Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Researchers come face to face with huge great white shark
Two shark researchers who came face to face with what could be one of the largest great whites ever recorded are using their encounter as an opportunity to push for legislation that would protect sharks in Hawaii.
Ocean Ramsey, a shark researcher and conservationist, told The Associated Press that she encountered the 20-foot (6-meter) shark Tuesday near a dead sperm whale off Oahu.
The event was documented and shared on social media by her fiancé and business partner Juan Oliphant.
The Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources said it was aware of photos of the great white and that tiger sharks also have been feeding on the whale.
Oliphant, who photographed the now-viral images, said it's unclear if the shark is the famed Deep Blue, believed to be the largest great white ever recorded.
"She looks the part right now," Oliphant said about the shark spotted Tuesday. "Maybe even more exciting that there is another massive, you know, super-size great white shark out there. Because their populations are so dwindling."
Ramsey, who operates Oahu-based One Ocean Diving and Research with Oliphant, said she has been pushing for several years for a bill that would ban the killing of sharks and rays in Hawaii, and hopes this year the measure will become law.
[...] Ramsey said extensive training and time spent studying shark behavior has kept her team and customers safe. She teaches people about how to act and, more importantly, not act when they encounter a shark in the water.
Ramsey and her team observe behavior, identify and tag sharks and share that data with researchers as well as state and federal officials. She said she previously swam with the huge shark on research trips to Guadalupe Island, Mexico.
[...] Ramsey said it's impressive that the great white has survived a "gauntlet of human death traps."
"I don't know how old she is," Ramsey said. "But for her to survive through so many longline fisheries and. you know, gill nets and team nets and fishermen who might just kill her because they think that she is a monster ... it's very special."
Explore further: Dead great white shark found on Cape Cod beach
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @01:48PM (1 child)
The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.
( https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52 [lkml.org] )
( 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
----
>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
>"Termination of rights
>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.
Discussions with author of program involved:
http://8ch.net/tech/res/1013409.html [8ch.net]
http://8ch.net/tech/res/1017824.html [8ch.net]
http://8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html [8ch.net]
(Score: 2, Funny) by DannyB on Monday January 21 2019, @02:37PM
You could more productively focus on things that would benefit every single American.
For example: working towards Hawaii passing legislation that would protect great white sharks right to mate with any gender of their choosing.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Monday January 21 2019, @03:27PM
Aka the Shark Buffet. She sounds like a future Steve Irwin fatality.
Sure it might not be all that common with shark killings but that doesn't mean I would want to swim next to something that is 6+ meters long and eats puny creatures like humans for breakfast if it just fancies it, not like you could stop them at that moment in time. Sort of like why I don't want to hang out with Bears in the woods or any animal that is larger then myself for that matter.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nuke on Monday January 21 2019, @05:31PM (1 child)
If they don't eat conservationists handed to them on a plate, even hot blonde ones, just what do they eat?
BTW, that link choked my browser (FF 60.4) for a short while.
(Score: 4, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday January 21 2019, @07:23PM
Internet trolls.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @08:24PM (3 children)
There is a serious point to be made, despite the stupid comments.
The oceans of our planet have had sharks for something like 420 million years. About the only organisms that have been around longer are the jellyfish.
Something like 100 million sharks are murdered every year for stupid "traditional" medicine and shark's fin soup. There will be no sharks left in a very short time if we keep killing them at that rate, and our planet will lose an important part of the ecosystem.
Thank you for reading. Please don't try to adopt a shark. They will eat you.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Monday January 21 2019, @09:01PM (2 children)
Perhaps you think my comment was stupid but there was in fact a serious question in there. Which is : what do these things eat and why do they not eat a human being even when it would be easy to do so?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by arslan on Monday January 21 2019, @09:27PM
Maybe they eat when they're hungry, not just because there is a buffet line like obesity Joe at the buffet line. The lady probably knows her thing and not to lead herself or her customers into the water where sharks are looking for a feeding.
That particular great white probably stuffed itself full from the dead sperm whale blubber nearby and couldn't be bothered to swallow a bony hot blonde coming over to give it some post feed stroking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday January 21 2019, @10:29PM
I wasn't getting at you specifically, but sharks eat whatever doesn't eat them.
Most sharks don't eat people because humans are not really a recognized prey, (or, of course they're not big enough) but of course a surfer in a wetsuit looks a lot like a seal, so they do get bitten every now and then.
My point is that for almost as long as life has existed, sharks have done well.
The fact they probably won't survive much longer is not only awful, it could well have knock-on effects we can't yet see coming.