What was depicted in the movie Jurassic Park was clearly Deinonychus.
I thought the general consensus was that the JP "Velociraptor" was definitely to big for a Velociraptor and probably a bit too big for Deinonychus, and probably most similar in size and body plan to Utahraptor (though a bit small); at any rate, most likely, the CGI critter was designed based on Velociraptor and then scaled up till had the desired dramatic appearance on screen, so calling it "clearly" any particular bird is probably mistaken; it is a fictional creation based loosely on then-current ideas about Velociraptor adapted to fit a particular theatrical vision.
Velociraptor didn't have that large inner claw.
Actually, the "sickle claw" is a distinguishing feature of the family Dromosauridae of which Deinonychus, Utahraptor, Velociraptor, and a whole host of other relatives are members.
The Sims, in its various versions. The Total War franchise.
we have an entry? Anyone? Come on, I know there are some out there! That? Oh, no, that was released years ago. Try again. Sorry, that's just a crappy remake of a 1995 game.
Er, and popular FPS's aren't essentially engine upgrades and remakes of earlier games?
And the point where people get fed up and stop letting the people holding government office make vague handwaving gestures in the direction of Scary Bad People and use that as an excuse to curtail freedom.
I actually wonder why there is still this big iron thinking about root and "unprivileged users", especially around a desktop distro like Ubuntu.
Because "desktop" computers are often multiuser machines for, e.g., families, and may even be used to perform server roles on a home network as well as a desktop functions. Its not "big iron" thinking, its "multiuser environment" thinking.
Yes, compromising any user account is a Bad Thing, but compromising one that provides root access (whether root itself or one that can use sudo) is still, in many cases, substantially more significant than compromising one that does not.
CPUs have *not* increased in speed as per Moore's Observation for some years.
Moore's Law isn't CPU speeds, its about transistor densities. Its been informally extended by lots of other people to "computing power" more generally and all kinds of other particular measures of computing power besides transistor densities, but those aren't "Moore's Law" but loose parallels of Moore's Law.
Anyhow, "clock speed" and "CPU speed" aren't really the same thing; more advanced CPUs with the same clock speed can do more operations, on average, per clock tick, and thus be faster than less advanced CPUs of the same speed. The death of the GHz race hasn't been the death of performance improvements, its just that ratcheting up clock speeds has turned out to no longer be the easiest way to squeeze more performance out of a chip, so that's not the main focus currently.
The singularity nuts essentially claim that, (a) it's possible to build a better-than-human AI, and (b) it's possible to get a lot more intelligent than humans currently are. Neither assertion seems particularly far-fetched to me.
Actually, I don't think that at least the "key" singularity "nuts" (Kurzweil, etc.) necessarily claim that, except using "AI" in a very loose sense. As I recall, Kursweil's big claim is essentially that human intelligence + computer power is effectively a greater form of intelligence, and that the explosion of computing power itself feeds the creation of all kinds of new technology, including an even faster explosion of available computing power, which feeds back on itself with an increasing proportion of the information processing necessary to synthesize new knowledge from existing knowledge being done outside of the human brain. IIRC, Kurzweil is a strong AI proponent as well, but that's largely tangential to the singularity issue, which is mostly dependent on the positive-feedback loop in computing technology and the ability to record and process information to synthesize new knowledge. The issue is more the multiplier effect that computing technology provides to human intelligence than either "AI" in the usual sense or increasing innate human intelligence.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to make a camera that's capable of recording the radiation.
If the beam tends to scatter or has a lot of off-axis bloom where it is emitted, sure, though one suspects there may be quite a while after the beams are in general use before such technology is in the hands of the public, and it may never be anywhere as widespread as conventional video cameras, if they are expensive and there is not a lot of other use for them. Not having any effects that can easily be captured in the visible spectrum provides good short-term, though as you point out not entirely flawless in the long-term, insulation against accountability.
