... said the anonymous coward.

So why would they receive insurance settlements?

Doesn't that support my claim? That is, GameSpot did adjust its editorial policy just to make one advertiser happy, and it imploded. Hence no *rational* company would do that.

If the newspaper has more than one subscriber, it has a conflict of interest. Your interests won't match the other subscriber's.

They aren't going to publish things just to make you happy; they aren't going to publish things just to make one advertiser happy. We're talking about the NYT, not some trade magazine that depends for all its revenue on one sponsor.

Advertisers?

You said you pay for the NYT. Do they let you determine what articles to include? Only to the extent that if they do a bad job, you won't renew your subscription. If advertisers were paying, the same would be true: they won't get eyeballs if they don't have content that attracts them.

Actually, the karmic comeuppance to internet trolls is pretty fabulous here. Imagine a crowd sounding like a YouTube comment section. We'd... better just leave them to it.

But rapid-composting systems will render sewage into safe, non-smelly fertilizer in a year, provided you're not full of medications or using any fiendish chemicals. It'll get all the rest of the nutrients too. Really, all we need to do is replicate and rev up a natural system, and reclaim *all* the nutrients. There's a reason we aren't all drowning in dinosaur shit.

Seriously, a fancy jig to get just one nutrient back sounds like a money grab rather than a working whole system.

Actually, have you played it? The UI is highly unintuitive for single player. Even if you think you're creating a single player game, it will still set you up with a game that will quit out if the internet connection fails. You have to get right-clicky and dig around for "play offline" options on the map listing.

So, they're ramming their options down player's throats: playing with the net-speaking kiddies over the internet for goofy achievement badges, or play a linear railroaded single-player campaign that feels as if it were written by a thirteen year old. I hope these releases make some change, because this isn't the Starcraft I remember.

But coming back to the beginning of the thread: Even though the GPL2 is perfectly valid, the FSF has declared in GPL3 that it is not a compatible license. Through their required copyright transfer, they are able to change the license on their projects from GPL2 to GPL3, thereby putting pressure on other GPL2 projects to relicense as well. That's not promoting freedom, that's promoting control.

There is no "or later version" clause, nor does there need to be. The GPL2 license was perfectly valid at the time.

GPL2 code is not GPL3 compatible. That's inconvenient. If a copyright holder of something that is GPL2 licensed doesn't agree to relicense it, then you can't use any GPL3 code in it. That's a GPL3 rule, not a GPL2 rule.

Canonical vs the FSF is a matter of degree, it's not incomparable.

If the FSF didn't require copyright assignment, then most GNU stuff would still be GPL2 licensed, and that would make my life easier. Moglen says they need the copyright assignment in order to defend the copyright, but really it has mainly been used as a club to try to force people to switch to GPL3. It's about power, not about freedom.

Okay, so I read the story there about flooding in Somerset. The article itself is pretty reasonable, but many of the replies to it met the characterization of "only one cause":

"The EA was taken over by environmentalists years ago."

"The UK EA ... was created by Blair to promote the myth of CAGW."

There's no possibility that the lack of dredging is due to budget cutting or a lack of a need for dredging now that the rivers aren't used for barges any more (I don't know if they ever were), it's the AGW proponents who caused it. And there's no possibility that the floods have multiple causes, not just the lack of dredging. For example, places that used to be swamps tend to subside as the water is taken out.

Pick one.

Not at all. Blackmail is where you threaten to reveal something that the victim doesn't want to be known. The USA is quite open about the fact that it executes people.

This is more like shunning. You're doing something I don't like, so I won't deal with you.