skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>How exactly are they doing this without either violating the GPL or failing to keep their patches secret?

Because ignorance (of the law) is bliss.

Here are some discussions on this topic and some excerps:
http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/54839391
https://sys.8ch.net/tech/res/605120.html

----------------------
GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.)
(GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch))

People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/cens...
"You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract.
Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker

And it is suggested to be the case here aswell:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_year...
"Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki
"sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/
the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio

Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor?

(Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america)))
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112
@xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version"
oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"
------------------------------
Modern public transit projects in the US are an embarrassment. It takes 20 years now to do something that used to be 1 year. :(
I don't understand what you're getting at. It is completely pointless to talk about "detect cancer earlier AND CHANGE NOTHING ELSE". Nobody does that. Even if the health care system did nothing but detect - which is an absurd idea of course - the patient in question would surely do something.

If you don't detect cancers, that will not stop people from dying to cancer.

The U.S. health system is expensive because it uses a lot of money for some cases that would receive less attention somewhere else. Some of these are difficult cases that other health systems even cannot treat; others are trivial things where the private insurance system spends a lot for some people while there are uninsured people who get no attention for things that could be cured or prevented relatively easily.

The priorities are not necessarily right; at least they are not producing optimal "bang for the buck" in national health - U.S. spends a lot but still people suffer from preventable diseases.

But early cancer detection is one of the undoubtedly good things.

(Infant mortality rate in the USA was lower than in my country in 1950; now it is more than double. Cuba is better than United States, if we can trust the statistics. However, I'm surprised that Canada is not that much better either.)
>How exactly are they doing this without either violating the GPL or failing to keep their patches secret?

Some more excerpts:
---------------------------------

>>54842691

>Are they not redistributing the source?
Correct
> Are they forbidding others from redistributing the source?
Correct.

> Seems to me they're saying "if you redistribute the source, we won't do business with you again/charge you a lot for a renewal".
>How is this illegal?
Hmm so there is Licensor (Linux Devs), they place their copyrighted work out there, under conditions.

There is Licensee (Brad Spengler, Grsecurity), he takes the copyrighted work under the terms and conditions and creates a derivative work (not allowed under pure copyright, only permissible as per the will of the rightsholder, as stated in the agreement)

The license states that, for permission to create a derivative work, one must allow others who gain access to that derivative work to redistribute said work, modify it, so on and so forth (otherwise there is no permission under the agreement).

Licensee creates derivative work.

Licensee sublicenses derivative work to sublicensee. Licensee stipulates that sublicensee may not redistribute derivative work. Licensee makes threats to ensure compliance with this demand that sublicensee not distribute derivative work. These demands are met: sublicensee dares not redistribute the work.

The conditions the Licensor placed on his work have been spurned, ignored, and abolished by the actions of the licensee.

Licensee has frustrated the purpose of the grant he has been give by licensor. It does not matter specifically how he went about doing so. He did so.

>You can argue that they're assholes, but this isn't illegal.

So in other words you are saying "you can argue that Brad Spengler has treated the agreement in... bad faith". Thank you for restating a portion of my case, in inadvertently

"But JUDGE, bad faith, when it comes to business dealings, contracts, grants, and the like is fine and good!"

>bla bla

So have you attended law school and passed the bar?

I have.
A related 99% Invisible podcast:
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/palm-reading/
I just want to point out that even though the brains are equivalent, the sexual strategy for men and women is completely different and that's okay.

The differences in behavior can be explained by choosing the optimal strategy, rather than some deterministic brain chemistry.
Being within 200 miles probably affects the ship, not the people. It would likely mean being US flagged and/or owned. You can forget about the ship being Panama flagged and Cayman Island owned.

This of course gets you US law and the US navy, for better and worse. (taxes, environmental regulations, etc.) It doesn't actually put you in the US though, since you're 11 miles out, so the people shouldn't be affected by immigration law.

I think a bigger problem is just the poor value. The ship presumes that people can't work from the other side of the world, but somehow they can work if they are only an annoying ferry ride or an expensive helicopter ride away. Who are the users who need to be close, but not really close?
Heh. I broke down after six months of not having one and settled on a flip phone.

The amount of social and logistical requirements these days almost entirely necessitates a phone on you 24/7. It's frightening how much everyone relies on everyone having a phone, including companies. Looking at you, airbnb.

