license is probably the reason they’re doing it. no way around that without infringing copyright law I guess.

you could check how other FOSS do it. e.g. you externally link it as a library and use another license the user has to agree on just for that.

screw syncterm, what’s a good & secure BBS software for linux? with doors and mails and nice menu navigation, zmodem and everything…?

I remember amiexpress and prometheus from amiga times, they were a breeze to setup, configure & maintain.

What are you trying to prevent? You can’t release anything (opensource or not) without risking someone stealing the idea without patenting.

No FOSS license will prevent that (quite the opposite, it encourages copying/modifications). Those licenses just prevent someone using your code commercially without releasing the source code again.

not sure why you think that. if it’s indistinguishable, it’s still prior art. If it’s something better or different than your code, it’s a new thing.

Patents protect technical principles, not actual sourcecode.

no, the patent office would find your publication, deem it Prior Art and not grant the patent. If it would miss it (some don’t research very well), anyone can notify them to void the patent afterwards anytime.

IANAL, there are lawyers specialized on patents who’ll reassure you for free/cheap (relatively, they are friggin expensive). It also depends on legislature. Countries that break/never agreed to the PCT will do what they please.

NAL but my understanding always was, that you can’t patent anything in your name, when it’s already published.

That would make any patent related clause void anyway.

I’m no expert either but I never got the idea of a new universe popping up everytime. Do other universes also cause popups of new universes or just ours? That’d escalate quickly :-)

I thought it goes that there’s already infinite universes existing from the big bang on. Otherwise universes would be created without big bang. (The new universe would just pop up and you’d still believe it was created by the big bang but there never was one)

Also I’m not sure if laws of thermodynamics had to span accross universes. Take two theoretical perfect vacuum/radiation sealed boxes you put an energy source into. There’s no way to communicate between boxes. Each box had it’s own entropy and state of energy. Both would obey the laws of physics while being separate “systems”.

That thought experiment wouldn’t work, if new boxes had to pop up if one of the boxes wanted to.

why would alternative universes share a single source of energy? couldn’t each have their own?

healthy eyesight was just a small price to pay back in those days :-P

wouldn’t make that consent even harder? or imply wars?

e.g. Brazil. Imagine they got the last lumber on earth, they’d have to choose between preserving their last trees and incredible wealth by selling it. I can’t imagine a poor country to choose the former.

OSMAnd+ is a feature beast. It seems like you can customize EVERYTHING.

I find search improved a lot tho.

I don’t believe a CEO or King is necessary for short sighted action. Humans are just very bad at sustainable long-term decisions.

I know a guy who owns a small forrest and when wood prices were skyrocketing due to supply chain disruption, he was tempted to sell more wood than planned. So he couldn’t sell as much in the following years. He has no boss, is not rich and makes his own decisions.

It’s a simple mechanism of supply and demand. I can’t see a reason why people wouldn’t cut down more trees than can grow back when demand is ultra high, other than force/legislation. And then people get angry because they won’t realize that they’d destroy their own business in the long run. A worldwide life-threatening situation won’t change that.

That’s exactly one of the premises in this paper: Deforestation and world population sustainability: a quantitative analysis.

Some say, the easter island model doesn’t scale worldwide but I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t.

was first to report about israel’s nukes, exposed journalists on CIA payroll and various other great pieces of journalism.

It is a music magazine but I see far worse news sources on social media.

We live in the real world. If you don’t submit the government forms how they want you to, they shrug and fine the shit out of you.

Then you just don’t know the law. There is no legislation that enforces Acrobat in any civilized country without alternative.

Quite the opposite: Send macroridden documents to any decently secure infrastructure and you get a big fat warning in the subject if it’s not filtered entirely. Officials LOVE to do that extra call ensuring that this document is really from you before opening it and no phishing attempt…not.

Source: working >25 years in IT, >15 years for government IT

EDIT: we got some real Adobe Acrobat Fanboy here, eh? ;-)

So you are saying

“The belief that climate change is unstoppable”

is the same thing as

“a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity”

Those are fundamentially different things and you just pulled some study you think is fitting to OPs article. But allright… I’m the one who’s illiterate.

Guy said “don’t be hyperbolic about the 1.5c goal because if people feel hopeless they are less likely to act.”

Then he’s wrong. But it’s more likely you misread the study since that’s not the conclusion.

100.0 TiB(anana)

there will be a ‘bastards up against the wall’ moment for the ones responsible.

i can’t see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without “state of emergency”) lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.