While it's true that OSX has way less malware than Windows, the main cause of malware infections is the users who click anything that's offered to them without thinking.
No. Any system that can be botched more or less accidentally is a complete failure. While GNU/Linux and to a lesser extent OS X are far from perfect, they make it considerably harder to run untrusted code, simply because this is an operation typically not needed during daily use.
It depends how they do it. If they've done it by making their additions a binary kernel module, they've not (clearly) broken the GPL.
I think you have a hard time proving in court that your product is not a derivative work when it's just a piece of binary waste once you take away the GPLed portions.
Lots of vendors ship binary only kernel modules. Can you imagine how screwed up things would get if the courts ruled right now that binary kernel modules are considered as GPL tainted when loaded into a GPL piece of software?
$ cat
0
Not very much, apparently.
This is a very different case than Oracle v Google. Google was distributing their own implementation of the Java API, without using Oracle's code. Here, however, RTS is shipping a copy of the Linux kernel. Their defense seems to be that they are somehow exempt from the requirements under GPLv2 because they ship their modifications as a module, but I'm a bit skeptical whether this would actually hold up in court.
There is no single experiment ruling out such a model.
There are conceptual problems. Such as where did the space come from in your model? Or is space curved by your quantum effects (such as a non-zero vacuum energy)?
Spacetime itself does not have to come from somewhere as an emergent concept. It could just be there as it's currently the case with either GR or QFT. Spacetime could get curved via the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor. No mathemetical ambiguities, no contradiction to experiments, and fully consistent with both GR and the SM. However, I would hardly call this a "unified" description of all forces. Nevertheless, arguing against such a description of nature on purely aesthetic grounds is a bit shaky, IMO.
The fundamental problem with the standard model is gravity. In terms of particle interactions, they have it covered via the Higgs particle and gravitinos. But the standard model doesn't have curvature of space.
But you can do quantum field theory in curved spacetime, i.e., without quantizing the gravitational field. There is no single experiment ruling out such a model. So I don't think gravity is a problem for the SM, it's rather our desire to find a unified description of all forces in nature. But of course, nobody knows whether such a unified theory will be correct in the end.
The point is actually that the poll averages are reasonably likely to be wrong, because some polls are designed much better than others. Most news outlets just average the polls. Nate Silver weights them in an attempt to give more weight to accurate ones. So, the simple averages of polls are right in most cases, but in a handful of states are sufficiently skewed by biased polls to give an incorrect prediction. Nate Silvers' weighting of polls, on the other hand, got all 50 states correct--and in many so-called "contested" states actually nailed the Romney v Obama share perfectly to 0.1%!
I don't think a safe call can be made that Nate Silver's method (which not only uses poll weighting, but also "state fundamentals") is actually superior compared to simple poll averaging as done by the Princeton people or by Andrew Tanenbaum. While Silver correctly predicted all states in the presidential election, with Florida being sheer luck, he missed the Senate races in MT and ND quite badly (in the latter he claimed a 92% probability for an R win).
I I use Bittorent almost exclusivly for down/uploading Linux iso's so I think I'm pretty safe.
Actually, unless you distribute the source code as well, you are violating the GPL and are potentially liable for copyright infringement
This stuff scales incredibly bad with time. Not even a hint of a "Moore's law" here.
Actually, this has nothing to do with the content of the Twitter feed, and therefore is not really a free speech issue. If you read the actual takedown request, you will find that the Twitter account belongs to an organization that was recently disbanded and its assets (to which the account belongs) being seized by the authorities because its goals and actions were directed at overthrowing the constitutional order.
Shocking, someone using the proper method for suggesting new packages to suggest a new package!
- If it's GPL, where is the link for the free distribution of the source code?
As long as you recieve the link once you buy the software, there is absolutely no problem with this.
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
