Interesting, but the first link shows that CRU scientists would be lousy lawyers, and the second is unrelated to CRU completely. And now for a dose of facts about the CRU affair:

lol.. are you daft? those facts are irrelevant as I already stated. No one is arguing or disputing them. You however appear to be dismissing the years of shrouded appearances of impropriety that fueled skepticism about global warming as if it never happened because nothing technically happened that was wrong. It completely misses the entire issue of mistrust it caused a lot of people to generate. You could at this point link to Professor Jones risking his life to save two nuns and an orphan from falling off a cliff to certain death and parade him around as a public hero and it would not change what happened or the skepticism that grew from it one bit at all.

No, I'm not a global warming pusher, CO2 is a global warming pusher. I have no interest in contributing to global warming.

Hmm.. using semantics to deny the obvious. Well, I guess this thread is about the appearance of deceit and proprietary.

No, it isn't. It's about you and presumably some other people apparently being unable to grasp basic principles of reasoning. Even if if you found out evidence of gross academic misconduct having happened within CRU (which didn't happen), it still wouldn't prove anything about global warming (or the lack of it).

Actually, it appears to be moving towards you doing anything possible to ignore what was said just so you can impress what you want into the conversation. Here is a hint, NO ONE SAID IT PROVED ANYTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. I certainly did not, I Specifically said it created two classes of skeptics that would not be skeptical and mistrustful today had it been open and available.

Now before you reply, reread what was just said. Your knee seems to be jerking so hard it knocked the sense right out of you as you seem insistent on arguing something that was never said in order to protect your beliefs instead of realizing the fact that there are people right now who are considered skeptics who would not be if the information was not withheld or shrouded by secrecy in the past. Perhaps this claim I am making is something that is not in the playbook and your scripts doesn't exactly follow so you have to approximate with whatever is closets. I don't know but you certainly are ignoring what was said in order to protect the reputations of some idiots and global warming.

The rest of your drivel is off topic to my point. I do not care about it one bit at all.

Are you talking about France? Or Russia? Or where then?

You sure as heck aren't talking about the US. The military (read Naval) reactor program parted ways with the civilian world decades ago - they're simply too dissimilar. Nor can civilian reactors effectively make plutonium, nor were they needed to. And the for companies involved in military reactors, government contracting is only one small corner of their business. Etc... etc...

No. The fact that she set up a home-brew system to avoid the State Department's record keeping in the first place, and the fact she's been stonewalling requests for official mail for years, and is her own gatekeeper on the message she decides State should be allowed to see - combine that with her long history of obfuscation, ethics problems, and working with her husband's supporters to engage in seriously sleazy tactics - the burden is very much on you to explain why you think her private stash has been delivered in whole and intact to State when everything in her history and everything about this entire scenario screams the exact opposite.

In fact, to plow through her "official" mail (you know, the stuff she couldn't be troubled to mirror in her department's archiving system the way that the 2009 regulation required her to do), she used employees of her family's business - and that operation is funded in large part by big contributions from foreign governments and other entities from which she solicited money while she was wandering the world as Secretary of State.

Both Kerry and Clinton were subject to 2009's regulation. But you already know that.

It is hilarious, though, to play back her nagging lectures about other people using private email at all, and to know that, for example, an ambassador from her department was given the axe for using private email.

The fact that you seem to anxious to write off her behavior as completely reasonable says nothing about her, but a whole lot about your very strange world view.

IS that what happened? As far as we can tell from the provided links is that the guy in question has copyright in the kernel and somehow the VMware software uses parts of the kernel and can be graphed to look similar to the operations of the linux kernel. I have yet to find anything detailing the exact claim of infringement involved as in what files where.

Actually, I believe the claim is that it was which is why Nvidia ended up using a two part driver module in the early days with one being licensed under the LGPL.

I'm not sure how they do it now but I don't think they use the two part modules any more. I believe Travolds has made statements that binary only blobs in the kernel violate the GPL too as they are derivative. Actually, here is an interesting discussion concerning the linux kernel and derived works the confusion possibilities.

