Slashdot Mirror

You'd do best to use a repository that was designed to fit your needs so you're not constantly butting heads with your version control system.

I'd love to know if such thing exists (in an open source form, ideally). As far as I'm aware, no such thing exists. (Boar is getting close, however, so I'm hopeful).

1. Method of producing an authentication code (CA), comprising cycles for reading binary words (Mn) out of a secret memory (21) comprising a plurality of binary words, wherein, at each cycle, the address for reading a word out of the secret memory (21) is generated from an address generating binary word (GA) forming the result of a combination operation (Fc, ) of words (M1 to Mn) read out of the memory during previous cycles, characterised in that it comprises a transform operation of the address generating word (GA) consisting in logically combining at least one bit (g'0, g'1, g'2) of the address generating word (GA) with at least one bit (r1, r4, r6) of a pseudo-random shift register (26).

8. Logic machine (20, 20-1, 30) clocked by a clock signal (H), comprising a secret memory (21) in which a plurality of binary words read out at clock rate are stored, wherein the output of the memory (21) is applied to a first input (A) of a logic circuit (22) whose output (C) is fed back to the second input (B), the logic circuit (22) performing a combination (Fc, "+") of its two inputs (A, B) and producing an address generating binary word (GA) supplied to the address input (ADR) of the memory, characterised in that it comprises a pseudo-random shift register (26) and logic means (25-1, 27) for combining at least one bit (r1, r4, r6) of the shift register (26) with at least one bit (g'0, g'1, g'2) of the address generating word (GA).

Microsoft has been struggling with ever increasing monitor resolutions, i.e. the HighDPI issues that todays display cause.

I worked at Microsoft from 1998 to 2008. One day around 2002, on my way to lunch, I noticed a three foot high wall of these marble cubes they give employees when they are awarded a patent. This guy had maybe 100 of them. Employees there sometimes proudly display their 2-3 cubes, and most have none, so I was curious. I stopped by his office to talk to him for a second and ask what he was working on. He was working on various problems with high resolution displays. He showed me his $25,000 graphics setup from IBM usually used for things like radiology. I think it was 16x 1024x768 so 4096x3072, which was monsterous at the time.

My point is just that they obviously saw this problem coming a long time ago, and put some really smart people on it. So I'm a little dumbfounded that now that the resolutions are becoming common, they appear to be struggling with it.

from the summary

"They just don't want other parts of the system to be wholly dependent on systemd."

That is really the crux of the issue and what distinguishes the systemd dispute from all the other FOSS food fights. The FOSS community never agrees on anything. That is why we have multiple everything: Multiple Kernels (BSD & Linux Kernels, multiple flavors of each) many distributions of each flavor, a host of programming and scripting languages, multiple package management tools (rpm, portage, dpkg) several GUI toolkits, GNOME and KDE desktop environments etc. Wayland is not enough, we must also have Mir. And the licenses. Egads! How many of those do we need?

Despite all the passion and ego involved, disagreement between adherents of particular designs and implementations has never before risen to the level of open revolt that we see over systemd. Why? Because in all these disputes each person can choose what is best for him/herself. Like Python and despise Perl? Use Python. Vice versa? Use Perl. But the usual rule of the user getting to pick what he likes best does not apply with systemd. Lennart Poettering is working to restrict choice to only systemd. His tactic is to make systemd a dependency of major software packages. Here he ison the Gnome dev list pushing a Gnome systemd dependency.

Sometimes an unpopular item is replaced on the buffet; Good software wins out and variety shrinks a bit. That can be a good thing. But the fear is that systmd is going to win not because it is a popular choice but because Poettering has gamed the outcome using dependencies. Something is wrong if you are running systemd because you hate it and you love Gnome. Perhaps the fanatical hatred of Poettering is driven by belief that systemd adoption is advanced in part by his cheating, instead of on the merits of systemd alone. The abusers are abusing not because he has written what they judge to be bad software but because he has violated an unspoken ethic of the FOSS community.

Pebble won that race. unfortunately lacks the marketing power of Apple and thus, they will become moot in not so long.

Assuming that was actually true (big assumption), whose fault is it that Apple is so much better at marketing? Is it Apple's fault? A vast right-wing conspiracy? Don't you think that if Pebble had come out with something really spectacular, rather than a black and white screen with graphics almost as good as Intellivision, they would have gotten a huge amount of publicity for truly beating Apple to the punch? Instead, they put out an embarrassment.