Or its possible that the technology will be legally restricted, at least nominally for reasons other than the ability to hold government to account. I believe these are millimeter wave devices, and IIRC millimeter wave detectors would have some ability to see through thin opaque barriers, so at least one plausible excuse for restricting them would be privacy concerns.
... so that means they have found it to cause INVISIBLE permanent injury then?
I would presume that it causes visible-but-highly-transitory injury and that it is as yet unknown whether it causes occult permanent injury; at any rate, it likely doesn't cause any kind of injury that can be used by a victim to prove that they were shot with it any time but, at worst, immediately after the attack (plus, it has an invisible beam), which means that, in practice, its use is nearly entirely deniable, which is no doubt a major selling point, both to the military and eventually to law enforcement and (if made legal for such use) private security purchasers.
Every tough guy cop with a chip on his shoulder will have the power to cause limitless pain, and could justify it by saying "it causes no injury, and it prevents potential harm to innocents".
Its an invisible beam and it leaves no evidence. No one ever has to justify using it, because they can instead just deny using it any time that the use is controversial.
One unfortunate side-effect if you're right is that it doesn't only work against the GPL: I am now very reluncant to relicense my GPL'ed code under a BSD-type license since I could be making it incompatible with the GPL.
Yeah, license incompatibility cuts both ways; OTOH, if you are the copyright holder (which you have to be to relicense GPL code under the BSDL or similar license anyway), you can easily enough use a license identical to the BSDL but with an additional term giving the option to release under the GPLv2 (or v2 or later, or whatever) instead, or replacing the copyright notice requirement and warranty disclaimer terms with those of the GPLv2 so that the GPLv2 would be strictly a set of additional restrictions added on top of your license, etc.
Actually I don't think so. Point 7 of the GPLv3 has *two* different concepts: "aditional permissions" and "aditional requirements". "Aditional permissions" can in fact be removed, this is the situation e.g. in dual-licensing, someone received code under the GPL with aditional permissions that are however removable since they don't afect the fact that the code is under the GPL, only that whomever receives the code can also make use of the aditional permissions. Now, "aditional requirements" are different and that's where the BSDL requirements fall, and they can't be removed as aditional permissions can. The requirements listes cover the general requirements in BSDL/ISC/MIT et. al. and include the possibility of having them as a separate license file or mixed in in a single file.
The problem is that the BSD terms are both additional permissions and additional restrictions; while, as permissions, they only necessarily apply to the original work (not the new portions of the derivative work), they can't, consistent with the BSDL, be removed, and insofar as they are additional requirements, one of the additional requirements is to pass on the additional permissions. The more I think about it, the more it is probably strictly consistent with the GPLv3 since the permissive aspects are inseperable from the restrictive aspects so the whole probably should be considered additional restrictions, and not removable. OTOH, given the permissive language in the BSDL-required terms, and the language of the GPL as it regards deleting additional permissions, I'm not sure how clear that is to people reading the license.
The $1 billion in money that these fraudulent clicks cost Google doesn't exist.
Yes, it does. It exists and remains in the hands of Google's advertisers who, if Google didn't work as hard as it does to identify fraudulent clicks, would be charged that amount.
Now, really, this doesn't mean Google is "losing" money, it means Google is spending money (both in terms of staff time and resources, and in terms of reduced effective advertising charges) to provide quality service (i.e., only charging for the meaningful clicks that advertisers are looking to get) to their paying customers.
PU-238 would be an unlikely source of problems of this sort. Most of the radiation is Alpha Particles which are easily rejected by human skin.
Of course, if the plutonium breaks up and particles of it become air (or water) borne and are ingested or inhaled, the skin stops being an effective defense (plus, you also have then the problem that as well as being a radiation hazard, Plutonium is, IIRC, chemically rather toxic as well.)
According to the article (coral cache), the problem was a "strange odor" that caused the headaches and vomiting.
Right, which doesn't suggest plutonium (though there could be a strange odor and a plutonium release from the crash, but without independent reason to believe that the odor and the health effects came from different immediate causes you get into Occam's Razor problems there...)
