No. GPL is only defending freedom. What the GPL is doing is "you're free to do anything with the code, as long as you don't take that freedom over from others". That's the definition of freedom. Freedom is not the ability to do anything, or kidnapping someone would be a freedom. The scale of offense is different, and that's what the scale of punishment for breaking the rule is different (jail if you kidnap someone, only losing the rights to use the software if you violate the GPL), but in both cases it's the same ethical stance : ability to deny to someone the freedom you were granted is not freedom, but power.

And the GPL doesn't prevent making money from the code. Unlike the article says, "GPLv3 license, which prevents Apple from using the software commercially" is false. GPLv3 perfectly allows making money from the code. Even RMS started by selling copies of the GPLed GNU Emacs. What it doesn't allow (like the GPLv2, but with additional protections for new ways of depriving users from their freedom) is only taking freedom away from the users.

As for corporations go, they tend to *prefer* GPL than BSD, because with GPL they are likely to get something back (patches, ...) when they invest on a product and then decide to share it under a free software license. GPL license encourages sharing, while BSD license, with it's "law of the jungle" attitude, rewards the selfish (who take from the community without giving back their own pacthes).

It's not "providing internet access to anyone". That would just require the US to lift the blockade. It's "providing internet access to those who oppose the government". Which is indeed corruption : you oppose the government, you receive goods that other people can't buy (because of the blockade).

"They could take over Cuba in a weekend if they wanted to." Like they could in Vietnam ? The USA knows that they can't win a war against Cuba, without having to slaughter most of the cubans. They can't afford it, especially when there is no oil in Cuba to justify it in front of corporate USA.

"The Bay of Pigs rebellion was performed by Cuban citizens, with some support from the CIA but no direct military intervention from the USA." No, it was performed by mercenaries. And it had cover by USA frigates and airforce, if that's not military intervention.

"This is very different from the Cuban invasion of Angola." Cuba didn't invade Angola. Cuba sided with one side of the two belligerents in a civil war in Angola, only because the other side was supported by Apartheid South Africa imperialist forces. The defeat of South Africa in invading Angola, thanks to Cuban effort, was recognized by Nelson Mandela as a major step in the fall of Apartheid.

"The fact is that the Cuban dictatorship uses the USA as a convenient excuse for keeping their country under their military rule." If that was really the case, why wouldn't the USA just stop the blockade ?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is one of the most widely misunderstood expression, used a few times by Marx (and it was a very clumsy wording from him, indeed). What Marx meant by it is a strong government *in the hands of the working class* able to realize fast and profound changes in the society. He didn't mean by it a Stalin-like totalitarian state. He was even clear that for him, "dictatorship of the proletariat", was something like Paris' Commune. Which was the most democratic form of government that existed in modern history in France. In which elected representative could be recalled at any time at the demand of the basis. Which abolished death penalty, and gave right to vote to women, as early as 1870. Even the "army" of the Commune (the National Guard) was democratic, with the officers elected by the guards.

As for the Cuban government, it's not perfect, but it's not a "dictatorship" under the common meaning of the word nowadays. People aren't arrested there for just disagreeing. There is no torture. People aren't kept in jail without trial. There are elections, and if we can discuss their fairness and the weird system they use, it's not the case only in Cuba (hint, 2000 election in the USA). There is no forced labor camps. Police don't open fire on protests.

If you compare Cuba to its neighbors, it has much less human rights violations than for example in Mexico, Peru, Colombia or Chile (which are US allies and recognized as "democracies"). And it has several very positive aspects. One of the best healthcare system of the world (with the same life expectancy as USA despite the blockade, and a lower child death rate), one of the best educative system of the world (lower illiteracy and higher university enrollment rate than in USA).

Cuba isn't perfect, and we should criticize what is broken in the cuban system. But Cuba is not a "tropical gulag", it's not the hell of a country that the mass media tell us it is. Considering its history and the hostility of a nearby superpower, it's quite impressive they managed to get all the good things they have, without much more bad things. Especially when you compare with so many other countries of Latin America.

"Quasi-gulag ?" I went to Cuba. I spoke to cuban. I saw how they live. Not in luxury and there are problems, yes. But it's definitely not a "quasi-gulag". The only "gulag" in Cuba is Guantanamo.

"No one should be punished for an unjust law." Indeed. But a law saying an agent from a foreign hostile power can't come to your country to stir unrest, build a covert communication network, and corrupt people to oppose the government, well, it's not that an "unjust" law, and similar laws exist everywhere in the world.

"I'm sure the people in Cuba's prisons who are there for the horrible crime of criticizing the government would agree with that." No one is. There are people in Cuba's prisons for the horrible crime of receiving money or goods from a foreign hostile power to undermine the government. That's completely different. Now we can argue about the fairness of the trial, and some may be innocent of the crime they are accused of. Like there are people innocent in jail in every country. We should criticize it every time we have data on such a case, and we can criticize specific methods used in the court process. There is a lot to criticize on that topic in Cuba. But also in USA, and also in the European Union.