I should have stated that it's multiple factors, but space is indeed one for some of the US shipyards:

This is the Ingalls Shipyard in MS https://www.google.com/maps/pl... Where some of the larger military ships are built, I can't tell, not knowing when the photo was taken, but my guess is the large ship in the river to the right is LHA-6 before being turned over to the navy. You can see there just is not space to build many at one time.

Yes, there are larger shipyards in the US, but many of them are completely surrounded by urban areas and have to room to grow. So it's not the only facter but is a real one.

Here it is:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...

where do I get a full list of these links?

https://www.google.com/transpa...

I'm not aware of any claims that ClearType is fuzzy, which, while a fuzzy term, is clear in its intention. If anything, complaints about ClearType tend to be the opposite: its forced conformance to pixel boundaries (in order to avoid fuzziness) distorts the shape of letters (particularly at a small size), thus impairing legibility.

Fuzzy/blurry ClearType is actually a quite common complaint in Windows forums. At least it used to be, haven't seen as much of it lately.

Actually there have been quite a few studies regarding coffee, caffeine and health:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd...

The general consensus is that coffee is GOOD FOR YOU unless you have specific health issues like hypertension, high blood pressure, etc. Go troll on a different subject. You'll lose on this one.

Beer! Now that's another subject. Dark and thick is the best. Just had a Left Hand Brewing Company Nitro "Wake Up Dead" Stout. It almost doesn't need a glass. Yummy.

Cheers,
Dave

Not everything that comes from the NSA is bad. Also, not everything they do can easily conceal backdoors. Some insight into the subject is required to understand what things comming from the NSA are dangerous.

1. Basically, all crypto that uses "magic constants" without a clear and complete spec of how they were reached is highly suspect. That includes most ECC crypto the NSA has done so far and is likely the reason the NSA and some vendors like RSA are pushing for the use of ECC crypto.

2. On a bit more abstract scale, all crypto implementations that do not have their full design and design rationales published are highly suspect. They often represent a compromised design, that, for example, may in some instances get compromised but not in others. ("compromised design", because it is not possible to verify from the outside whether the implementation is compromised or not and there are both compromised and non-compromised implementations that look the same from the outside.) A good example is Intel RDRAND, which is definitely a compromised design. It has a number of design choices that go way beyond "clueless" and must be intentional. The pathetic excuses of the lead developer and the pressure by Intel to use it as the only randomness source basically confirm things: https://plus.google.com/+Theod...

3. But then there are other things. SELinux is an access control layer, and while configuring it is a bit convoluted until you get the hang of it, there is no complex mathematical magic in there that you can use to hide backdoors. In fact, its implementation is rather simple. Hence it can be easily expected, and intentional security flaws will be very hard or impossible to hide. That is why SELinux deserves a high level of trust.

What people overlook is that the NSA is not monolithic. It has its intelligence devision (the evil scum that basically try to take the Internet away by making it as insecure as they can), but they also have a part that is tasked with actually securing IT infrastructure. While the NSA should be disbanded and its former and current leaders should be locked away for life as recognition for all the evil they have done to the human race, they have done and published some pretty good work as well. And as with any government bureaucracy, the right hand of the NSA does not know what the left hand does.

The US has a patent on an Ebola virus..
Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof

Time to sue some Africans for using intellectual property without licensing it first.

court? what fucking court? it doesn't work that way... unfortunately.

so kthxbai go here https://support.google.com/leg...

the law as it is is stupid.

also it's about 50% that google removes, it's ENTIRELY up to google to decide... so it's googles judgement. it would be better imho if they just offloaded it all to /dev/null . like, you can make the request but they could just default everything to denied.. good for bbc to provide the list.

and if you were wondering, yeah, you can request sites from bbc or whatever fucking site to be removed from search results. don't like something? post some info about you in the comments or make a stupid comment and then ask for the result to be removed! brilliant, eh?

The US has a patent on an Ebola virus.. Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof

Looks like a Canadian patent, owned by the " The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Sec Retary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control".

It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.