I was thinking more along the lines that once we get to the point of lobbing nukes at each other pinpoint precision with conventional weapons becomes less of an issue.
IIRC, the inertial navigation systems on SSBN's are set by periodic synchronization with the GPS system, so in a sense GPS is part of the system of lobbing nukes with pinpoint precision.
Then again, the retaliation to a single-point nuclear attack may not be (or may not entirely be) nuclear, depending on the circumstances.
If someone drops a few high yield nukes on the U.S. the state of the GPS system in a few days/weeks is probably irrelevant to all parties involved.
Since the primary purpose of the GPS system is coordinating US (and allied) military activity, which one imagine that there would be quite a lot of in the wake of such an event, I think you are mistaken. OTOH, one imagines that there are several backup control stations ready to take over in the event of an attack on the primary one.
Just because more things have been added doesn't mean that when you put all the pieces of the GNU System together you don't end up with the GNU System.
What linux distribution puts all of the pieces (including any of the kernels used) from any release, version, etc. of the the GNU operating system together with no other pieces? Because, if you put post of the pieces together, replace a fairly critical one, and add a whole bunch of other pieces, you end up with something very different than the original system.
That being said, note that I'm not saying that it would be wrong for a distributor of an OS using GNU components and the Linux kernel and other software together to call it a "GNU/Linux" system or just a "GNU" system. That would be no less rational a label than calling it a "Linux" system, though it is also no more accurate and no more useful, in practical terms. OTOH, there is no reason such a distributor should use that name, the GNU projects protestations aside. And there is no reason they need to use "Linux" in the name, either, and some distributions don't. Strangely, the Linux world doesn't seem to get their panties in a twist about distributions not using the Linux name the way the GNU project does about people not using "GNU".
I'm saying that, presuming the CDDL allows this, if Oracle took OpenSolaris, swapped out the Kernel from some third party kernel (will call it Zoolix), bundled a version of the Oracle Database Server and other related software, and released the result as the "Oracle Zoolix Operating System", that Sun would be nutty to whine that they really ought to call it an "OpenSolaris/Zoolix" operating system, and to go around referring to it themselves as "OpenSolaris/Zoolix".
The complaint is that GCC doesn't support enough architectures, so you're switching to PCC?
You misunderstand the complaint.
The complaint is that it is too difficult to support GCC on those architectures. Obviously, this wouldn't be an issue if the GCC project itself was supporting them, but the idea is to have something that the the OpenBSD project can itself support. If the code is clean and maintainable, even if it is a long way from being current, it may be easier to get it clean, maintainable, and current than it would be to take something else that it more current but less clean and maintainable.
The proponents of PCC here are following an agenda.
The agenda is freeing OpenBSD from dependence on a project with its own, incompatible, agenda.
Anytime you see the term 'IP' used in this context, think 'Illusionary Property' because that's exactly what it is. The whole fiction of IP being somehow property that can be owned, sold, stolen, or otherwise equated with real hard goods is a fiction created by lawyers and corporations to extract more money and control for themselves.
No more so than the idea of anything, including "real, hard goods" being property that can be owned, sold, or stolen is a fiction created to extract more money and provide narrow control to a favored subset of the population.
Property is a social construct, not something with any kind of natural essence. This as true of tangible personal propert and real property as it is of intangible personal property like stocks, bonds, copyrights, and trademarks.
Legitimate arguments can be made over whether any proprietary rights should exist in some things and what kind of proprietary rights should exist in each class of things to which those rights are ascribed, but the idea that proprietary rights in anything or something other than a social construct designed to facilitate the extraction of value and wall off things from the general use is a wildly inaccurate starting point for any such argument.
Are any of the GNU system components that the author mentions there absent from any major Linux distribution?
Does it matter? All those being present doesn't make the system "largely" GNU. Unless nothing much else is also present. Including everything that comes from GNU doesn't make it largely GNU, including little that does not come from GNU would make it largely GNU.
