Slashdot Mirror

You mean a material like this?

Unlikely, unless we have some really sci-fi breakthroughs, considering he died almost 2 years ago:

Bob Forward 1932-2002

Requiescat in Pace, Bob.

I wish he could have had a chance to see this paper published: Swimming in Spacetime (I'd post the original article, but you have to pay to see it)

I think he would have found it most interesting.

The wall is actually 760 million light years wide... the comparison is that one light year is 1.3 billion times the length of the Great Wall of China. (Info is from here.)

Hmmm ... I think you've got the idea wrong. The question was not "Does the general public really need the internet when nobody knows how to use it?" but rather "Does the general public really need the internet, considering the content on the internet and its relevance"

Maybe some people need to grow a bigger brain.

Perhaps they should do a quick google search: how to grow a bigger brain Now all I've got to do is get me loads of B-catenin .... Who said the internet wasn't useful??

If only I had some 3D peanut butter...

#1. Some duct tape and a fly swatter where you use your pelvis to spank Rodney Dangerfield.

#2. True Auto Mobile.
www.saturn.com

How will you express your opposition?

Quite simply by disputing the patent at the European Office. The Curie Institute will do it before October 10, cut off date. At the beginning, it seemed like a lost battle. But we lengthily studied the file, with lawyers. And, finally, we realized there are blatant faults in their armour. And we will object on three points. Firstly, the defect of innovation: before them, there were already tests of predisposition. Secondly, the defect of invention. Because, to win that race, they largely benefited from the results of public research, results which they did not even quote in the text of the patent. Thirdly, the insufficiency of description: the sequence which was used as a basis for the first patent is insufficient to carry out a test of predisposition.

Even more serious than the waste of money, is the complaint by researchers that Myriad, in effect, prevents them from improving the test so that it tracks a newly identified mutation. (The right to improve code, anyone?)

I wish you UNIX youngsters would listen to someone who, although he went over to the dark side of the Mac in 1984, was a UNIX kernel hacker in the early 1980's, when bsd was still fresh. I am telling you that those were not at all open source licensing conditions. I am telling you that UNIX source both in BSD and AT&T forms was closely held and closely controlled at the time. It took quite a while before anyone heard of FreeBSD. What's more, BSD is a clone of the original closed source UNIX system. UNIX was innovative and remains the standard of technical excellence of operating system architectures, but it was not from open source.

Historians of X Window treat it as the "me too" GUI that it is. As for your statement, it was the first cross platform network GUI. That's something that Macintosh still doesn't do, this seems to be an oxymoron; but in any case, one of the oldest (and still-living) Mac products is called Timbuktu, and it has long been a cross-platform network GUI.

GCC is developer-facing and it's hard to claim as an innovation due to its clone nature. It's not exactly up to the standards of compiler architecture of the time, as I think anyone who has studied compilers could attest.

Finally, closing your message with a slap at the graphical user interface shows an actual distate for innovation. This is one of the odd things about the open source movement. It declares itself revolutionary but is in fact reactionary. It has a set of tastes that was laid down twenty years ago and has not moved forward in any significant way since then. In the meantime, mainstream computing and even the popular taste have passed it by.

Tim

(Footnote on TeX history: 1986 is the earliest documented date of release I found, but Knuth says "it still took many, many years to finish TeX".)

I wish you UNIX youngsters would listen to someone who, although he went over to the dark side of the Mac in 1984, was a UNIX kernel hacker in the early 1980's, when bsd was still fresh. I am telling you that those were not at all open source licensing conditions. I am telling you that UNIX source both in BSD and AT&T forms was closely held and closely controlled at the time. It took quite a while before anyone heard of FreeBSD. What's more, BSD is a clone of the original closed source UNIX system. UNIX was innovative and remains the standard of technical excellence of operating system architectures, but it was not from open source.

Historians of X Window treat it as the "me too" GUI that it is. As for your statement, it was the first cross platform network GUI. That's something that Macintosh still doesn't do, this seems to be an oxymoron; but in any case, one of the oldest (and still-living) Mac products is called Timbuktu, and it has long been a cross-platform network GUI.

GCC is developer-facing and it's hard to claim as an innovation due to its clone nature. It's not exactly up to the standards of compiler architecture of the time, as I think anyone who has studied compilers could attest.

Finally, closing your message with a slap at the graphical user interface shows an actual distate for innovation. This is one of the odd things about the open source movement. It declares itself revolutionary but is in fact reactionary. It has a set of tastes that was laid down twenty years ago and has not moved forward in any significant way since then. In the meantime, mainstream computing and even the popular taste have passed it by.

Tim

(Footnote on TeX history: 1986 is the earliest documented date of release I found, but Knuth says "it still took many, many years to finish TeX".)