I noticed that myself. However, as someone who has a few patents to his credit, it's not unusual for companies (and I suppose governments) in North America to file patents in both countries to improve their overall protection. The patent systems in the two countries are subtly different, and patents are still a national jurisdiction (meaning that US patents are unenforceable in Canada, and vice-versa). Things patented in the US but not here in Canada are fair game in Canada, as things currently stand. Canada also doesn't permit quite as wide a range of things that can be patented as the US does, so you can run into a situation where a Canadian company holds a US patent for an invention or process, but which doesn't have an equivalent Canadian patent.

A patent lawyer can probably provide a lot more detail, but if the US Government wants to assert its right to protect its patents in Canada, it has to file them with CIPO.

Yaz

Provided the applications you want to use are ported to Chrome OS as packaged apps. I don't think all apps that I use regularly are ported, but then I'm in a minority because I do software development on my laptop. Would I need to rewrite my apps in JavaScript to develop the overall logic on a Chromebook and then port them back to the target platform on a desktop computer? I was under the impression that developing in anything but JavaScript required SSH.

That's true, but the list of offline-capable Chrome apps is quite long: https://chrome.google.com/webs...

Strictly speaking, you could develop anything in a basic text editor, but I assume you actually want a semi-decent IDE? I don't know of any that aren't javascript-focused on ChromeOS, no.

Which US carrier? Ting quotes me $35/mo for one device and 2 GB/mo.

Sorry, I'm in Denmark, and I know mobile subscriptions vary wildly on either side of the Atlantic. The price you quote is pretty bad, and I assume it limits tethering as well?

I thought the APIs used by most iOS apps were hardcoded to point at iCloud instead of Google Drive, Dropbox, or OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive). But then I've never bought an iOS device. Likewise, does Chrome OS allow switching any arbitrary app to use Dropbox or OneDrive instead of Google Drive? Or should people be choosing apps on the basis of which storage provider they support?

I own an iPad, although not by choice. I've had no issues using Google Drive for all my personal stuff, but it's true that device backups etc. are locked to iCloud.

I don't know about ChromeOS, as I don't have a Chromebook yet. I assume the Google apps use Google Drive, and MS apps use OneDrive, but I don't know about other third-party apps.

The US has a patent on an Ebola virus..
Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof

Looks like a Canadian patent, owned by the " The Government Of The United States Of America As Represented By The Sec Retary, Department Of Health & Human Services, Center For Disease Control".

It's the wrong strain, though. Also I'm not sure why the US government would own a Canadian patent.

I know you can write good software in Javascript. I wrote my file transfer plugin for gmail SenderDefender for the curious, entirely in Javascript, but it seems to me that going forward well defined interfaces and something like NaCl / PNaCl could really change the landscape. I'm hoping that happens not because I'm afraid javascript will take my job, but that there won't be any other options for the web. I think the points you make are good, but don't you think the javascript software quality is generally lower than the other languages? Its entirely subjective, but with few exceptions I find many Node projects to be very rough.

Isn't that more or less the idea behind NaCl/Native Client? It doesn't seem to have caught on. For that matter, there was also ActiveX, and the best that you could say about it is that it had a flawed implementation.

Chrome also just added a runtime for Android apps, which seems to handle at least some simple apps at native speed on my chromebook. I suppose that's a java runtime of some sort?

I know that there are many wonderful things done daily in JS, but I really would prefer another scripting language.

Maybe you could get a Bangladeshi visa and just spend a couple years going to college there?

You can also carry it around in your pocket should you need it. (Together with Maxima, actually.)

You can also carry it around in your pocket should you need it. (Together with Maxima, actually.)

Why not just load the whole thing into a bomb calorimeter? That's the immediately obvious way to measure what they want to measure.

Indeed, that's how BlackLight Power is proving its unconventional energy source.

Why not have a command line on a phone? I use it quite often - on Android, as walled gardens are not my thing - and it enables me to do things on the go which otherwise would require access to a bigger, much less portable device. Yes, the screen is small (3.7", Motorola Defy) but I have good eyes. Yes, the keyboard is not as handy as a full-size keyboard, but this being Android I get to choose an alternative which fits my needs (Hacker's Keyboard. Now that iOS8 allows some limited customization options, this might become possible for that market segment as well.