I mean, the BSD requirements are also GPL requirements, so I'm not sure they constitute "additional terms",
The BSD requirements are not also GPL requirements, though they are similar enough to GPL requirements that this point might be lost on many people.
The BSD license requires the original copyright notice be preserved in derivative works (of course, the maker of the derivative work is free to add their own copyright notice). The GPL requires only that an "appropriate" copyright notice be included (so a derivative work could include its own copyright notice without the original notice.) The BSD requires warranty disclaimers with one specific wording. The GPL includes warranty disclaimers with a similar effect but different specific warning. The BSD license requires that the terms of the BSD license be included with any redistribution. The GPL requires that the terms of the GPL be included with any distribution, and in the case of the GPLv2 prohibit any additional terms. The fact that the BSD terms are similar to GPLv2 terms doesn't allow them to be included with the GPLv2, nor does it make them unnecessary if the GPLv2 is used.
This is stange since some peoplehave the opinion that GPLv2 is compatible, but GPLv3 isn't, others that both are, and surely others think that none of them are.
The GPLv3 has a problem that I overlooked, in the provision which lets you remove additional permissive terms that are not part of the GPLv3 in downstream distributions, and expressly allows removing such terms even if they are included in a separate license agreement or otherwise phrased as mandatory for redistribution. This is problematic with the BSD, since that would mean you were granting people permission to modify the BSD license in downstream distributions if you included the GPLv3 with the BSD terms. Now, its probably not illegal to combine the licenses, however, there is a problem with that combination, and it might open you up to other attacks from both downstream users (who might accuse you of misrepresenting the legal rights you had to the software, particularly if they removed the BSD terms and then were sued by the original copyright holder of the BSD-licensed portion), or possibly the copyright holder of the BSD-licensed portion more directly under theories other than copyright violation (perhaps tortious interference with contract.)
If the BSD license was not followed then there is an issue, but if the license was followed and the resulting code was released under the GPL then there is absolutely no issue.
If the original copyright notice, and the required verbatim language from the BSD license was not included with the redistribution, then the BSD license was not followed.
I think you are mischaracterizing the dispute. I don't think that anyone disagrees about the BSD license allowing for derivatives under the GPL v2 (see my latest journal entry why I don't think this applies to the GPL v3).
I think you have it backwards. The BSD requires specific terms be included with any distribution which are not in the GPLv2, and the GPLv2 expressly prohibits any additional terms. The GPLv3 expressly allows additional terms and notices of the type required by the BSD license.
the BSD license only requires three things the copyright notice in source code, the copyright notice in binary only and the warranty waiver; anything else is allowed.
Wrong. The BSD license requires that the BSD terms requiring these things be included in any redistribution. It also requires the original copyright notice, specifically, this is important because...
GPL also requires the same things plus some additions
Also wrong. The GPL requires an "appropriate" copyright notice, it does not require preservation of the original copyright notice. The GPL also requires a warranty waiver, but the warranty waiver (while of similar effect) required by the GPL is different than the one required by the BSD license. The GPLv3 does not require, and the GPLv2 expressly forbids, the incorporation of the conditions that must be included with any distribution authorized by the BSD license.
Note that the BSD is compatible with closed-source arrangements and the GPLv3 because it does not restrict additional terms, but since the GPLv2 prohibits additional terms, and the BSD requires specific terms that are not included in the GPLv2, it is impossible to comply strictly with both licenses in the same product.
Did I miss something? As far as I've heard, the only other case of death from gaming exhausting happened in Korea, but the submitter says "another Chinese man"...
"Chinese man" identifies a nationality, gender, and age (adult). "in Korea" identifies a location.
It is not impossible for the two to be accurate for the same event.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the general consensus was that the JP "Velociraptor" was definitely to big for a Velociraptor and probably a bit too big for Deinonychus, and probably most similar in size and body plan to Utahraptor (though a bit small); at any rate, most likely, the CGI critter was designed based on Velociraptor and then scaled up till had the desired dramatic appearance on screen, so calling it "clearly" any particular bird is probably mistaken; it is a fictional creation based loosely on then-current ideas about Velociraptor adapted to fit a particular theatrical vision.