So, what ? A man employed by an hostile foreign power (a power imposing to a country an illegal blockade since 50 years, and sponsoring terrorism against that country) is arrested because he, secretly and without any permission, is corrupting local persons into subverting the local government. He would be arrested in any country for that.

As for USAID, it's a not a charity, it's a CIA cover entity since long.

If USA were really interested into spreading Internet in Cuba, they would lift the blockade restrictions that forbid Cuba to connecting to the trans-atlantic cable that runs not so long from it. If they were really interested into spreading Internet in Cuba, they would allow Cuba to purchase computers.

But no. They don't want to spread Internet in Cuba. They want to reward the few cubans (and the wikileaks are clear that even the SINA (US "embassy" in Cuba) acknowledge the "opposition" in Cuba is very small and unpopular there) who betray their own country to support the agenda of the nearby imperialist power. That's it. It's plain corruption.

Cuba system is not perfect. It has many flaws. It also have many positive things. We should encourage them to keep what's good and change what is not. But it's not by sending cover agents to corrupt people to oppose their government that it'll happen. And the cover agent who tried to do that is not a freedom-fighter.

And I can understand Cuba being strict with those cover agents, when you see that the Cuban Five were sentenced to much harder penalty, while they weren't at all opposing the US government, but only infiltrating the Miami-based terror groups.

In french law-making process, a law is proposed by someone (usually the government, but groups of MP can also propose laws). The law is then discussed in committees, and can be modified at that point.

Then the proposal is discussed and voted article-per-article, with amendments being discussed and voted on each article. Then the law is voted as a whole, with all the amendments that were accepted. It is exceptional that the law as a whole isn't voted, but it occurred a few times (IIRC, it happened on the law allowing GM crops, but the government forced a second vote, with threats to the member of UMP who wouldn't vote it... lovely gov respectful of MPs).

That process (article-per-article and full vote at the end) is done on each of the two chambers. Usually the two versions are different, so they need to make a common version and vote again the common version in the two chambers. The exact process for that "merge" depends if the law is voted in "urgency mode" or in "normal mode".

In case where a common version isn't voted by the two chambers, at the end, the Assembly can override the Senate with a qualified majority, but that almost never happens, they usually reach a common ground before the end.

The best hopes to me are that the Senate puts back a judge in the process, or that the Constitutional Council does it at the end. Would be a lesser evil, but with such a control-freak government as we have now, I fear it's the best we can hope until new elections (in 18 months). And french judges have shown the ability to defy the government more than once, so this would be a real safeguard, not just cosmetic, even if still very dangerous.

Hum,my quotes were eaten :/ " The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law." is a quotation, and I added quotes around "protect the children" because of course it's just the excuse, not the real intent.

And I also made a mistake at the end, I wanted to say "they may validate it" instead of "they will validate it". I think they won't, but I'm not sure.

As terrible as the news is, there is still hope. The law isn't passed yet. The article was voted in the National Assembly (lower chamber). It still requires, before being a valid law :

1. A vote on the law as a whole in the lower chamber.

2. A vote on the article in the upper chamber (Senate).

3. A vote on the law as a whole in the upper chamber.

4. If the two versions are different, even a coma apart (which is almost always the case), a full new vote on each of the chambers.

5. A validation by the Constitutional Council.

Points 1. and 3. are very likely to succeed, saddly. But point 2., the vote on the article in the upper chamber can reasonably change the law, adding a validation by a judge for example. The UMP (Sarkozy's party) doesn't have absolute majority in the Senate, so they need to compromise with the center-right which may obtain that.

And then the validation by the Constitutional Council is unlikely, they censored the HADOPI (three-strike law for "illegal downloading"), stating clearly that Internet in the XXIest century is protected by the article 11 of the Declaration of Humans and Citizen Rights (which is part of our Constitution) : The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, save [if it is necessary] to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law. , their interpretation being that abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law can only be confirmed by a court after due legal process. It would surprise me for them to turn back on this stance, and allow Internet censorship without decision of a court.

But since the UMP has more friends than foes in the Constitutional Council, and that it is to protect the children will they will validate it :(

But anyway, it's still not a lost battle, and we are still fighting against the law.

USSR economy "failing so badly" is propaganda. USSR was far from perfect and had many problems, mostly political ones, but also some economical ones, but you can't said it "failed". Just look at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Soviet_Union_GDP.gif . GDP of USSR in 1990, just before the fall, was more than 3x the GDP of USSR in 1970, +200% in 20 years is a feat few countries can achieve. And it took very long for the capitalist Russian Federation to reach the level of the USSR.

USSR collapse was much more due to political reason and the "usual" collapse of a repressive regime than to economical reasons.

