Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wait... wha? (Score 1) 1482

by tbird20d (#46633727) Attached to: OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights

Nobody was denied rights. California recognized homosexual unions, and gave them all the same rights (visitation, inheritance, custody, etc.) as man/woman marriages, before prop 8 was approved by the voters. The whole debate boiled down to what one or another group of people wanted the union to be called.

Comment: Re:You make yourself look silly when... (Score 1) 267

by tbird20d (#37892664) Attached to: Fish Evolve Immunity To Toxic Sludge

The fish *have* evolved immunity to the toxic sludge...

But only if they actually did evolve. As the grandparent rightly points out, this case appears to be an excellent confirmation of selection, but that's not what's missing in the dialog to convince people of evolution. In this case, we don't have confirmation of a mutation, let alone a *random* mutation. A non-random mutation (a "designed" one) wouldn't count, obviously.

This is what, I believe, the grandparent was saying. You can't run around trying to convince people of evolution just by pointing out instances of selection. This is, unfortunately, what often happens - causing people to just become entrenched in their positions and the dialog to falter.

Comment: Re:Yes, of course (Score 1) 178

by tbird20d (#37608452) Attached to: Climate Change Driving War?
I remember reading an article (sorry, can't find the reference) about how a Russian experiment to determine how to make tundra into farmland was ruined by warm summers during the experiment. Basically stuff started growing on it's own without the measures they expected to perform. The article moaned about how global warming was ruining this important research. I was confused, as it seemed like global warming was making the research unnecessary.

Comment: Re:No complaints? (Score 2) 241

by tbird20d (#35537542) Attached to: Who's Behind the Google-Linux License Ruckus?

Of course, Linus is not a lawyer, and his interpretation of GPL may not be correct. But the gist of the original story was that it was legal analysis made by an IP lawyer, and he essentially agreed with Linus.

I'll give you a specific example where Linus is dead wrong. errno.h. This header, from the kernel, is included in almost every Linux user-space program, whether open source or not. (glibc's errno.h includes the kernel's errno.h) If you can provide an example of a kernel header file you think would be a problem to include, please specify it.

Comment: And Bionic is different from glibc how? (Score 5, Insightful) 241

by tbird20d (#35537338) Attached to: Who's Behind the Google-Linux License Ruckus?
This whole thing just makes me angry, because it ignores legal standards that have applied to Linux and been accepted by all parties, for years. If Naughton's legal analysis is correct, and use of the Linux header files causes the GPL to apply to the utilizing work, then glibc is in more danger than Bionic is. glibc is LGPL, not GPL, and has been using "full" Linux kernel headers for years. How could Bionic, using a stripped down subset of the same headers, be subject to the GPL, if glibc is not?

Comment: Code reference please? (Score 2) 292

by tbird20d (#35522462) Attached to: Does Android Have a Linux Copyright Problem?
Oh for heaven's sake! Would it be too much to ask any of these legal pundits to post as much as a single line of code that they think is a) included in Google's sanitized header files, b) copyright-able, and c) causes the GPLv2 to apply to Bionic (and all linking applications)? If you want to assert that some code causes a legal problem, POST THE DANG CODE!

Instead, we have statements like this in the original blog entry by Raymond Nimmer: "Not having examined the facts, I don’t know the actual truth of the matter." Indeed That pretty much describes all commentators in the entire mess.

Comment: Maybe an honest mistake? (Score 1) 136

by tbird20d (#34961582) Attached to: Does Google Pin Copyright Violations On the ASF?
Florian doesn't seem to consider the possibility that when Google acquired the files, they didn't have the "CONFIDENTIAL" notice on them. If the files were obtained as part of a larger demo or test suite released with an encompassing less-restrictive license, as appears to be the case with at least some of the files mentioned, then maybe someone other than Google (even possibly a Sun employee) scrubbed the notices accordingly. The tone of the article doesn't give Google much benefit of the doubt that these might be honest mistakes, and perfectly legal usages.

Comment: Re:It cost them $4200 plus many killed or captured (Score 1) 448

by tbird20d (#34380560) Attached to: Causing Terror On the Cheap

An attack that is attempted but fails costs more than money.

That's just silly. I'm sure there were a number of terrorist attacks which were thwarted, but which no one heard anything about. This denied the terrorists *all* of their objectives, including the psychological ones. I'm sure no one is thanking the government for that (how could they), but foiling attacks and NOT alerting the public is an important part of the policy of response to terrorism.

Comment: The obvious response is to buy it (Score 1) 475

by tbird20d (#33348794) Attached to: Why the World Is Running Out of Helium
If someone thinks that the government is selling helium at 25 to 50 times below value, they should buy some and store it until 2020. If there's no one willing to do this, then I'd wager that the government is really not selling it at such a bargain. There's always someone with sufficient resources to capitalize on a government selloff of a critical resource. The current large private helium industry would be a good candidate. Once the government has sold off its inventory, the private industry can sell at true market value, and standard market efficiencies can kick in. Everybody wins.

There will be no "peak helium", just a slide into higher prices, and a shift to higher conservation and efficiency, as with other non-renewables.
United States

State Senator Caught Looking At Porn On Senate Floor 574

Posted by samzenpus
from the let's-vote-on-this-instead dept.
Everyone knows how boring a debate on a controversial abortion bill can get on the Senate floor. So it's no wonder that Florida State Sen. Mike Bennett took the time to look at a little porn and a video of a dog running out of the water and shaking itself off. From the article: "Ironically, as Bennett is viewing the material, you can hear a Senator Dan Gelber's voice in the background debating a controversial abortion bill. 'I'm against this bill,' said Gelber, 'because it disrespects too many women in the state of Florida.' Bennett defended his actions, telling Sunshine State News it was an email sent to him by a woman 'who happens to be a former court administrator.'"

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Working...