Actually, the "sickle claw" is a distinguishing feature of the family Dromosauridae of which Deinonychus, Utahraptor, Velociraptor, and a whole host of other relatives are members.
The Sims, in its various versions.
The Total War franchise.
Er, and popular FPS's aren't essentially engine upgrades and remakes of earlier games?
And the point where people get fed up and stop letting the people holding government office make vague handwaving gestures in the direction of Scary Bad People and use that as an excuse to curtail freedom.
Because "desktop" computers are often multiuser machines for, e.g., families, and may even be used to perform server roles on a home network as well as a desktop functions. Its not "big iron" thinking, its "multiuser environment" thinking.
Yes, compromising any user account is a Bad Thing, but compromising one that provides root access (whether root itself or one that can use sudo) is still, in many cases, substantially more significant than compromising one that does not.
Moore's Law isn't CPU speeds, its about transistor densities. Its been informally extended by lots of other people to "computing power" more generally and all kinds of other particular measures of computing power besides transistor densities, but those aren't "Moore's Law" but loose parallels of Moore's Law.
Anyhow, "clock speed" and "CPU speed" aren't really the same thing; more advanced CPUs with the same clock speed can do more operations, on average, per clock tick, and thus be faster than less advanced CPUs of the same speed. The death of the GHz race hasn't been the death of performance improvements, its just that ratcheting up clock speeds has turned out to no longer be the easiest way to squeeze more performance out of a chip, so that's not the main focus currently.
Actually, I don't think that at least the "key" singularity "nuts" (Kurzweil, etc.) necessarily claim that, except using "AI" in a very loose sense. As I recall, Kursweil's big claim is essentially that human intelligence + computer power is effectively a greater form of intelligence, and that the explosion of computing power itself feeds the creation of all kinds of new technology, including an even faster explosion of available computing power, which feeds back on itself with an increasing proportion of the information processing necessary to synthesize new knowledge from existing knowledge being done outside of the human brain. IIRC, Kurzweil is a strong AI proponent as well, but that's largely tangential to the singularity issue, which is mostly dependent on the positive-feedback loop in computing technology and the ability to record and process information to synthesize new knowledge. The issue is more the multiplier effect that computing technology provides to human intelligence than either "AI" in the usual sense or increasing innate human intelligence.
I could be misrembering, though.
If the beam tends to scatter or has a lot of off-axis bloom where it is emitted, sure, though one suspects there may be quite a while after the beams are in general use before such technology is in the hands of the public, and it may never be anywhere as widespread as conventional video cameras, if they are expensive and there is not a lot of other use for them. Not having any effects that can easily be captured in the visible spectrum provides good short-term, though as you point out not entirely flawless in the long-term, insulation against accountability.
Or its possible that the technology will be legally restricted, at least nominally for reasons other than the ability to hold government to account. I believe these are millimeter wave devices, and IIRC millimeter wave detectors would have some ability to see through thin opaque barriers, so at least one plausible excuse for restricting them would be privacy concerns.
Even in the United States, guns have been used on mouthy unarmed students by the government in the past.
I would presume that it causes visible-but-highly-transitory injury and that it is as yet unknown whether it causes occult permanent injury; at any rate, it likely doesn't cause any kind of injury that can be used by a victim to prove that they were shot with it any time but, at worst, immediately after the attack (plus, it has an invisible beam), which means that, in practice, its use is nearly entirely deniable, which is no doubt a major selling point, both to the military and eventually to law enforcement and (if made legal for such use) private security purchasers.
Its an invisible beam and it leaves no evidence. No one ever has to justify using it, because they can instead just deny using it any time that the use is controversial.
