Add reading notes

reading/articles/health-running-good-or-bad.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+Is Running Good Or Bad For Your Health?
+=======================================
+2016-09-14: Marcelo Gleiser:
+http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/09/14/493803246/is-running-good-or-bad-for-your-health
+
+A famous 2014 study led by [Duck-chul Lee][Lee] that followed 55,000
+adults for more than 15 years concluded that even modest amounts of
+running, around 50 minutes a week total, causes a 30 percent drop in
+all-cause mortality risk and an average increase of three years in
+lifespan. ...
+
+The issue here, as pointed out in an excellent special report by Alex
+Hutchinson published this month in Runner's World, is what happens
+long term to your heart if you are a pretty serious runner, averaging
+20 or more miles a week consistently for a long time. ...
+
+Excessive running may thicken the heart tissue, causing fibrosis or
+scarring, and this may lead to atrial fibrillation or irregular
+heartbeat. Prolonged exercise may also lead to "oxidative stress," a
+buildup of free radicals that may bind with cholesterol to create
+plaque in your arteries. ...
+
+Williams, on the other hand, insists that more is better. In his huge
+study, he found that men running at least 40 miles a week (a pretty
+serious mileage) were 26 percent less likely to develop coronary heart
+disease than those running just 13 miles per week. According to
+Williams, the apparent discrepancy between the two studies is sample
+size: "At 156,000 subjects, we're bigger than they are. So I'll stand
+behind our data."
+
+[Lee]: http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleID=1891600
+
+---
+
+**Notes:**
+
+- Marcelo Gleiser is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist — and a
+  professor of natural philosophy, physics and astronomy at Dartmouth
+  College.
+- Conclusions: Running, even 5 to 10 min/day and at slow speeds <6
+  miles/h, is associated with markedly reduced risks of death from all
+  causes and cardiovascular disease. This study may motivate healthy but
+  sedentary individuals to begin and continue running for substantial
+  and attainable mortality benefits. (from the paper titled
+  ["Leisure-Time Running Reduces All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality
+  Risk"][Lee] by Lee, Pate, Lavie, Sui, Church, and Blair)
+- Paul T. Williams, a biostatistician from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
+
+---

reading/articles/legal-internet-dealing-with-spam.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+Dealing with spam emails
+========================
+2012-12-27: Kian Ganz:
+http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/Dk622OcXlcR4W7ai6vPzHI/DEALING-WITH-SPAM-EMAILS.html
+
+The point to all this, apart from some minor annoyance to our email
+reading habits, is that unlike in many other countries, there is
+really no law in India to regulate what companies can or cannot do
+with your personal data.
+
+HSA Advocates partner Salman Waris, who specializes in data protection
+laws -- or the lack thereof in Indialls me, however, that some
+sections of the much maligned Information Technology (IT) Act could be
+helpful here.
+
+For one, under section 79 of the Act, Internet intermediaries must
+take care and diligence with regard to the services they provide,
+which read together with section 43A of the Act (compensation for
+failure to protect personal data from theft), can "indirectly bring
+into play a data privacy law", explains Waris.
+
+But there is no specific law that would obligate them or would impose
+a penalty on companies that started sending out spam. Several drafts
+of full-fledged Indian data protection Acts have languished without
+ever passing into law, though of course significant progress has been
+made by the department of telecommunications with telephone "do not
+disturb" registers and SMS spam curbs. ...
+
+For example, Waris posits that under Section 66A of the IT Act, if
+interpreted generously, there could be some action against ruthless
+email spammers who do not leave you alone with their clients' sales
+messages.
+
+Section 66A, of course, came into recent national infamy after the
+death of Bal Thackeray and the arrest of two young women who had
+posted allegedly offensive messages about the subsequent Mumbai
+shutdown on Facebook. Well, if their messages were offensive, then it
+might just be possible to argue that spam is, too.