I'm surprised that you need dual-core for 1080p video. My N900 which is more than one year old is able to record and play 880p video, and is not a dual core. Just a slight increase in performance would be enough for 1080p. As for the iphone having the best processor, that would really surprise me, knowing it can't even multitask...

Well, Israel has nukes. And it made it clear when US invaded Irak that it would answer with nukes to any attack from Saddam towards it. There is no reason to think they'll behave differently regarding Iran. But Iran, unlike Irak, does have weapons. So if either Israel or USA dares to attack Iran, Iran will launch missiles towards Israel, which, according to their own doctrine, could use their nuclear weapons against Iran. So yes, the risk is significant. That happens when you've two groups of religious/nationalist fanatics (current gov of both Iran and Israel) owning dangerous "toys"...

Cuba has the lowest Internet penetration ? How surprising, since due an illegal blockade from the world superpower it cannot legally buy any computer (do you know many computers that doesn't contain a single item made by a US corporation, from Intel to AMD for example ?) and since it cannot plug itself to the transatlantic cable going a few miles from it ?

Cuba's Internet connection is a very expensive and very limited (in bandwidth and ping) satellite connection with Finland.

So guess what ? In a capitalist country, it would mean Internet would cost a lot, and only the richest few could use it. In socialist Cuba, it means it's reserved for what is most beneficial for the society as a whole : universities, schools, gov services, and tourists. Yes, tourists, because it's Cuba primary source of hard currency, and since with the blockade everything they buy from abroad costs them much more than it should, they are desesperatly in need of it. Because no island of that size can be self-sufficient.

As for information that threatens national security or civil peace... it's not only forbidden in Cuba, but in most of the world. Just see how US gov reacted to wikileaks...

I say the probability is 1/2, if we forget all biological and social effects (twins, different chances of having boys and girls, effects of diet on sex of children, whatever).

The reasoning above is almost good. There are 27 cases, 13 in which the other child is a boy, 14 in which the other child is a girl. But I still claim the probability is 1/2.

Why ? Because the formula 13/27 only works if there is equi-probability between the 27 cases, and I think the case of two boys born on a Tuesday is twice as likely as the other 26 cases. For a simple reason : the question would be twice as likely to be asked this way in that case.

Let's consider the broader picture. With no additional knowledge on why the question is asked on one child or the other, we can consider that we have a quintuplet of (child1 sex, child1 day, child2 sex, child2 day, child referred to in the first part of the question).

That gives 14*14*2 possibilities, like :

(boy, Monday, boy, Monday, child1)
(boy, Monday, boy, Tuesday, child1)
(boy, Monday, boy, Wednesday, child1) ...
(boy, Monday, girl, Saturday, child1)
(boy, Monday, girl, Sunday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Monday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Tuesday, child1) ...
(girl, Sunday, girl, Saturday, child1)
(girl, Sunday, girl, Sunday, child1)

And then exactly the same with the question being posed on child 2 :

(boy, Monday, boy, Monday, child2) ...
(girl, Sunday, girl, Sunday, child2)

If you filter to all matching cases, that is, the cases on which the question refers to boy born on a Tuesday, it gives :

(boy, Tuesday, boy, Monday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Tuesday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Wednesday, child1) ...
(boy, Tuesday, girl, Saturday, child1)
(boy, Tuesday, girl, Sunday, child1)

(boy, Monday, boy, Tuesday, child2)
(boy, Tuesday, boy, Tuesday, child2)
(boy, Wednesday, boy, Tuesday, child2) ...
(girl, Saturday, boy, Tuesday, child2)
(girl, Sunday, boy, Tuesday, child2)

So we do have 28 possibilities, because the case of two boys born on Tuesday is in fact two distinct cases, depending on whose child the question refers to.

That what would be for example that outcome of randomly selecting parents of two children, making them select randomly one of the two kids, and ask the question considering that children.

Which also has the positive effect of making the maths match with common sense (that's not always the case, but is always pleasant) : why would a totally unrelated elements like Tuesday change anything in the probability ? With no precision of weekday it would be 1/3, with weekday 13/14, with other unrelated stuff it would keep changing the probability ?

Peaceful and wise. Because as Asimov and other scifi writers stated, if aliens are able to survive long enough and with a highly developed technology to encounter us, they must have learn to be so. If they didn't learn to be peaceful and wise, they would have blown themselves as we almost did during the cold war. And as we could do in a near future, with nuclear and biological weapons being more and more widespread.

The other point is that with highly developed technology and space travel capacity, there is much less need to be violent and imperialist. Natural resources are no longer scarce when you can exploit asteroid fields, moons and other planets. Slave workforce is useless when you have robots.

The are two risks, according to me :

- if the aliens consider us to be a threat to them. But since we'll be so much lacking in technology compared to them...

- if the alien just don't realize or admit we are "sentient beings", and destroy us without really noticing it (to build a galactic highway for example), like we could squish an ant without even realizing it.

But for both of those, trying to actively contact the aliens with peaceful messages is a protection for us, not a threat.