It was voluntary to get rid of my cell phone, but it was hardly voluntary to go back.
I'm totally new to TensorFlow and ML in general, but I've been curious about how this could fit into a system.

Say you need a CNN text classifier algorithm to categorize simple single page documents. So you set one up via TensorFlow, train it with a big dataset, and get it outputting categories with decent accuracy. Could you then use some type of API and query it from a (low traffic) production web app?

Or is it more for the research phase rather than real-time interaction?
Paying someone to be an artist is like paying someone to be an alcoholic, and the more I hear Artists collectively complain about the lifestyle I'm failing to enable, while I sit lashed to a desk all day, the more I want to destroy their every dream and aspiration.
Your argument actually generalizes to a broader one -- if people get money from the government then it weakens family bonds because family members don't need each other as much when they have government money. But it fails for the same reasons all the other ones do, which is that UBI is unequivocally better than the status quo of means tested welfare.

Welfare has the same problem with creating deadbeats but much worse, because if the father does actually pay child support or for that matter stays with the mother to raise the child, then the mother loses the welfare benefits. When you have two parents who are very poor but love their child it creates the unconscionable incentive for the father to leave so that the mother then qualifies for welfare while the father sends what money he can in cash under the table.

UBI at least improves the status quo by eliminating that.
10 Pieces-10 Outfits
>How exactly are they doing this without either violating the GPL or failing to keep their patches secret?

Here are some additional arguments by lay people defending GRSecurity and rebuttals based in an understanding of the law (which are rejected with bays and hollers from the lay crowd who seem to believe that an NDA makes the GPL equal in fact to the BSD license grant):

---------------

>>54842745
>>54842791
>>54842820

There is a legal term for this. It's called acting in bad faith.
That often gets your contract nullified.
Here there is a license grant. Spengler is acting in bad faith to frustrate its purpose.
It does not matter if he is breaking legs, threatening to expose secrets, or threatining to raise prices to exorbidant rates, or to cease sending the patches:
What matters is that his goal is to deny the sublicensee the right given to the sublicensee by the original licensor, and that he has obtained that goal via his actions (the threats here).

He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the original licensor, and thus
the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license.

It's very simple, I don't know why some here do not understand it, it's like you never graduated law school nor passed the bar.

The courts are not dumb, they've seen people try to be "clever" like this before for well over 100 years.
Just because some here have never heard of any of it doesn't mean what they then grind together their uneducated brain is correct (even though they will swear to high heaven it is, cuz it makes sence to them, centuries of caselaw and even black letter law be damned).
I think the only thing you "must" do to not squander the opportunity is be passionate, which implies following your interests. Anything you can latch on to in your studies will help you make progress.

As for your secondary work, use that time to think or simply rest your brain. Your subconscious requires downtime to solve problems and integrate what you learn; never underestimate the value of regimented idleness.

Above all, enjoy! In the worst case, you'll learn a great deal and move on.
This article by Dag Spicer has good coverage of the background of the ECHO IV and the interview with Ruth Sutherland is priceless.

Coincidentally a different writeup on the ECHO IV can be found in the CHM's Volunteer Newsletter of last fall[1]. It has some different pictures, more technical details on the machine's architecture, and links to some other sources, including a gallery of pictures of the ECHO hardware in the CHM collection[2].

[1] http://s3data.computerhistory.org.s3.amazonaws.com/chmedu/VI... (PDF)

[2] https://cortesi.smugmug.com/Other/ECHO-IV-article/
Since 1971 OPEC is bullied to sell Oil exclusively in US dollars resulting in friction between 1.8 billion Muslims and the West;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

http://qz.com/562128/isil-is-a-revolt-by-young-disaffected-m...
This is slightly off-topic, but generally drowning people don't make sounds, as they're gasping for air or have their lungs already partially filled with water.

In both cases it is really hard to make loud sounds and most people would probably not recognize 'symptoms' of drowning.
Additionally:
-----------------

>54843968
The GPLv2 is a text that outlines by what ways a licensee may use a copyrighted work provided by the licensor. In the case that the agreement is not followed standard copyright law applies (all rights reserved).

Contracts are often known as "private law", it allows parties to make their own agreement.