Maybe your question about 'who would really want a command line on their *phone*' is not that relevant as it only reflects your idea about what your phone should have? Other people have different wants and needs which are just as valid as yours. Some people use their phone as a small, ultra-portable computer. Other people use it as a fashion statement. Yet more use it to play games to bide time.

So... much... precedence...

FreeBSD 10.0 will boot on ZFS, after an easy installation where you do shit on the command line but it's very easy due to the documentation. No idea about doing it on a Macintosh though. That was just a quick try in a vbox VM.

Thanks for the info!

Well, at least a few ZFS (albeit non-bootable?) versions that work at least up to Mavericks (10.9) seem to be alive and well on OS X, as seen here and here. And here is an informative forum thread from someone who has been using ZFS as his primary filesystem on OS X for over 2 years.

However, to answer the GGP's concerns about not supporting ZFS on a boot drive: If you are truly running a "Server"-type of setup, why, oh, why would you be keeping your main data stores on the System (boot) Drive, anyway? And once you are past that point, then it seems like ZFS is pretty much as "supported" on OS X as it is on most *NIX-based systems. That is to say, to a somewhat greater or lesser extent, depending on your needs/expectations.

But if does seem like ZFS on OS X is anything but a "dead" issue, at least as far as the F/OSS community is concerned. Yes, it would be very nice for Apple to take another look at full-support of ZFS, now that it has matured. Let's hope they get serious about it again someday...

Check out the map of drops. Westlake, Tarrytown and Northwest Hills (between Mopac and 360) were completely skipped.

4 years ago: http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/d...

From there:

My suggestion for a "Game Changing" project is that NASA (possibly in partnership with NIST) could coordinate a global effort towards designing and deploying self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and asteroidal ore (developed under free and open source non-proprietary licenses as progress towards "open manufacturing").

NASA showed the basic technological feasibility of this with work in the late 1970s on space habitats, and also in a 1980 study called "Advanced Automation for Space Missions".

In a long-term space mission or a space settlement, a self-sustaining economy must be created and supported. Therefore, addressing the problem of technological fragility on Earth due to long supply lines and the inaccessibility of key manufacturing data (because it is considered proprietary) is an essential step in the development of the development of human settlement in space. Addressing such fragility would have immediate benefits to improve intrinsic and mutual security globally, and would help humanity survive in the face of plagues, wars, global climate change, asteroid strikes, earthquakes, and whatever other disasters might strike unexpectedly. As the loss of New Orleans showed, Mother Nature remains a formidable adversary even when people are not fighting amongst themselves over perceived scarce resources.

A NASA-coordinated effort to organize manufacturing information and use it to design such habitats (or seeds that would grow such habitats), as well as improve the state-of-the-art in collaboration software, could thus help meet needs both currently on Earth and in the future in space.

Nothing NASA is doing now compares with this at all in terms of gaining the excitement and participation of the world's technologists and technically-minded youth, given this project would have the scale of the entire FOSS movement applied to manufacturing (and simulation). Achieving this goal of a self-replicating space habitat could justify literally trillions of dollars in effort to create a technological infrastructure that could support quadrillions of human lives in space, making nonsense of current worries of "Limits to Growth" or "Peak Oil" or "Overpopulation" or whatever else.

While NASA could coordinate this effort, many other organizations including NIST (and its SLIM program), DARPA, universities, and manufacturers globally could also participate in this effort.

As a whole, this project would help increase US security as a sort of public outreach by helping the global security community transcend ironic and outdated visions of what security means, given that so much abundance is possible through modern technology and this NASA effort would demonstrate that:

"Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism "

http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...

See here for more details:

http://groups.google.com/group...?

This effort could also be done in conjunction with this other proposal I made:

"Build 21000 flexible fabrication facilities across the USA "

http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/d...

Poettering wasn't calling out Linus

Follow the link from the story here where you will find he specifically says:

"But more importantly, I'd actually put some blame on a certain circle of folks that play a major role in kernel development, and first and foremost Linus Torvalds himself."

Perhaps in your systemd-induced rage you are the one who isn't paying attention to what is going on around you.

the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects" are... your papers and effects. If you want protection to be applied to technology that didn't exist in the Founding Father's time, then do the honest thing and press for e.g. a constitutional amendment

Why?

