SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Next-generation LHC: CERN lays out plans for €21-billion super-collider
CERN has unveiled its bold dream to build a new accelerator nearly four times as long as its 27-kilometer Large Hadron Collider—currently the world's largest—and up to six times more powerful.
The European particle physics laboratory, outside Geneva, Switzerland, outlined the plan in a technical report on 15 January.
The document offers several preliminary designs for a Future Circular Collider (FCC)—which would be the most powerful particle-smasher ever built—with different types of colliders ranging in cost from around €9 billion (US$10.2 billion) to €21 billion. It is the lab's opening bid in a priority-setting process over the next two years, called the European Strategy Update for Particle Physics, and it will affect the field's future well into the second half of the century.
[...] Not everyone is convinced the super collider is a good investment. "There is no reason to think that there should be new physics in the energy regime that such a collider would reach," says Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physics at Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies in Germany. "That's the nightmare that everyone has on their mind but doesn't want to speak about."
Hossenfelder says that the large sums involved might be better spent on other types of huge facilities. For example, she says that placing a major radio telescope on the far side of the Moon, or a gravitational-wave detector in orbit, would be safer bets in terms of their return on science.
CERN press release and poster.
Also at The Verge.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 16 2019, @05:47AM
The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.
( https://slashdot.org/submission/9087542/author-recinds-gpl [slashdot.org] )
[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.]
The original author, after years of silence, notes that the "Geek Feminist" changed[1] a bunch of if-then statements which were preceded by a loop waiting for string input to a switch statement. The author reportedly noted that to use a switch statement in such an instance is no more preformant than the if-thens. Switch statements should be used where the input to the switch statement is numerical, and of a successive nature, for most efficient use of the jump table that is generated from said code.
The author reportedly was offended, after quiet observation of the group, that the "Geek Feminists" mocked his code, mocked his existence as a male, and never did any work on the code afterwards and never updated to include new slot machines added to the original code by author subsequently.
The author notes that he neither sought nor received any compensation for the granted license, that is was a gratuitous license, and that there never was any refutation of his default right to rescind given. (A right founded in the property law of licenses.)
The copyright owner has reportedly watched quietly as each year the "Geek Feminists" published a recount of their heroic efforts regarding his code.[2][3] Presumably he has now had enough of it all...
The author notes that the SF Conservancy attempts to construe a particular clause in the GPL version 2 license text as a "no revocation by grantor clause", however that clause states that if a licensee suffers and automatic-revocation by operation of the license, that licensees down stream from him do not suffer the same fate. The author of "GPC-Slots 2" reportedly notes that said clause does only what it claims to do: clarifies that a downstream licensee, through no fault of his own, is not penalized by the automatic revocation suffered by a licensee he gained a "sub-license" from (for lack of a better term.)
The author reportedly notes that version 3 of the GPL did not exist when he published the code, additionally the author notes that even if there was a clause not to revoke, he was paid no consideration for such a forbearance of a legal right of his and thus said clause is not operative against him, the grantor, should it exist at all.
(Editor's note: GPL version 3 contains an explicit "no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, in addition to a term-of-years that the license is granted for. Both absent in version 2 of the GPL)
The author reportedly has mulled an option to register his copyright and then to seek damages from the "Geek Feminists" if they choose to violate his copyright post-hence.
(Editors note: Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can amount to $150,000 plus attorney's fees for post registration violations of a differing nature to pre-registration violations.)
[1]https://geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/
[2]https://geekfeminism.org
[3]http://geekfeminism.wikia.com
GPC-Slots 2 is a text console mode casino game available for linux with various slot machines, table games, and stock market tokens for the player to test his luck. For the unlucky there is a Russian Roulette function.
[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.]
Addendum: Statements from the program author:
"It's my right to rescind the permission I extended.
I have done so.
You speak as if me controlling my property is a criminal act.
And to you people, perhaps it is.
If the "geek feminists" wanted a secured interest, they would have to pay for one."
"I did rescind the license, yesterday"
>Reportedly
"I did rescind the license, yesterday
Not "reportedly" anymore."
"
>Then you should have used them.
Not necessary, the language used in the press release identifies them easily.
>should
As if I somehow can't just rescind using their names either.
License to use/modify/etc the GPC Slots 2 code is hereby terminated for. Alex "Skud" Bayley, and Leigh Honeywell.
(Note: this termination is not to be construed as a lifting of the previously issued termination regarding the "Geek Feminism collective", this termination is an addendum)
"
"
You will just keep saying that I cannot rescind permission to use my property.
And you are wrong.
I can and _I HAVE_ (from the previously identified people). I have that power as the owner of the work. It is not YOUR work, it is not THE WORLD's property (I did _not_ dedicate it to the public domain), it is M I N E.
I know this very well. I am studied in the law. I know the bullshit defenses non-owners try to pull against owners (mostly equity "pleees not fair judge" - usually when they don't like an increase in payments)
There is no K, I am not bound by the terms that I require people using my property to follow. If they do not follow the terms they are simply violating MY copyright and I sue for damages. If I decide I don't want them to use my property I can revoke permission at any time, then if they continue to use it: again they are violating MY copyright and I sue them for damages.
"
------------------------------------------------------------
p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"
--Lawrence Rosen
p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.
--Lawrence Rosen
p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest is revocable."
--Lawrence Rosen
Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law
p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/:
...
The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."
--Lawrence Rosen