Wind, Solar, are not needed at all. They're "solutions" looking for a problem.
And yet in Germany wind power provided 9.9% of the total energy consumption in 2011, in some states in the north more then 40% of the consumed power was wind power. And as you can see here, the combination of wind and solar power is a good idea: when there is more sun there tends to be less wind, and when there is more wind, usually you have less sun.
I think if you were given evidence of god, you should believe in god
If there is evidence, there wouldn't be any reason to believe, or like Douglas Adams put it so nicely, God only exists through believe.
To do otherwise would just be willful blindness.
Wilful blindness is actually what religion is all about, because it can be used to execute power over people.
[..]
I'm going to pick option B however, where RMAs for the model are denied because everyone knows those users destroyed their hardware using that nasty Linux program, and they're not going to get a replacement or refund at all.
[...]
In case you didn't RTFS: The laptop was bricked by using a program running on Windows.
here is how you pay the bills
There, FTFY.
"What the author of the article fails to understand is that software is not the point of research - it is a side-effect, and I say that as someone whose field is CS."
(disclaimer: I am working as a postdoc for some US university)
The article in general is clueless. You are of course right. Researchers don't care about their code. I want to know if a design work, if an algorithm work or if it does not. That's why I end up writing code. Once my report/paper/thesis/grant application is written I do not care about the software anymore.
Well, there's s always the CRAPL license that was made for exactly this kind of source code release, and IMNSHO publishing the source code with the paper should be a must, because it's only science if it is reproducible. I work in image processing and more often then not, papers are missing parameters, the description of the implementation is ambiguous, and as a result just reproducing the result of such a paper is impossible without contacting the authors. (The data used is yet another story.) I do not care if the code is production ready of if I would have to rewrite it from scratch, if at least could have a look at the tweaks that are not in the paper because the authors didn't deem them important enough and the reviewers didn't notes that the published algorithms are not really reproducible - or worse, the reviewers told the authors that "these are standard filters, so there is no need to publish the parameters".
Cuba's current state has nothing to do with the U.S.
Well, just look at a map, and one can clearly see that a cable to Florida would have made a lot more sense than the cable to Venezuela. There is. in fact, an undersea cable running like 20km off-shore off the northern Cuban cost, but because of the embargo, Cuba was not allowed to connect to it. Hence until now, at least the state of the Cuban Internet connection had a lot to do with the embargo. And Internet connection nowadays means business.
No, developers must release the source code to ANYONE who requests it, regardless of whether they received the binary or not.
Read clause 3(b), the part where it says "any third party". The key word is "any".
No, because they have only to comply with one of the three clauses (a), (b), or (c), and even if they choose (b), they only have to provide the written offer to the receiver of the binary, notwithstanding that the actual offer must be valid for any third party (thereby making 3(c) possible).
Are you certain you have read the GPL?
Your statement that it requires one to give the source to anyone who gets the binary is INCORRECT.
WRONG: Firstly, they may distribute the source code alongside with the binary (see 3(a)), and if they choose 3(b), the offer has to be valid for any third party, but they only have to give it to the person who receives the binary. This person could then decide to post the offer on the Internet.
And you explicitly do NOT need to pay the scumbag's $3.99 binary fee before you can get his source.
Also wrong, they can charge all they want for the binary, because only when you receive the binary you are legally entitled to also get the source code. In other words, at least one person must pay the guys, and this person can then redistribute the binary and the source code gratis.
It seems clear that the "DOSBox Turbo" distributor is not using 3(a)
How so? Unless someone who bought the binary comments on this topic, we don't know.
"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." -- Henry Allen