Papers... and effects. Do you know what "effects" are? Here's a quick google search that turns up an answer right in the search results, no further linking needed. And it's right there, under noun, definition 3. That's the one the constitution meant. It says:

3. personal belongings.
"the insurance covers personal effects"
synonyms: belongings, possessions, goods, worldly goods, chattels, goods and chattels; property, paraphernalia; informal gear, tackle, things, stuff

So a phone or computer is quite literally (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense) an effect.

Warrant or GTFO.

Just for grins, I looked up the difference between mice and rats on Google. It turns out, rats can play the saxophone! Who knew? https://www.google.com/#q=mous...

So, your ECON 101 course left you with the impression that saving can't be immoderate? That it never crosses a boundary and becomes refusal to spend? That excessive not-spending is somehow not a defining symptom of a depression? It would seem times have changed.

Do the math. Hell, it doesn't take econ 101 to do this math, anybody with google and high-school math skills can do it: under those conditions, what happens to M0 if there is no new money being printed? What happens to M0 even if new money is being printed, and still those who already possess the vast majority of M3 are limitlessly ratcheting up that share? Either, over time, all those who possess the existing money spend it and on average do no better than break even (proportionately, including any new money being printed to cover an expanding economy), or M0 dries up. The big question is, what's a good target?

At some point somebody's going to have to admit in public, and national policy is going to have to revert to being based on the acknowledgment, that a free market is nothing more than a tool, one that can be nudged or with some teamwork directed by those with substantial influence over it toward many ends.

As it stands, enough of the wealthy in this country are working to produce a world nobody else wants to live in — are openly claiming that a person's worth is the least amount of money they can get away with paying for his labor, that because so many people can produce the vast majority of the world's simple wealth and services, as a necessary and right and just and good consequence the few that are needed to actually do it deserve to and should live like slaves, that those who aren't deserve to and should live worse "to encourage them to get jobs", — that they're succeeding.

Presenting a substantial and coherent set of sound arguments in a public debate while simply omitting the idle chatter, the trolls, the other idiots is a valuable service. Necessary, even; it's a way of hosing dirt off the debate. By all accounts (including yours) he did a very, very good job of it.

Mozilla has had nightly 64-bit builds for many months now, but nobody wants to use them to help test and get things working more quickly

You have this backwards. Mozilla tried to kill 64-bit Nightly builds two years ago, even though about 50% of Nightly users were using them at the time. Those users (somewhat predictably) weren't too happy and complained, and Mozilla eventually left 64-bit builds running, but disabled crash reports and automated testing, and refused to commit paid dev time to keeping it compiling or passing the tests. Plus they originally planned to automatically migrate those users to 32-bit, though that never actually happened. That's not exactly "nobody wants to use them to help test".

(References: [1] and [2].)

Of course, fast forward to a few months ago and Chrome's announcements of 64-bit, and suddenly it's "oh, we've been doing 64-bit builds for years".

Mozilla has had nightly 64-bit builds for many months now, but nobody wants to use them to help test and get things working more quickly

You have this backwards. Mozilla tried to kill 64-bit Nightly builds two years ago, even though about 50% of Nightly users were using them at the time. Those users (somewhat predictably) weren't too happy and complained, and Mozilla eventually left 64-bit builds running, but disabled crash reports and automated testing, and refused to commit paid dev time to keeping it compiling or passing the tests. Plus they originally planned to automatically migrate those users to 32-bit, though that never actually happened. That's not exactly "nobody wants to use them to help test".

(References: [1] and [2].)

Of course, fast forward to a few months ago and Chrome's announcements of 64-bit, and suddenly it's "oh, we've been doing 64-bit builds for years".

Unfortunately not every time they respond to feedback like that. There has been a longlasting circus of people wanting to Google to reintroduce "tree style tab" functionality in Chrome, a feature that was available for a while as an experimental thing. Currently the discussion is around Chrome bug #344870. I would appreciate if some engineer had at least the balls to say "no, we are not implementing that". Of course, maybe even Google itself hasn't made the final decision on the matter, and they are kind of avoiding the issue for now.