So yes, the agreement here is controlling "law", while the public law that allows such agreements to alienate rights to copyrighted works to be enforceable by the licensee so as to protect him against the licensor is the 1973 us copyright act.

However when the licensee violates the agreement he cannot find refuge in that agreement any longer.

Go attend law school.

And YES, I have both graduated law school and passed the bar.

Have you? No.

Might be a reason why you don't know what your talking about and can only cite the GPL itself (a small 1 page document) and nothing that surrounds it (you don't even know what it hangs on).

Please people, do not listen to that fool
> Perhaps you've ran into someone who is really as counterproductive as the article makes a Dungeon Master out to me, but I've never so feared for my job security, which seems to be the core reason provided for the Dungeon Master's behavior and position.

I have and it's very scary indeed. I've heard "You will be fired if you don't support technology X" simply because that's the technology the DM used originally and is more familiar with.

I'm not disagreeing with your other comments, but I think the authors main point boils down to when a DM's ego becomes tied to a system in need of replacing, the act of replacing said system can feel like a personal attack to that DM. If that developer is in a or has risen to a position of power it can feel even more intimidating to suggest other technologies.

That being said, I've learned to expect such behavior. It's part of the job. A great skill to have is negotiating and communicating why the system needs to be replaced in such a way that the DM is collaborating and seeing the value the new system can produce. I'm going to work with people everyday that don't see or don't like how I'm trying to solve something and their concerns need to be addressed for us to continue working together.
Here the discussion gets a little more heated as the crowd keeps simply repeating themselves and ignoring all legal arguments.

--------------------------

>>54844263
>Which was not broken since the sub-licensee still has all the privileges and obligations given to them by the GPL.

Incorrect in practice: the sublicensees have been effectively prevented from exercising the right given to them by the original licensor (linux devs) by the action of the intimediary (grsecurity). In this case, since spengler is working to frustrate the purpose of the grant given by the original licensor the court may very well nullify his right to seek cover of the license: IE: he has acted in bad faith in attempting (successfully here) to DENY a permission granted to the sublicensee by the original licensor and thus has violated the license and can be sued by the original licensor for copyright infringement. (Not to mention the sublicensee for tort violations). Spengler has interfered with the relationship between the licensor (the rightsholder) and the sublicensee (likely a quazi-contractual relationship).

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Please, go to law school or keep you mouth shut.

And other people here, why is it that you choose to believe people who have not been to law school and who have not passed the bar, over me, who has done both?

Why?

They read ONE document, the agreement.
I've read books.

Yet you decide that THEY know what they are talking about? That the written grant exists in a vacume.

It's ONE FUCKING PAGE.
That's a completely integrated, four corners, covers all cases document to you people?

Do you even know what I just said?
http://imgur.com/zdI2jkZ

I don't know about that, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't downloaded them.
St. Helena: The vet, the tortoise and the airport
Latest Announcements from Google I/O 2016
To me the most exciting part is that this may lead to a faster fast matrix multiplication algorithm which will be huge. The current bound is O(n^~2.372). They could very feasibly hit the theoretical limit of O(n^2+e).
Both Intel and Nvidia have had tremendous problems to compete against ARM / PowerVR. While Nvidia has done a better job

Has Nvidia had any success at all in mobile? At least Intel has managed to get some Atom chips in some obscure Dell tablets and Asus mobile phones.

I'm very curious about this - Nvidia's whole mobile business looks like a flop and Huang's circumspect dismissal of it sounds like sour grapes to me.
Rails 5 provides fragment caching in Action Mailer views
Secret Nazi Messaging Device Discovered–Thanks to EBay
> People aren't "fed up" with on-premise enterprise.

Do you happen to know if the 'no one gets fired for buying IBM' attitude has changed significantly in big enterprise markets ?
What I was trying to say is that moral facts exist because our behavior is bound by certain 'themes', and that those themes only exist do to moral reasoning (that we may not actually control.) That is, there is no 'maximally objective' vantage point from which a human can base their reasoning in such a way that it will be free from any morality. There are moral conclusions that are simply primitive logical constructs, and the only way to reject them would be to reject reasoning altogether. (For example, you have a moral obligation to think. If you choose not to think, then you certainly can't be thinking with any kind of amoral objectivity. You're not reasoning anything anymore.)

>This, shorter, amounts to "Moral facts exist because humans employ moral language and must to survive".

