You could do a work-around for the GPL argument by making agreeing to a contract functionally identical to the licence a pre-condition for accessing the program. The only problem with that is that it raises questions of liability for bugs.
Anyway, the first paragraph of your post didn't relate to GPL infringements, because mostly GPL authors don't care about non-commercial infringement, because it doesn't really matter. Commercial infringement would still be illegal, so the problematic infringements are not affected.
How would you handle the passenger texting then? The driver isn't the only one in the car.
A lump of metal going really fast can have more energy than a small explosive. F=MA, remember?
No I don't. In particular, I appear to have forgotten which of those three variables stands for kinetic energy.
I can't prove a negative.
However, do yourself a favor and read the 9/11 Commission reports.
Come back to me with a direct quote where Bush said Saddam was directly connected to 9/11.
In fact, I'm currently reading through an archive of Bush's speeches on 9/11, and there is not one mention of Saddam.
However, the creme does rise to the top eventually.
That's NOT creme.
Once you persevere from the more plebeian positions into the management/executive level, your body of work is far more important.
Which means the only body of work which is important is management work. Which means a developer's body of work is _never_ important. Great news for those of us with no interest in management.
think going to UDP would be cool for another reason: there's not all the setup and teardown for connection. If 200 people each request the same block from me in a minute, do I really want to have to go through something like 'hi can I talk to you, what port should I use, hey here it comes, do you have it, ok, I'm done talking to you go away', or should I just shovel it out?
The setup and teardown in TCP itself isn't all that expensive. What's expensive is usually the setup and teardown to deal with NAT, a problem that's at least as bad with UDP as with TCP. In particular, with a UDP-based protocol that it doesn't understand the NAT box won't know when the conversation ended, so it'll just keep state around until some long-ish timeout, so you're going to be stressing it even more than you would have been with TCP.
It's possible to improve on TCP. Many have done it, and the result is . . . TCP. Watch any modern Linux box boot and you'll see a bunch of congestion-control modules being loaded, none of which were dreamed of in the early days of Nagle and Van Jacobson, but they're all TCP. This being slashdot, a whole bunch of people are talking about how they can do better than TCP because "TCP hasn't changed in twenty years" - and then they wonder why people who've actually worked on this stuff roll their eyes. The way to improve something is to understand what has been already tried, and then try something new.
I don't know if the BitTorrent guys are really improving on TCP or just offering the millionth painful re-learning of its lessons (with us as their guinea pigs) but some of the comments e.g. about using latency to measure congestion suggest it's the latter. I hope I'm wrong.
The plan would involve some level of filtering...
I predicted this before I read it. Anything a government is going to provide you will also be completely controlled by them.
...but might allow adults to opt out.
That's the same thing they said about parents who want to home school their kids rather than sending them to public schools, but is not the case, they still have to pay for other peoples kids via taxes to get the worthless education currently being provided.
China doesn't need foreigners to come spend money on its soil, its making a fortune exporting good abroad anyway.
On one hand you are correct. On the other, I was shocked at how desperate seeming China is to show the world what they are capable of. We were welcomed most graciously by a whole host of people who really, really wanted to share with us what they have been doing. It is impressive.
As for the US, it's another ballgame: the country's attitude toward visas oscillates between the "keeping these filthy underpaid workers from taking american jobs out" attitude in peace time, to full-blown paranoid "the terrorists are coming!" when national security is threatened.
Dude, you have no idea how correct you are. For instance, we have a graduate student who is in the middle of her dissertation research. She travelled to China with us to present at a meeting and now the US is dragging its feet on her visa. She cannot get back into the country until her visa is approved and she has a husband and child back here! Academia and business is rife with stories like this even from countries that have been long time friends of the US, like the UK.
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL." -- Dave Bowman, 2001