I won't dispute that "large chunks of the F/OSS community", as you put it, have taken issue with my work in recent years. However, this was just because I honestly and accurately highlighted inconvenient truths. For example, the fact that more than two dozen Android device makers pay Microsoft patent royalties on a piece of supposedly "free" software, and that others pay Microsoft patent royalties on their use of non-mobile Linux, is a fact regardless of whether "large chunks of the F/OSS community" like it. As I've said on Twitter, those billions of dollars of Android patent royalties that have been and continued to be paid show that Android isn't "free," though litigation results suggest that Android could have been free if every device maker had done what Motorola has been and continues to be doing: to simply defeat the infringement assertions in court and to work around the few that will ultimately be found to have merit.

My track record in predicting decisions is extremely good, and IP professionals and researchers the world over recognize it regardless of what parts of the F/OSS community think. With the greatest respect for the F/OSS community, I wouldn't want it to be the other way round. And to be perfectly forthright, to me those who think PJ ever proved me wrong on anything are pathetically clueless, unbelievably naive, totally brainwashed, or a combination of all of the foregoing. On the single most important issue, API copyrightability (which relates to Oracle v. Google as well as the Linux-kernel-headers-in-Android issue), the appeals court said exactly what I had been saying for years, and the opposite of what PJ and her brainwashed followers believed. (I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court won't put Google back on the winning track with respect to copyrightability.)

I almost put a note in the original question about that, but I decided not to, in an effort to keep the talk on topic. So let me point out my stance. First, I'm against software patents and frankly I think the whole patent situation needs reform far beyond software patents. At the same time, if something is patentable, I'm not sure anyone should avoid patenting the idea simply because you disagree with the system. I'd rather patent them and donate the patents to the EFF and GPL an implementation. On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it. Maybe I'm not altruistic enough; I'm conflicted on it, honestly. I haven't quite gotten there yet, though, so in order to not turn this into a flame war I skipped the topic. Anyway, here we are, and I'm trying to respond thoughtfully rather than just, as you say, fuck off.

To answer you point, though, some of my ideas are similar to these patents... decide for yourself if these are deeply "software patents": https://www.google.com/patents/US6263334, https://www.google.com/patents/US20030187867, and https://www.google.com/patents/US7185023, and I'd love to get feedback on how to deal with that aspect of the issue.

I almost put a note in the original question about that, but I decided not to, in an effort to keep the talk on topic. So let me point out my stance. First, I'm against software patents and frankly I think the whole patent situation needs reform far beyond software patents. At the same time, if something is patentable, I'm not sure anyone should avoid patenting the idea simply because you disagree with the system. I'd rather patent them and donate the patents to the EFF and GPL an implementation. On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it. Maybe I'm not altruistic enough; I'm conflicted on it, honestly. I haven't quite gotten there yet, though, so in order to not turn this into a flame war I skipped the topic. Anyway, here we are, and I'm trying to respond thoughtfully rather than just, as you say, fuck off.

To answer you point, though, some of my ideas are similar to these patents... decide for yourself if these are deeply "software patents": https://www.google.com/patents/US6263334, https://www.google.com/patents/US20030187867, and https://www.google.com/patents/US7185023, and I'd love to get feedback on how to deal with that aspect of the issue.

I almost put a note in the original question about that, but I decided not to, in an effort to keep the talk on topic. So let me point out my stance. First, I'm against software patents and frankly I think the whole patent situation needs reform far beyond software patents. At the same time, if something is patentable, I'm not sure anyone should avoid patenting the idea simply because you disagree with the system. I'd rather patent them and donate the patents to the EFF and GPL an implementation. On the other hand, I want to avoid a situation where for-profit companies co-opt the idea and charge people for it. Maybe I'm not altruistic enough; I'm conflicted on it, honestly. I haven't quite gotten there yet, though, so in order to not turn this into a flame war I skipped the topic. Anyway, here we are, and I'm trying to respond thoughtfully rather than just, as you say, fuck off.

To answer you point, though, some of my ideas are similar to these patents... decide for yourself if these are deeply "software patents": https://www.google.com/patents/US6263334, https://www.google.com/patents/US20030187867, and https://www.google.com/patents/US7185023, and I'd love to get feedback on how to deal with that aspect of the issue.

You may now feel less pissed.

https://code.google.com/p/chro...

Maybe I missed it, but what does re-adding ext2/3/4 support to chrome OS have to do with SD Card support on Android?

