" certainly can be interpreted out of context in a nefarious manner, but in context the problem he was discussing was that part of his data set had a known problem showing a known FALSE SIGNAL decline in post 1960 temperatures. The "trick" he used was to use real and accurate temperature measurements to accurately present temperatures up to the present day. It was a "trick" to avoid awkwardly ending an illustration at 1960.
Listen to what you're saying. To avoid "awkwardly" showing the actual and accurately labeled data, he just spliced on data from a completely different set. That's deception and shows a complete lack of scientific integrity. You would not accept this from an anti-global warming person. You'd roast them for it.
This is also the same scientist that was telling other scientists to delete emails, withholding data, and treating the peer-review process as a political game to be won in Machiavellian fashion. This isn't just a few emails being taken out of context. This behavior is inexcusable, and trying to excuse it only weakens science as a whole.
As for mixing and matching data, it has to be done rigorously. When you start letting in a bunch of knobs you can turn until you get the answer you expect, it corrupts the science. What I've seen from the scientists with regards to data doesn't fill me with confidence.
Microsoft makes a lot of money from selling its development tools, documentation, etc... to its developer base. [..] That's why they have to obsolete their technology platforms, time and time again. They need revenue.
Tinfoil hat ranting. Do you have references to back this up? Microsoft makes the bulk of their money by selling Windows and Office. Do you think they actually want to drive developers away? Note that "Tools" sales are bundled into "Server and Tools", which includes things like SQL Server, so only a tiny portion of Microsoft's profit comes from selling tools, if any.
The word "trick" can mean a method of deception.
The word "trick" can also mean a clever method for reaching a correct result.
Sure. So when the goal of the trick is to "hide the decline", which definition do you think is most applicable? The review admits the result was misleading, and even Mann, in the comment copied into this thread by his defender admits "the figure could indeed have been clearer".
What occurred was that decades of tree ring data was tossed out because it didn't fit thermometer temperatures, but older tree ring data was kept in, and the final result was presented as a smooth graph that blended tree ring data with thermometer temperatures. Does that sound like honest science to you? Would you accept it from an anti-global warming paper?
Words or phrases which could be (innocently or maliciously) misrepresented to the public to paint Global Warming as a vast conspiracy and hoax.
The less extreme position is that the science got politicized and fell below the scientific rigor, transparency, and unbiased and healthy skepticism that we expect from modern science, especially when we are depending on that science to make decisions with global impact.
So the question here is, do you actually care which side is engaging in misrepresentation?
Yes. Do you?
"Trick" and "hide the decline", when presenting scientific evidence to the public, is not a minor indictment. What's really disgusting is how they tried to paper over what they did, and how people like you refuse to acknowledge it. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.
Regarding the comment you copy and pasted, they say:
"this figure is now described as 'an icon' in the Muir Russell report (one of their very few mistakes, how can something be an icon if no-one has ever seen it?)"
Repeating what the report said: given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR)
The point is that versions of the graph gained iconic significance (the famous hockey stick), including, as mentioned, in the extremely important IPCC Third Assessment Report.
You were just flat out wrong, and now you are shifting the argument. At least have the decency to admit it.
Go back and look at the investigative reports again. They said nothing about the "hide the decline" graphs.
Wrong: http://www.cce-review.org/
"In relation to "hide the decline" we find that, given its subsequent iconic significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the TAR), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain -- ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text."
The budget was balanced when Bush took office. Where were the tea partiers when he was President?
Where indeed? Even so, the problem of the ballooning debt isn't getting any better after Bush. Quite the opposite. It seems "one more trillion" is the common answer under Obama.
Clinton warned Bush about Bin Laden, Bush didn't listen, the WTC was attacked again and we went to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Clinton had a chance to take Bin Laden out but didn't because he feared political repercussions. I'm also pretty sure that Clinton didn't give Bush the precise plans on the 9/11 attack. But go ahead, blame everything on Bush.
Now you want to balance the budget by taking away Social Security amd medicare from my dad, who's been paying SPECIAL TAXES FOR IT all his life?
The joke's on him and us, because we are really paying for the previous generation, not our own healthcare. Now that the baby boomers are retiring, and the cost of healthcare is spiraling out of control, it can't continue.
