I highly doubt there was any such forethought. Much more likely (at least, at companies I've worked at) that some junior dev checked in GPL code as his own work, and it somehow slipped past code review (as can happen at crunch time).

I worked for "shrinkwrap software" companies for `15 years, and all of them had ironclad rules against using GPL software in any way (without a multi-month lawyer-approval process anyhow). One place I worked ran open source detection tools (similar to the plagiarism detection tools, but seeded with all the big free projects) as part of the daily build, they were so paranoid. I'd be surprised if this was deliberate on VMware's part. But then, maybe they're just a shitty company now?

That will be the interesting part of this case, IMO: was this deliberate, against official policy that the dev teams ignored, or some junior guy cheating?

What's funny is this whole bit about "Where is my flying car?" when realistically it won't happen in any quantity until personal flying is almost completely automated. And I don't see that happening until we CAN, at least, make reliable automated cars.

The collision-avoidance problem, in some ways, is multiplied in the air. At least on the ground you have specific lanes with traffic control devices on them (lights, etc.).

We don't deal with these problems, because we have bad laws. We have bad laws because politicians want to please lobbyists, and don't want to seem "soft" on crime or negligence. As a result, they pass laws that are too strict (DUI laws being a classic example: studies show the majority of people are NOT significantly impaired at 0.08%).

When unreasonable laws are passed which victimize pretty much "innocent" people, people lose respect for the law. Not just DUI but also (former or at least getting there) marijuana laws are great examples.

Nope. Based on past advances in automobiles (ABS, airbags, power steering, computer throttle control), what will happen is that they will get released, and they will have some major screwups (or public perception of screwups anyway), and there will be a flurry of very heavy-duty lawsuits, and it will go away for a while. Then they'll come back in new and improved form. Then there will be a couple of more lawsuits, and some recalls. Sales will go down a bit and improve again. And it will gradually smooth out. Probably.

It's a bit like the "ringing" effect in some kinds of oscillators.

You mis-read me. Verhoeven saw the book as an endorsement of the society in the book, and parodied it in his movie, since he saw it as such an awful book. Verhoeven has said as much in interviews.

To whoever marked my comment "troll":

A, B, and C are demonstrably true, in regard to this EPA rulemaking. I wasn't making a general statement about science.

EPA has consistently refused requests for the science and data behind this specific proposed rulemaking. That is a simple statement of fact. They claim there is some, but they won't show it.

And in just the last couple of days, EPA director Gina McCarthy, in testimony before Congress, demonstrated complete ignorance of even the most elementary knowledge of the science.

He's wrong. Well, maybe, maybe not. Before anybody jumps on me for saying that: this is a legal principle that has been around for hundreds of years, and it's big part of what our whole legal system is based on.

Having said that, there IS one way, and only one, he could get around that: if the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, but Congress' intent was really something else, he probably has to rule on the language, not intent. The whole thing about "intent" is really for when the language of the law is ambiguous. Otherwise, why would you need to decide at all?

I don't know what the real dispute is. If you look around here you will find where I (later) posted the actual language of the relevant part of the bill. It is really pretty benign.

So what is the real issue here? Hard to say for sure, but I suspect that in part it's political.

No, it isn't. That is, it isn't something that "should be", it's the actual rule U.S. courts are bound to follow.

And elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. These alarmist scenarios I have seen under this topic today have pretty much nothing to do with what the bill actually says. It's pretty darned "reasonable".

Where do you get the idea it changes nothing?

The current proposed rulemaking by the EPA, regarding CO2 emissions, is based on claimed "science" which ISN'T:

(A) identified AT ALL, much less specifically,

(B) "publicly available"

(C) available AT ALL for independent analysis, much less attempts to reproduce.

There is an actual reason the bill is titled "secret science". Because that's what EPA has been doing. And which does, in reality, have to stop. This bill is a direct reaction to EPA's unilateral actions which it is not able or willing to show are based on ANY actual science.

I have a feeling I'm going to have to repeat this several times to different people:

Elsewhere in this topic I've posted the actual language of the bill. Given what it really says, these scenarios are completely unrealistic stretches of the imagination.

Following is the relevant text of the actual bill:

=======
The Administrator shall not propose, finalize,
or disseminate a covered action unless all scientific and
technical information relied on to support such covered ac-
tion is--
(A) specifically identified; and
(B) publicly available online in a manner that
is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial
reproduction of research results.
(2) Nothing in the subsection shall be construed as
requiring the public dissemination of information the dis-
closure of which is prohibited by law.
=======

It does not say personal or medical details. It says "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction".

There is NOTHING sinister or unreasonable about this, except apparently in the imagination of alarmists.

That isn't in the bill itself. That's what one person said in response to Morganstein's stated opinion about the bill.

The law is not subject either to Morganstein's interpretation, or what a single Representative said about it. That idea has been solidly settled by the Supreme Court.

400-year-old Common Law, still in effect in this country, says that the meaning of the law rests on one thing: what a reasonable person would conclude Congress intended when passing the law. That's why, for example, they have debates about bills in Congress.

I hardly think a reasonable person would conclude that study subjects could not be anonymous. That's an extreme interpretation, not a reasonable one.

And also as I stated up above: that's why the Court challenge to Obamacare is not about "4 words". It's about what Congress intended when passing the bill. There is A LOT more evidence of Congress' actual intent than just those 4 words.

Only if you completely missed my point.

Yep. Bullshit, and bullshit.

The law must be enforced as read by reasonable people. That is a principle that goes back over 400 years in our legal history. No reasonable person would interpret the law that way. You can't read it any which bizarre way you see fit and say that's what the law means.

As for Obamacare, that's pure propaganda. It isn't "just 4 words". It's what Congress INTENDED in writing the law (just as I wrote above) which rules the day. And there are far, far more than 4 words about this in the Congressional record. It is very clear that the sponsors of the bill, and the debate surrounding the bill, intended any subsidies to be distributed ONLY via State exchanges.

If you read the debates and the emails, it's more like 4000 words, and they all say the same thing.