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.

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.

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.

Patriotism is stupid. It is stupid to assign yourself to a group and then cheer for the group or go down with it. It is a sign of a weak intellect and stupid ideology to cheer for a team or for anything that is set up to consume and chew up and spit out an individual in the first place. Patriotism is for idiots and it is a useful way to control idiots.

There is only private property, in a war that is aimed at your private property and/or life you don't have a choice, but to be a patriot simply because of a set of circumstances that caused you to be born in a particular location within a particular set of people is stupid.

Stupid idea of patriotism is used for most horrendous crimes committed by the elites, who create walls made of people around themselves to protect their own power. These walls of people are then used as cannon fodder to destroy individual liberties, be it in civil or external wars.

Patriotism is a stupid idea that starts with the stupid idea of team sports and progresses all the way into wars.

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.

And while you're off "reproducing the results," industry has had free reign to spend a decade or so fucking everything up. You might as well change the name from "Environmental Protection Agency" to "Environmental Hindsight Agency" since all it'll be able to do is say "yup, that really was a bad idea after all" after the damage is already done!

And this is different from now how? Whenever the EPA advances regulation changes, it spends a large amount of time in court already. You are either not aware of how this crap works or are pushing some narrative you know to be incorrect.

It "seems" like you're intentionally mischaracterizing the situation to suit your own argument. The burden of proof should be on you to explain why we should run full speed ahead changing the climate, not on the EPA to explain in excruciating detail precisely why erring on the side of caution might be prudent common sense.

No silly. The burden of proof in a free and democratic society is on the government to show the necessity for regulating and restricting those freedoms. If government wants to say you cannot do X, they need to demonstrate a valid reason for it. Using hidden studies or hidden science to do so is ridiculous. To say otherwise is just silly.

CRU is the climate research unit from University of East Anglia who refused to provide climate data used to push the global warming narrative when requested by people they considered hostile to their cause. Accusations of this were made several times and denied but someone hacked into the email servers and released a bunch of email showing them discussing withholding the information. Now it is said that the original raw data does not exist any more nor does the methods and processes used to correct irregularities of it.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/20...

Now, I know you are a global warming pusher and have your own beliefs but this is not about you in the slightest. All that I'm a believer bullshit you just posted is irrelevant to what was said. Let me repeat that in less convoluted terms in case it was too difficult for you. What kind of grand conspiracy would you be tilting at instead of windmills if the data and process were made available early on when the notion of anthropogenic global warming was being introduced instead of hiding it because of fears that people would pick it apart? I would be more than 80% of the so called deniers- the ones who actually believe there is long term warming but either do not believe humans are the chief architect of it or that there are agendas hidden within the claims so the so called solutions should not be trusted would not be questioning anything right now. But you go on stating how you was always a believer and the appearance of improprieties did nothing to shake that belief.

If you think that is how science is done, you probably need to go back to watching lady gaga and let the adults talk.

Here is what the real study would be. People notice lung cancer incidents are on the rise and people with cancer admit to being smokers. Someone analyzes the data and draws the correlation between people with lung cancer and smoking. They find a connection in the data and make policy accordingly. Someone gets a hold of the data and does their own analysis and says Yep, they are right or no they are wrong.

But here is some interesting facts for you that make smoking and cancer not as cut and dry as you think it is. In today's pop culture, it seems it is a given that if you smoke you will get cancer. "Fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer". "In the game of risk, you're more likely to have a condom break than to get cancer from smoking." but from an analysis perspective " Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer".

So lets stop pretending that something like smoking and cancer is so obvious that the tobacco company's denials were baseless.

No, it is not a good idea. USA citizenship is an albatross around your neck at this point, given where the USA economy is going and what the USA tax system is like. It makes much more sense to start learning Mandarin at this point and figuring out how to get citizenship of Singapore instead.

Scorpion seems to try to be preachy but fails in keeping it seamless to the plot.

I'd rather watch cartoons than that show..

That is only true if the EPA is relying on faulty science that cannot survive the scientific method. Of this case, if such is to be true, nothing is different than today other than it would be easier to detext witg an open and transparent EPA. But should ths EPA use sound scientific arguments then it wiuld be easily proven as such and the court battles eaasily dismissed.

If you put any though into it, you would see that the bill actually prevents the situation you decry by placing a legal qualifyer on the premise of regulation.

Lol.. it wouldn't matter if they did not like the conclusions. If the data is open and it can be reproduced, all they can do is "not like it,".

As for the refusals. This is laughable. I will post some infomation when i get to a computer but i gave you a huge hint when i mentioned CRU. but please, go ahead and try to obfuscate those problems in a discussion about mistrust and the need to open it up.