I would have said "Moral facts exist because humans fundamentally cannot reason or survive without employing moral language." This isn't a coincidence, either. We don't 'happen' to employ morals, we think, therefore we think morally.

>As Hume writes "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger."

Hume is wrong. Any mind which could make such an assertion implicitly assumes there is value in making such a statement, and thus implicitly assumes whatever existential values are necessary to support a world where such assertions are possible. To do otherwise is self-contradictory, and not a good basis for a convincing arguments.
RE: #1 so a system that works similarly to ours today (if you can afford better health care, you get better health care) that ALSO helps those who can't afford even basic healthcare... is somehow worse than what we have today? You lost me.

Also, I don't think a person on the face of the planet has suggested that the VA would be a good system to model nationalized health care on.
rqlite v3: Globally Replicating SQLite via Raft and Go
I was thinking of doing this, with the specific added feature of ensuring the page is displayed, and periodically refreshed.

In case of server returning non-200 response, it should wait a few seconds and refresh. In case of network disconnected (especially when using wifi), same thing - refresh the page.

The periodic refresh is necessary for pages that don't refresh, but even for wallboard-designed content that stays updated, scripts break and things go wrong. The browser itself refreshing is a fail-safe. You should never have to touch these things once they're installed, and that includes doing a hard reboot.

Another nice-to-have feature: turning off the display signal at night (letting the display sleep) and turning it back on in the morning. With computer monitors this is easy, with TVs it probably needs HDMI-CEC, but seems possible.
>Providing a reliable connection between the Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn by rail will provide more direct trips within and between these boroughs than either the subway or bus networks can do today. Buses make up 43% of transit ridership in these three boroughs, but buses operate at an average speed of 8 mph as they fight the city’s heavy traffic.

It's amazing to see New York City suffer almost half a century after Robert Moses's decline.

One of the worst consequences of Moses's 600 (or was it 700?) miles of highway is how residential areas outside of Manhattan developed: Because he built the city around highways and hence commuting by car, residential areas outside of Manhattan developed into thinly spread suburbs, making it near impossible to create an efficient network of trains. To New York City's credit, they've made a laudable comeback with subways: After all, it's the city you can live without owning cars in the United States. Yet, our generation continues to pay the price of Moses's ego and lack of foresight.

RM is a humbling reminder that getting wrong stuff done so effectively has grave and lasting consequences.
Good to see you online. Wanna help write some rust with me?
http://github.com/posix4e/rust-metrics
This is not correct. Courts in the US are very dubious of automatic rights transfers and I doubt a ToS that included them would fly. ToS boilerplate usually grants the company an unlimited license to the content, but they do not own it. The original rightsholder, which, in the case of status updates, family photos, etc., is usually the person who posted it, continues to hold the copyright, and thus, should be allowed to download it as he or she sees fit. But a judge ruled that Power Ventures had violated a variety of tech access and intellectual property laws by creating a scraper that allowed just that: a scraper to easily export his data out of Facebook.

>Networks exist because not everyone is an admin and web developer and wants to build their own website, and unless you own the pipe to the servers, the servers themselves, the software running on the server, and so on you have exactly whatever rights your provider of choice says you have and not one iota more.

That's not technically correct, but we'll accept it for purposes of argument because it's not super far off for some access modes. I'm saying that it doesn't have to be that way. A lot of people hear about these things, acknowledge the injustice and weirdness in them, and then just move on with their day, seemingly believing that it's something that can't be altered. We can alter it. We don't have to grant Facebook an arbitrary monopoly. We don't have to allow them to restrict us from gathering the data that we rightfully own just because we've shared it on their platform. Let's change it.

It's difficult to change and difficult to make people aware of this situation because, obviously, incumbent interests want to keep their monopolies, so they spend and lobby and produce and proclaim to try and keep them, and to make people think that there's nothing that can be done about it. It's not that way in real life.
Dose of transplanted blood-forming stem cells affects their behavior
If that were the case, then the dividens should be paid proportionally to the "collective" taxpayer... the ones who paid the most taxes... the wealthy.

You totally don't get it and probably never will. Wealth isn't created equally and will never be. Do yourself a favor and read up on Venezuela.
All I ever needed to know about Python [pdf]
Is Responsive Web Design Practical?