I have. They do not have evidence to back those claims for small changes in temperature.

I think here the point of the IPCC is to make it not look good.

It could take on water or rock/gravel/sand/quarry spoil as ballast, so that isn't necessarily a very serious limitation.

So... Basically the plot of the Big Lebowski ?

If I were running /. I'd have the editorial integrity not to.

The problem is that it still ended up with an overbearing dominant beast, just a different one - Chrome (or rather WebKit/Blink, but Chrome is the lion's share of that). The good part is that we're still in the stage where stagnation is not a thing yet. The bad part is that it could change literally overnight.

If you know of grammar errors or other writing problems / errors on my page(s), I will be delighted to fix them, and also to learn how to do better. Because doing the best one can is important. Better to strive to paint like an actual painter than to be satisfied with finger-painting like an addled child. So fire away. :)

I don't know who the 'real right wingers' are, but I suspect it's a specimen of the same sort as the True Scotsman. What I know is that the people whom most everybody, including themselves, and who number in the millions, worship the military and the police.

The room of litigation is always there, obviously. But how can the language be worse than the default, unless it somehow explicitly overrides and rescinds some provisions of the original license under which the code is released?

If true, the next obvious question: can the same be done to GPL(v2)?

Wow - some of those U-238 numbers are two orders of magnitude higher than I've ever seen.
Still, it's a bottom ash situation because it's going to be heavy and not going to be reduced in the boiler. As others pointed out that ash still has to go somewhere even if it's not actually going up the stack, so it's not something that can be ignored.

Thanks.

Bruce, to clarify: are you saying that, since the code in question is released under the MIT license, which is OSI approved, there is an implicit patent grant there that renders the separate explicit one basically redundant, and this whole thing is a non-story?

Given that the code in question is released under MIT license (which is considered open source by everyone, including officially by OSI), and the patent promise is on top of that, and only grants you additional rights on top of the license grants, aren't you basically saying that using an open source license alone is not sufficient, then? And that most software released under pretty much any open source license (including GPLv2) does not "comply with standard open source terms"? I mean, most of them don't come with any kind of patent promise at all, nor will anyone guarantee that there aren't any patents applicable to them.

You assume that someone, somewhere, isn't holding a patent that Python infringes upon. That's a pretty big assumption, given the sheer number of software patents issued.

That's kind of one of the obvious things that people are missing about all this... a patent promise, even a meager one, is better than no promise at all, which is what you get with most software these days.

If there's one thing that you don't need to worry about taking the hatchet from the right wingers, it's the NSA (and the military-industrial-police state complex in general).

It is plenty fast for a tablet.