Slashdot Mirror

I've always made the assumption that if our universe followed the bang/crunch/bang model, that it would not be an infinite process.

The rationale is simple: massive amounts of energy are given off by the process and never reclaimed -- one can convert mass to high-energy particles, but reversing the process is unpossible to our knowledge. Perhaps it's different on the macro scale, but it is very likely that eventually we'd run out of mass.

Mostly irrelevant I suppose because the universe has been found to be infinitely expanding, but it's nice to have mathematical proof of my scientific guesses.

There are so many considerations they have to take into account in order to get the thing to go -- weight of the plane (obviously they're using composites and miniaturized electronics, and avoiding fatty food), aerodynamics, weather, and even the mix of petrol has to be taken into account by our intrepid adventurers.

In its own way, it's like coding for embedded devices, but higher up and with a propeller. I'd think more geeks would be into it, especially with all the equipment you get to work with.

While searching for materials on OS design fundamentals for X86 protected mode, I came across an interesting story about the heated race to unseat the leading producer of chips as computers were becoming a commodity item in homes (586+ days). Apparently, a number of the compatibility issues with the earlier 'clones' and the 586 were ironed out as a result of an agreement to share chip designs, but goes into more detail about the issues facing increasing silicon densities as well.

It's very interesting to look back and think about how differently things could have turned out.

Your standard EULA might not be enforcable because there is a 'lack of consideration' in the contract. Basically , you don't read your average EULA until you bought the box it came in, and they're trying to get you to give up something in exchange for nothi ng (you already purchased the software).

On the other hand, the GPL gives you something (the right to copy, change, etc.) in exchange for something (play by their rules)... so even if it comes in a box you purchased you're still being given something.

Although, if you decide you won't use any of the additional rights the GPL grants, are you still bound by it if you, say, bought a RedHat package full of GNU so ftware? You're paying to use it, right?

The above is a synopsis of an excellent discussion in Brown Eye Journal... be forewarned, it's a p ainful read.

Your standard EULA might not be enforcable because there is a 'lack of consideration' in the contract. Basically, you don't read your average EULA until you bought the box it came in, and they're trying to get you to give up something in exchange for nothing (you already purchased the software).

On the other hand, the GPL gives you something (the right to copy, change, etc.) in exchange for something (play by their rules)... so even if it comes in a box you purchased you're still being given something.

Although, if you decide you won't use any of the additional rights the GPL grants, are you still bound by it if you, say, bought a RedHat package full of GNU software? You're paying to use it, right?

The above is a synopsis of an excellent discussion in Brown Eye Journal... be forewarned, it's a painful read.

...of shrinkwrap and in-the-box licenses would also seem to favor the bnetd project. Legal Bytes has a pretty in depth look at shrinkwrap licensing issues. It brings up the idea that shrinkwrap licensing is a 'contract by adhesion' and therefore possibly not valid because it amends the sale after the fact. EULA flaws would seem to suggest that because the EULA is a contract that requires you to agree to give up rights in order to use something you already own (by purchasing it from the store) it lacks consideration and is therefore void.

Therefore, why doesn't someone take one of these corporations to court already?