Yeah, license incompatibility cuts both ways; OTOH, if you are the copyright holder (which you have to be to relicense GPL code under the BSDL or similar license anyway), you can easily enough use a license identical to the BSDL but with an additional term giving the option to release under the GPLv2 (or v2 or later, or whatever) instead, or replacing the copyright notice requirement and warranty disclaimer terms with those of the GPLv2 so that the GPLv2 would be strictly a set of additional restrictions added on top of your license, etc.
The problem is that the BSD terms are both additional permissions and additional restrictions; while, as permissions, they only necessarily apply to the original work (not the new portions of the derivative work), they can't, consistent with the BSDL, be removed, and insofar as they are additional requirements, one of the additional requirements is to pass on the additional permissions. The more I think about it, the more it is probably strictly consistent with the GPLv3 since the permissive aspects are inseperable from the restrictive aspects so the whole probably should be considered additional restrictions, and not removable. OTOH, given the permissive language in the BSDL-required terms, and the language of the GPL as it regards deleting additional permissions, I'm not sure how clear that is to people reading the license.
You could say Google would charge advertisers more in total, given its rates, if it didn't detect as many of the fake ones, though.
Yes, it does. It exists and remains in the hands of Google's advertisers who, if Google didn't work as hard as it does to identify fraudulent clicks, would be charged that amount.
Now, really, this doesn't mean Google is "losing" money, it means Google is spending money (both in terms of staff time and resources, and in terms of reduced effective advertising charges) to provide quality service (i.e., only charging for the meaningful clicks that advertisers are looking to get) to their paying customers.
Of course, if the plutonium breaks up and particles of it become air (or water) borne and are ingested or inhaled, the skin stops being an effective defense (plus, you also have then the problem that as well as being a radiation hazard, Plutonium is, IIRC, chemically rather toxic as well.)
Right, which doesn't suggest plutonium (though there could be a strange odor and a plutonium release from the crash, but without independent reason to believe that the odor and the health effects came from different immediate causes you get into Occam's Razor problems there...)
IIRC, the inertial navigation systems on SSBN's are set by periodic synchronization with the GPS system, so in a sense GPS is part of the system of lobbing nukes with pinpoint precision.
Then again, the retaliation to a single-point nuclear attack may not be (or may not entirely be) nuclear, depending on the circumstances.
Since the primary purpose of the GPS system is coordinating US (and allied) military activity, which one imagine that there would be quite a lot of in the wake of such an event, I think you are mistaken. OTOH, one imagines that there are several backup control stations ready to take over in the event of an attack on the primary one.
What linux distribution puts all of the pieces (including any of the kernels used) from any release, version, etc. of the the GNU operating system together with no other pieces? Because, if you put post of the pieces together, replace a fairly critical one, and add a whole bunch of other pieces, you end up with something very different than the original system.
That being said, note that I'm not saying that it would be wrong for a distributor of an OS using GNU components and the Linux kernel and other software together to call it a "GNU/Linux" system or just a "GNU" system. That would be no less rational a label than calling it a "Linux" system, though it is also no more accurate and no more useful, in practical terms. OTOH, there is no reason such a distributor should use that name, the GNU projects protestations aside. And there is no reason they need to use "Linux" in the name, either, and some distributions don't. Strangely, the Linux world doesn't seem to get their panties in a twist about distributions not using the Linux name the way the GNU project does about people not using "GNU".
I'm saying that, presuming the CDDL allows this, if Oracle took OpenSolaris, swapped out the Kernel from some third party kernel (will call it Zoolix), bundled a version of the Oracle Database Server and other related software, and released the result as the "Oracle Zoolix Operating System", that Sun would be nutty to whine that they really ought to call it an "OpenSolaris/Zoolix" operating system, and to go around referring to it themselves as "OpenSolaris/Zoolix".
You misunderstand the complaint.
