http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Measles_incidence_England%26Wales_1940-2007.png

Here is the graph om measles incidents in England and Wales, . As you can see even the 2,000 cases from the last year are still less than the measles cases from 1998, when everybody was vaccinated and the fraudulent study was published.

I'd like to see the stats for the last 5 years too, but for me it is quite clear that this "outbrake" is more PR scare than real epidemic.

"I'm sorry... I can't let you do that Dave."

And why is Aspyr not setting up such a deal with the original publishers?
Honestly, what you said may apply for old titles, but if they know that this is the problem they may start pushing this clause in their new contracts.

Now, Steam could add their ports as a new separate title from the main title. The problem is that in order to play same game on two different devices you'll have to purchase it twice. People are not happy when they have to pay twice.

Hum... maybe Steam could add the Mac port as DLC, they depend on the original title and they can be from another publisher. Of course the idea is the "DLC" to cost only as Aspyr share. However depending on their contract they may not be allowed to sell it separately.

1. Usually digital sound recoding is lossy. This means that a lot of "information" is discarded. Good audio codec would try to eliminate the noise before going on to simplify the "relevant" audible information. You will need to have raw PCM recoding for proper analysis.
This method makes a lot more sense with analog recoding.

2. The method rely only on variation of the 50Hz main frequency used for the power grid... it is definitely not as precise.
First, low frequencies cause low induction. That's why ac/dc adapters (PC PSU too) usually upscale frequency to 50'000Hz before using small transformer.
Second, the grid frequency deviations are changing slowly because of the inertia of the dynamos that generate the electricity. High power consumption tries to slow down the rotation and automatic feedback compensates with increasing power (aka more steam in the turbine).
This method may be good enough to pin-point the possible time of the day when the conversation happened, but it would not be good enough to say if few seconds here and there have been removed.
Even the article says "if you look at it over time, you can see minute fluctuations."

Actually the method may detect the point of a cut, if the 50Hz main frequency suddenly changes phase. However this could easily be avoided if the one doing the edit does the cuts in lengths of 1/50second (or just a whole seconds).

3. Since the forensic scientist logs the noise, he is in the excellent position to manipulate the recoding so it appears from any time period he desires.
Also... to disprove his analysis one needs access to the same noise logs, but preferably done by somebody else.

As others have pointed out, you can take previous recordings, clear the noise from them, edit them, then add current hum from the power grid. Then present the result as evidence that this conversation just happened.

When it comes to police recoding suspects... there are much better digital methods to ensure that the recoding is not manipulated by a non-expert.

No, this is not reasonable positions and these modules were not broken in any arguable fashion.

First, udev didn't block firmware loading until filesystems are activated. It blocked until the parent module init completes.

The case scenario happened with a dvb-c/t capture dongle. It consist of (among other things) USB multimedia controller (em28xx), demodulator that needs firmware (drx-k) and tuner connected to the demodulator (all with separate modules).
The problem is that in order to finish the initialization, the device needs to know what the tuner is, but it can't init the tuner until the firmware is loaded. However if the firmware is blocked by udev until em28xx finishes init, we just get a deadlock (that is resolved by 30 second timeout). To avoid this deadlock, the driver have to stop init at firmware loading, create the device files pretending that it knows what the actual device is. When it is opened, it would load the firmware, finish the init. The minor problem is what happens if at this point it finds out that the tuner is not supported and thus the whole device is not supported.
There is a reason why device initialization must be done at initialization.

Actually, there is no case where a firmware could be loaded and its loading would cause any kind of problem. Yet udev enforced completely unneeded serialization, that prevented exactly that.

As for having to load only the firmware from the filesystem? Why would you do that? If you compile-in module, then do the same with the firmware. And if you don't, then load the firmware from the same filesystem as the module.

"If patent litigation caused by the U.S. patent system stifled innovation, U.S. software companies would not be the most successful in the world."

He is right. Patent litigation doesn't stifle innovation, it stifles competition.
And IBM know that because they've stomped enough businesses back in the days when they were the big evil monopoly.

Innovation happens as byproduct on working on a given problem. It will happen despite somebody having patented portion or the whole of it. However the patent may prevent the innovative company from selling its product or increase the cost. The innovation then could be bought or outright stolen. Then the big and successful patent holders would become bigger and even more successful.

Your wish is granted (kind of..).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20146942

This is exactly the reason for the existence of the First Sale Doctrine.

Dear Business,
Please upgrade your WindowsXP to Windows7 now. You may not have that option once we release Windows8.

The exact text is " NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". "

As you can see there is nothing about calling kernel functions from kernel modules. NOT A THING. It is not specially excepted. Kernel functions are not exempt depending on whatever they are public or private interface, because a) modules are not user(space) programs; b) modules are not using system calls (sysctl).

There is not a single non-GPL binary-only kernel module that could be distributed with the kernel, no matter what API is used. This is even true for firmware, that by its nature doesn't run on the host CPU and doesn't use _any_ kernel api functions. (There is firmware that have been allowed to be included in GPL code.)

You are correct that binary-only drivers are only allowed so long as they are not distributed with the kernel, but this is exactly what the problem is. The license explicitly allows separate distribution, but the kernel DRM system enforces additional arbitrary rules on top of that.

NVidia can implement its own kernel (API and ABI compatible with linux) that have its own DMA-BUF implementation that uses the same API. This module would work on it. However it won't work on normal linux kernel.

