THANK YOU!!!

You have no idea how frustrating it is as a Southerner to be constantly condescended upon because of our supposedly lousy driving skills. I don't care HOW skilled you are at driving on snow or ice, when you crest an ice-covered hill with a curve at the bottom, even if you're driving 1 MPH, you're going to go off the road or crash into the curb (or the car) at the bottom.

Every time I see one of these "lrn2drv" smug posts, I want to invite that person to come on down and drive on a road that is completely untreated in a car that is completely unequipped for snow/ice driving. In this case, I'd love to get them to try it in the middle of an Atlanta rush hour that was as popped out on steroids as it has ever been in the history of the city. Yes, we're not used to driving on ice. Yes, there are some fools who do it wrong. But I've seen people who are the most careful of drivers creeping along at a snail's pace still have wrecks because, believe it or not, when your roads have no snow or ice for 999 out of 1000 days in a row and no one has prepared for the eventuality that they might, and your government is run by "don't spend money for any reason"/"let's err against the side of safety" idiots, shit happens.

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.

No, it seems like an effective way to apply pressure. If you're going to use our drugs to murder people, we won't sell them to you, even if you also use them for good purposes. All you need to do is to agree not to murder people.

It's not the court's job to collect evidence. If no evidence of use was presented, then there's no evidence, and the ticket is dismissed.

So why didn't the investigating officer collect this data? It's a distracted driving ticket, not a murder investigation.

The password he used was the same as one that he had previously divulged, but the incompetent investigators at GCHQ and the police didn't think to try it.

Feels the same when you drop it on your foot.

It feels quite a bit like 96,000 tons, but quite a bit different from 96,000 grains.

Or in metric: it feels pretty much the same as 96,000 tonnes, but different from 96,000 mg.

That's the main point. The article is about Canada trying to convince companies to move, but it's pretty unlikely that Canada is the only country doing that.

The summary (and the report it quotes) is inaccurate. Car owners *can* demand that the companies destroy the data.

The only problem is, the companies will just ignore the demand.