You may now feel less pissed. https://code.google.com/p/chro...

And we had a proof of concept for tokamaks in the 50s.

There are several aspects of this announcement which cause me to disregard it. First of all, there doesn't seem to be any journal article describing the work. I'm of the impression that science journalists are mostly full of shit and one must go to the primary sources to get any semblance of reality. Where are the technical documents?

The idea of a magnetic mirror is not new. For a state-of-the-art mirror system, take a look at the Gas Dynamic Trap. You see that it's mostly science and not hype. There's plenty of actual journal articles and technical documents. (With Lockheed, we are supposed to just take their word for it, based on their layman explanations to journalists?) Note that scientists working on GDT are much more modest about what is realistically attainable using this technology. A fusion reactor based on GDT technology would be 1km long [AA Ivanov and VV Prikhodko. PPCF 55 (2013) 063001], and so people look at it more as a neutron source for fusion material research than a viable reactor concept.

Lockheed spokespeople were making the claim that they could develop more quickly than tokamaks due to the small size of the system. Well, you know, first generation tokamaks were also pretty small. We have a good understanding of how reactor parameters will scale with size, and that's why ITER is so large. (The original plan for ITER was even larger, in order to guarantee ignition (fusion gain=infinity), but we have scaled back our ambitions to achieve a fusion gain of 10.)

With the Nexus 5 still in up-to-date advertising material, I'd say they haven't abandoned it yet. Hell, the page images show it running Android L and in more backing colours than were on the Play Store as I write this (Black, white, red).

I'm pretty sure that means they're not dropping the '50% of the price of an iPhone' feature of the line.

If you're growing what you need to survive, rabbits are nasty pests and threaten your livelihood. So, you trap/kill them - and why not use what you can?

Ahem, meet meat rabbits. Poster gbjbaanb is right, cuteness doesn't enter into it, but it's not only about utility, either. If squirrels weren't such good climbers, we'd have bred larger "meat squirrels" by now.

- T

Google's page for the Nexus 6 doesn't list charging info, but it's really sparse with the spec information. Motorola's page has a lot more details, which include under the Battery information, "Qi Wireless charging support."

So now ISIS has a warehouse or two of Iraqi chemical weapons. We went to war partially to prevent just that...

Just the opposite, pretty nice delivery system if you ask me. A little slow maybe, but then so is the post office some times. I mean, these are the same "moderate" freedom fighters that we hired to... what? Oh yeah, destroy Syria... cuz like... Russia... Yeah, well, mission accomplished, gang! Good work!

No no, wait, this was all like, totally an accident, right? Ooookaaay! walks away whistling *I saw nuthink!*

However, why does *this* particular bundle show up on Slashdot?

This isn't exactly the first time Humble Bundle has been on /..

But as to why this particular bundle shows up, well, this is the first time they've done browser-based games. So that's news to me.

Do they?

http://investor.google.com/ear... seems to suggest that they are losing money:

"Motorola Mobile Segment Operating Loss - Motorola Mobile segment operating loss in the fourth quarter of 2013 was $384 million, or -31% of Motorola Mobile segment revenues. This compares to segment operating loss of $152 million, or -10% of Motorola Mobile segment revenues in the fourth quarter of 2012."

The page that the Nexus 6 is presented on still has a link to the Nexus 5. My personal theory at this time (unproven) is that they're keeping the Nexus 5 around as their lower-end model, since they don't have anything to replace its price point with. Hell, the Nexus 5 page now shows the device running Android L (Lollipop.)

While the Nexus 5 is not as enormous as the Nexus 6, it is anything but small.

Which is the chief problem with the various "mini" models available today. Not a one is actually a small, well featured phone. They are simply old and/or reduced spec phones every bit as big as the first wave of large phones.

The page that the Nexus 6 is presented on still has a link to the Nexus 5. My personal theory at this time (unproven) is that they're keeping the Nexus 5 around as their lower-end model, since they don't have anything to replace its price point with. Hell, the Nexus 5 page now shows the device running Android L (Lollipop.)

While the Nexus 5 is not as enormous as the Nexus 6, it is anything but small.

Which is the chief problem with the various "mini" models available today. Not a one is actually a small, well featured phone. They are simply old and/or reduced spec phones every bit as big as the first wave of large phones.