THAT'S what caused the housing meltdown.
Right, the housing meltdown was caused by the high price of gasoline and not by people acting irrationally and dishonestly in the midst of a gigantic bubble. Here's a clue: If the price of gasoline means you can't afford your mortgage, you paid way too much for your house.
Son, you must be smoking some powerful meth, because your brain ain't workin' right.
Right back at you.
Stop the war, get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich, and give the middle class a break, and you'll fix both the economy AND the defecit.
I'm all for ending the tax cuts for the ultra-rich, but it isn't going to solve the ballooning costs of healthcare, even if you cut way back on military spending (which we should).
so you write a headline that sums up the story, then you put the specific charges in quotes. just like the WSJ did.
Except that your headline was completely misleading, which sets the tone for the rest of your summary. They weren't put in prison for making iPad2 cases. What you did was dishonest.
What could i have titled this story?
18 Months In Prison For Selling Trade Secrets
Of course, that doesn't sound as outrageous as "For Making iPad2 Cases", now does it?
They got some sensitive information about the secret chips inside the thing, or they got the crypto keys to it, or they did something that would allow unlocking or jailbreaking.
Those are wrong. Those implications are wrong. You have to have the 'cases' thing in there, otherwise you are misleading people about what actually happened.
It still would have been much more accurate than your description. If you insist on being explicit on what was leaked:
18 Months In Prison For Selling iPad2 Case Design Secrets
Cause I really enjoyed the latest .net Framework 3.5 and 4 security updates that was nearly 400 MB... Thank you MS!
I also enjoyed the way it spent over an hour pre-compiling assemblies during the update. Granted, it was on an old machine, but it still would have been ridiculously long on a modern one.
Title of Wall Street Journal Article: "China Orders Prison Terms in iPad Leak"
Title of your submission: "18 months in prison for making iPad 2 cases"
And most people are nice and altruistic; it's how we've evolved.
To a certain extent. Most people are also self-interested, greedy, and competitive. That's also how we evolved.
The Tea Party is a perfect example of what you're talking about here. Started by the billionaire Koch brothers, you have working people who are adamant tea partiers working against their own interests, and ignorant of the fact that they are working against their own interests.
Government spending is ballooning out of control. Even left-leaning voters should realize that.
Some of the Watchmen have super powers, and some don't-- but no one is alone in that respect, which was a key element of his suggestion.
You're nitpicking. Dr. Manhattan was the supreme superhero. His powers were god-like, quite unlike any of the other superheros. He was conflicted about his morals, and the movie did end on a remorseful note. He was so upset by the whole thing that he left the galaxy.
Okay, so apparently you liked The Watchmen. That doesn't mean it's the answer for every viewer who'd like to see something different from superhero films than what is being presented.
For somebody looking for what he described, it's a very good candidate. Just how many films do you think are out there that match exactly? It's fine if you don't like and don't recommend it, to each their own, but my recommendation still stands based on the criteria and my own enjoyment of the movie.
The Watchmen did fit into this suggestion in one way: it took itself very, very seriously-- probably far more so than the actual content warranted.
It was very close to the source material. It wasn't meant to be silly superhero schtick. The whole idea behind Watchmen was "What if we took superheros seriously?"
If you build something, and that does work without a GPL2 library, but can optionally use it, the work does not have to be GPL2. Otherwise all programs on linux would have to be GPL2.
As long as you don't copy the GPL program as part of a whole, there is no issue. The case under discussion is a whole being copied (the firmware for the router).
The distinction between derivative works and independent works is blurry at the moment. And this is what the case is about, as far as TFS goes. So it is good for courts to investigate this line.
It's only blurry because people don't want to follow the rules of the GPL and they latch on to the escape hatch of the aggregate clause, and then ignore the parts talking about a whole.
In this case, AVM made a claim that they owned a copyright to the work as a whole, including GPL parts. If that is the case, the GPL applies.
The articles quotes from engineers who weren't happy with what was going on. The problem is engineers get pressure from management to come to a certain conclusion, even when they have safety concerns.
If you want to see a prime example of that, see the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.