+
+
+---
+
+**Notes:**
+
+- The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000, or the
+  IT Act) is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on
+  17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with
+  cybercrime and electronic commerce. It is based on the United Nations
+  Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996 (UNCITRAL Model) recommended by
+  the General Assembly of United Nations by a resolution dated 30
+  January 1997.
+- On 19 November 2012, a 21-year-old girl was arrested from Palghar for
+  posting a message on Facebook criticising the shutdown in Mumbai for
+  the funeral of Bal Thackeray. Another 20-year-old girl was arrested
+  for "liking" the post. They were initially charged under Section 295A
+  of the Indian Penal Code (hurting religious sentiments) and Section
+  66A of the IT Act. Later, Section 295A was replaced by Section 505(2)
+  (promoting enmity between classes). A group of Shiv Sena workers
+  vandalised a hospital run by the uncle of one of girls. On 31 January
+  2013, a local court dropped all charges against the girls.
+- On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India, gave the verdict that
+  Section 66A is unconstitutional in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of
+  India case. It however rejected the plea to strike down Sections 69A
+  and 79. The Court said that the offences defined under the law were
+  "open-ended, undefined and vague" and that "public's right to know" is
+  directly affected by it.
+
+Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Technology_Act,_2000
+
+---

reading/articles/legal-software-mit-license-line-by-line.md

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+The MIT License, Line by Line
+=============================
+2016-09-21: Kyle E. Mitchell:
+https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-by-Line.html
+
+
+Read the License
+----------------
+
+    The MIT License (MIT)
+
+    Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders>
+
+    Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
+    a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
+    "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
+    without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
+    distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
+    permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
+    the following conditions:
+
+    The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
+    included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+    THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
+    EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
+    MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
+    IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
+    CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
+    TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
+    SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
+
+The license is arranged in five paragraphs, but breaks down logically like this:
+
+* Header
+  * License Title: "The MIT License"
+  * Copyright Notice: "Copyright (c) ..."
+* License Grant: "Permission is hereby granted ..."
+  * Grant Scope: "... to deal in the Software ..."
+  * Conditions: "... subject to ..."
+    * Attribution and Notice: "The above ... shall be included ..."
+    * Warranty Disclaimer: *"The software is provided 'as is' ..."*
+    * Limitation of Liability: *"In no event ..."*
+
+
+Header
+------
+
+### License Title
+
+The Fedora Project maintains a [kind of cabinet of MIT license
+curiosities][FP-MIT], with insipid variations preserved in plain text
+like anatomical specimens in formaldehyde, tracing a wayward kind of
+evolution.
+
+Fortunately, the [Open Source Initiative][OSI] and [Software Package
+Data eXchange][SPDX] groups have standardized a generic MIT-style
+license form as "The MIT License". OSI in turn has adopted SPDX'
+standardized [string identifiers][SPDX-IDS] for common open-source
+licenses, with `MIT` pointing unambiguously to the standardized form
+"MIT License". If you want MIT-style terms for a new project, use
+[the standardized form][SPDX-MIT]. ...
+
+[FP-MIT]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT
+[OSI]: https://opensource.org/
+[SPDX]: https://spdx.org/
+[SPDX-IDS]: http://spdx.org/licenses/
+[SPDX-MIT]: http://spdx.org/licenses/MIT
+
+While various license forms calling themselves "MIT License" vary only
+in minor details, the looseness of what counts as an "MIT License" has
+tempted some authors into adding bothersome "customizations". The
+canonical horrible, no good, very bad example of this is [the JSON
+license][JSON-MIT], an MIT-family license plus "The Software shall be
+used for Good, not Evil.". This kind of thing might be "very Crockford".
+It is definitely a pain in the ass.
+
+[JSON-MIT]: https://spdx.org/licenses/JSON
+
+
+### Copyright Notice
+
+In each case, the institution listed itself as the copyright holder in
+reliance on rules of copyright ownership, called "[works made for
+hire][WMH-1976]" rules, that give employers and clients ownership of
+copyright in some work their employees and contractors do on their
+behalf. These rules don't usually apply to distributed collaborators
+submitting code voluntarily. ...