The complaint is that it is too difficult to support GCC on those architectures. Obviously, this wouldn't be an issue if the GCC project itself was supporting them, but the idea is to have something that the the OpenBSD project can itself support. If the code is clean and maintainable, even if it is a long way from being current, it may be easier to get it clean, maintainable, and current than it would be to take something else that it more current but less clean and maintainable.
The agenda is freeing OpenBSD from dependence on a project with its own, incompatible, agenda.
No more so than the idea of anything, including "real, hard goods" being property that can be owned, sold, or stolen is a fiction created to extract more money and provide narrow control to a favored subset of the population.
Property is a social construct, not something with any kind of natural essence. This as true of tangible personal propert and real property as it is of intangible personal property like stocks, bonds, copyrights, and trademarks.
Legitimate arguments can be made over whether any proprietary rights should exist in some things and what kind of proprietary rights should exist in each class of things to which those rights are ascribed, but the idea that proprietary rights in anything or something other than a social construct designed to facilitate the extraction of value and wall off things from the general use is a wildly inaccurate starting point for any such argument.
Does it matter? All those being present doesn't make the system "largely" GNU. Unless nothing much else is also present. Including everything that comes from GNU doesn't make it largely GNU, including little that does not come from GNU would make it largely GNU.
The BSD requirements are not also GPL requirements, though they are similar enough to GPL requirements that this point might be lost on many people.
The BSD license requires the original copyright notice be preserved in derivative works (of course, the maker of the derivative work is free to add their own copyright notice). The GPL requires only that an "appropriate" copyright notice be included (so a derivative work could include its own copyright notice without the original notice.) The BSD requires warranty disclaimers with one specific wording. The GPL includes warranty disclaimers with a similar effect but different specific warning. The BSD license requires that the terms of the BSD license be included with any redistribution. The GPL requires that the terms of the GPL be included with any distribution, and in the case of the GPLv2 prohibit any additional terms. The fact that the BSD terms are similar to GPLv2 terms doesn't allow them to be included with the GPLv2, nor does it make them unnecessary if the GPLv2 is used.
The GPLv3 has a problem that I overlooked, in the provision which lets you remove additional permissive terms that are not part of the GPLv3 in downstream distributions, and expressly allows removing such terms even if they are included in a separate license agreement or otherwise phrased as mandatory for redistribution. This is problematic with the BSD, since that would mean you were granting people permission to modify the BSD license in downstream distributions if you included the GPLv3 with the BSD terms. Now, its probably not illegal to combine the licenses, however, there is a problem with that combination, and it might open you up to other attacks from both downstream users (who might accuse you of misrepresenting the legal rights you had to the software, particularly if they removed the BSD terms and then were sued by the original copyright holder of the BSD-licensed portion), or possibly the copyright holder of the BSD-licensed portion more directly under theories other than copyright violation (perhaps tortious interference with contract.)
If the original copyright notice, and the required verbatim language from the BSD license was not included with the redistribution, then the BSD license was not followed.
I think you have it backwards. The BSD requires specific terms be included with any distribution which are not in the GPLv2, and the GPLv2 expressly prohibits any additional terms. The GPLv3 expressly allows additional terms and notices of the type required by the BSD license.
Wrong. The BSD license requires that the BSD terms requiring these things be included in any redistribution. It also requires the original copyright notice, specifically, this is important because...
Also wrong. The GPL requires an "appropriate" copyright notice, it does not require preservation of the original copyright notice. The GPL also requires a warranty waiver, but the warranty waiver (while of similar effect) required by the GPL is different than the one required by the BSD license. The GPLv3 does not require, and the GPLv2 expressly forbids, the incorporation of the conditions that must be included with any distribution authorized by the BSD license.
Note that the BSD is compatible with closed-source arrangements and the GPLv3 because it does not restrict additional terms, but since the GPLv2 prohibits additional terms, and the BSD requires specific terms that are not included in the GPLv2, it is impossible to comply strictly with both licenses in the same product.
"Chinese man" identifies a nationality, gender, and age (adult).
"in Korea" identifies a location.
It is not impossible for the two to be accurate for the same event.