I guess the question is does he have copyrights for the parts infringed upon? If he wrote the scheduler and the infringement is with the driver API which he may not have any copyright, its the same as claiming your dog bit someone else child. Neither the GPL or the copyright law grant you rights to the entire copyrighted entity for partial contribution ( unless it's the same file carrying the copyright). And that is limited further to the extend that the contributed copyright remains (I can rewrite your contributions in a non derivative way and end up with a file that you no longer have a copyright interest in)

I cannot find exactly where they suppose the infringement is other than they used the linux kernel somewhere in the process and the outcomes appear similar. The articles are scarce on details.

Comparing it to a dog bite is a little difficult though. The harm is two parts, first a legal right to control distribution of a copyrighted material and second losses or harm caused by the violation of those rights. If it is the first, they can stop VMware from using the code but they will either need to show that their use deprived him from something concerning his copyright or that he is entitled to royalty for the illegal uses in order to get monetary rewards. Seeing how linux is distributed freely, I suspect he has a good faith belief his copyright is being violated and wants to stop that from happening as outside of recovering court costs, it will be difficult to get much more.

not at all, Truman's involvement is fact backed up by evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?..., for example. go on, submit scripture as evidence...

Personally, I don't see that any of these things as compelling practical advantages, given that the kids already have dual Swedish and Belgian (and therefore EU) citizenship. If they were Moldovan and South Sudanese, that'd be a different story. Or if they were citizens of a country from which getting a visa to enter the US might be difficult in the future.

But most importantly I think this is one of those decisions that you just don't make primarily on a cost-benefit basis. It's not like deciding to join Costco or subscribe to Hulu. Citizenship entails responsibilities. If you want your kids to shoulder those responsibilities and feel allegiance to the US then it makes sense to get them that citizenship come hell or high water. But given that they already have two perfectly good citizenships from two advanced western democracies with generally positive international relations worldwide, I don't see much practical advantage in adding a third.

Still, I wouldn't presume to give advice, other than this. The poster needs to examine, very carefully, that feeling he has that maybe his kids should be Americans. The way he expresses it, "sentimental reasons", makes those feelings seem pretty trivial, in which case it hardly matters if they don't become Americans. After all, most other Belgians seem to get along perfectly well without being Americans too. But if this is at all something he suspects he might seriously regret not doing, or if it nags him in ways he can't quite put his finger on, he needs to get to the bottom of that in a way random people on the Internet can't help him with.

The required refresh rate is too fast to re-render. The only way to do this is with hardware pixel reprojection, and competent ways of handling the problems that come with it (disocclusion and view-dependent effects -- specular reflections and refractions).

We prototyped those years ago: retinal projection (laser raster scan across the retina). It's just that it's not very practical. But with ultra high resolution displays, the microlens array approach to light fields is becoming practical (you'd have a decent system with even 8x8 pixel patches behind each microlens, so a 16K panel is sufficient for a first generation lightfield display).

Eh, Steve wasn't so much an innovator as a man with implacable tastes who really knew how to get his way. THAT is really what led Apple down the path to where it is today. Steve would have never ever accepted something as buggy as OS X right now without screaming at people and ripping their heads off. Tim Cook just seems to think that software quality really isn't that important.

Congress created this agency years ago (1883 i think) when it passed the civil service act into law.

It's a central office in charge of federal government employees and administrates their benefits and retirement packages as well as wage tables and so on. You can think of them as the HR department on a grand scale.

Science is not faulty, but taking freedoms based on unproven or incorrect science is. That is the problem. Government should not by extra-legislative processes, declare you are no longer allowed to do X for reasons we do not understand at the moment but might eventually.

FFS, you cannot just accuse something of being wrong or incorrect. You have to show why it is and that opens your claim up for review which will show your faults.

Why don't you use some critical thinking skills here. When has any legitimate science ever been trumped by the nuh-uh hypothesis? The science either speaks for itself or it cannot stand the light of examination. That goes both ways too.