+
+[WMH-1976]: http://worksmadeforhire.com/
+
+Rather, each contributor has copyright in any [even marginally
+creative][WP-FP-RTSC] work they make using the existing code as a
+starting point. ...
+
+[WP-FP-RTSC]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications,_Inc.,_v._Rural_Telephone_Service_Co.
+
+Despite the assumption of some newer open-source developers that sending
+a pull request on GitHub "automatically" licenses the contribution for
+distribution on the terms of the project's existing license, United
+States law doesn't recognize any such rule. Strong copyright
+*protection*, not permissive licensing, is the default. ...
+
+To fill the gap between legally effective, well-documented grants of
+rights in contributions and no paper trail at all, some projects have
+adopted the [Developer Certificate of Origin][DCO], a standard statement
+contributors allude to using `Signed-Off-By` metadata tags in their Git
+commits.
+
+[DCO]: http://developercertificate.org/
+
+
+License Grant
+-------------
+
+The law sometimes distinguishes licenses from promises to give licenses.
+If someone breaks a promise to give a license, you may be able to sue
+them for breaking their promise, but you may not end up with a license.
+"Hereby" is one of those hokey, archaic-sounding words lawyers just
+can't get rid of. It's used here to show that the license text itself
+gives the license, and not just a promise of a license. It's a legal
+[IIFE][WP-IIFE].
+
+[WP-IIFE]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediately-invoked_function_expression
+
+
+### Grant Scope
+
+The right to sublicense means the right to give others licenses of their
+own, to do some or all of what you have permission to do. The MIT
+License's right to sublicense is actually somewhat unusual in
+open-source licenses generally. The norm is what Heather Meeker calls a
+"direct licensing" approach, where everyone who gets a copy of the
+software and its license terms gets a license direct from the owner.
+Anyone who might get a sublicense under the MIT License will probably
+end up with a copy of the license telling them they have a direct
+license, too. ...
+
+The general language "deal in" and some of the example verbs, especially
+"use", point toward a patent license, albeit a very unclear one. The
+fact that the license comes from the copyright holder, who may or may
+not have patent rights in inventions in the software, as well as most of
+the example verbs and the definition of "the Software" itself, all point
+strongly toward a copyright license. More recent permissive open-source
+licenses, like [Apache 2.0][APACHE-20], address copyright, patent, and
+even trademark separately and specifically.
+
+[APACHE-20]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+
+
+### Warranty Disclaimer
+
+Nearly every state in the United States has enacted a version of the
+Uniform Commercial Code, a model statute of laws governing commercial
+transactions. ...
+
+Some of the UCC's rules about sales contracts are mandatory. These rules
+always apply, whether those buying and selling like them or not. Others
+are just "defaults". Unless buyers and sellers opt out in writing, the
+UCC implies that they want the baseline rule found in the UCC's text for
+their deal.
+
+
+### Limitation of Liability
+
+In general, courts read limitations of liability and damages exclusions
+warily, since they can shift an incredible amount of risk from one side
+to another. To protect the community's vital interest in giving folks a
+way to redress wrongs done in court, they "strictly construe" language
+limiting liability, reading it against the one protected by it where
+possible. Limitations of liability have to be specific to stand up. ...
+
+Drilling down a bit, the "limitation of liability" part is a cap on the
+amount of money a licensee can sue for. In open-source licenses, that
+limit is always no money at all, $0, "not liable". By contrast, in
+commercial licenses, it's often a multiple of license fees paid in the
+last 12-month period, though it's often negotiated. ...
+
+Tort rules are general rules against carelessly or maliciously harming
+others. If you run someone down on the road while texting, you have
+committed a tort. If your company sells faulty headphones that burn
+peoples' ears off, your company has committed a tort.
+
+
+---
+
+**Notes:**
+
+Apache License 2.0 (Section 5) states an inbound = outbound rule due to
+which inbound contributions are automatically licensed under the
+license. (from [Hacker News discussion][HN-MIT] on this article)
+
+[HN-MIT]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12559169
+
+---