The problem is that some kernel developers have implemented DRM system, that artificially limits the user in what he can do with his system. If he tries to compile a module that is not under GPL license, a selected number of functions would cause the build to fail. The freedom of the user is artificially taken away. Well, thanks to the GPL the user have the source and can hack the kernel to remove the marks of these function, however this is procedure that takes time and effort, that are basically wasted.

This is what NVidia wants removed. These functions are not special in any legal way. All kernel functions called by any module are covered under GPL, because the whole kernel (including the files from BSD) is GPL. NVidia doesn't want "something" from the kernel to be relicensed, it just wants the DRM on that API to be removed.

I'm just going a step further, the kernel doesn't need digital restriction management.

As for the making money part. Nobody can distribute GPL kernel and non-GPL kernel module together. It must be the end-user who creates this derivative work. So NVidia won't be able to use the "user loophole" on consumer devices like smartphones/tablets/etc. .

If the above was even one bit true, non-GPL modules would have been completely forbidden from loading in the kernel at all. But they are not, here is explanation why.

The derived work of the GPL kernel and non-GPL NVidia module is produced when the module is loaded. This is when the linking of both happens. It is very important to note this, because the "calling" thing you are using is just red-herring.

This derived work is allowed because it is done by the user of the system. The result never leaves the memory of the user's system, so it is never distributed. GPL explicitly allows the user to do anything, as long as it doesn't involve distributing the result.
It also means that GPL kernel + non-GPL-nvidia cannot be distributed together.

If you take a look of the code that compiles the NVidia module for your kernel, you will notice that the code does not contain any GPL code in itself. It may require some kernel headers and config files, but these have been established to not be copyrightable (and thus no need of license for them).

So, what is the problem?

NVidia can implement its own kernel (API and ABI compatible with linux) that have its own DMA-BUF implementation that uses the same API. This module would work on it. However it won't work on normal linux kernel.

The problem is that some kernel developers have implemented DRM system, that artificially limits the user in what he can do with his system. If he tries to compile a module that is not under GPL license, a selected number of functions would cause the build to fail. The freedom of the user is artificially taken away. Well, thanks to the GPL the user can hack the kernel and remove the marks of these function, however this is procedure that takes time and effort that are basically wasted.

This is what NVidia wants removed. These functions are not special in any legal way. All kernel functions called by any module are covered under GPL, because the whole kernel (including the files from BSD) is GPL.

Just a few months ago everybody celebrated when Oracle lost miserably in court. Oracle tried to argue that Java API is copyrighted and Google have to pay insane amount of money for reimplementing Java-like language. It didn't work out. Also, it is not US only thing, there was a similar ruling in EU court that was also taken into consideration.

Now we have a linux developer (whom I respect deeply), who claims that parts of the linux kernel API is copyrighted and it could only be used under GPL.

I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.

But this is not the worst thing in the situation. Let's assume that using the DMA-BUF by NVidia is indeed covered by GPL. The only thing that would be forbidden by GPL is the redistribution of the compiled module. All the users would be forced to compile one on their own.

And here comes the biggest absurd of all. There is a system in place to prevent that. It checks if kernel entry points are GPL and refuses to link with non-GPL code. This system is only causing problems to the users, nothing else.
Any distribution or company would have somebody smart enough to find the defines in the code and patch them (to allow compilation on the user system in accordance to GPL).

All this system does is violate the spirit of GPL.

Actually it is even simpler. You just have to prove that the patents do not "...promote the progress of science and useful arts.." and that they actually inhibit them. This is the legal ground in the Constitution that gives the Congress authority to create them. The founding father knew about the dangers of copyright and patents, this is why this clause also serves as fail safe.

Of course, nobody cares what this "goddamned piece of paper'" says anymore.

Nice reasoning. The only problem is that patents at the moment doesn't work (like this).

1. If something requires up-front investment to invent for a first time... it will never be invented. Inventions are either done as hobby in the free time and for the expense of the inventor, by R&D department of a company that already works in the field or by universities that work in this field. No outsider would invest in something that may not even be possible.

2. Patents are not the only things that protects a product. Schematics, chip and board layouts are also covered by a form of copyright.

3. I'm totally fine with 5 year patent that protects the inventor until it starts selling its product and establishes itself on the market. However in the current patent system you may not even get the patent for years. The fact that we have 17 years after grant or 20 after filling for a patent, implies that it is perfectly normal for a patent to not be granted in the first 3 years.

4. Robert Kearns have spent 20 year of his life and more than $10millions on legal fees in order to collect his money. Do you really think this is how the system is supposed to work? Involving courts means that the system have failed. Kearns should have spent his time working on new inventions...

The whole point is, the patents in their current form do more harm than good.
They do not protect the lone inventor. They cost too much. They are too slow to obtain. They are too broad. They give too much monopoly/veto power. They last too long. They do not promote useful arts, they actually inhibit them.

If I were to make a reform I would:

1. Limit the veto powers to 5 years. The remaining 15 years the inventor can only demand royalties under fair terms. (The fair terms are explicitly defined by the law).

2. Forbid selling and trading of a patents. They used to be issued to concrete people, now this have been mostly circumvented.

3. Limit the number of patents that could be issued in a single year (500-1000 in all fields combined). The patent examiners can focus on most innovative patents first and ignore the other. One examiner should pick one single patent per year. He should do all examinations of novelty, prior arts and general usefulness of the patent. The quality of the patent would also serve as investment/loan guarantee.