Slashdot Mirror

bsharma writes: Scientists have formally announced their reconstruction of the Ein Gedi Scroll, the most ancient Hebrew scroll since the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was done by CAT scanning the burnt scrolls and virtually reconstructing the layers of scrolls with ink blobs on them. National Geographic reports: "For decades, the Israel Antiquities Authority guarded the document, known as the Ein Gedi Scroll, careful not to open it for fear that the brittle text would shatter to pieces. But last year, scientists announced that they had scanned, virtually unrolled, and translated the scroll's hidden verses -- a feat now formally described in the scientific literature. Based on preliminary scans, [Brent Seales of the University of Kentucky, who specialized in digitally reconstructing damaged texts,] and his colleagues announced in 2015 that the Ein Gedi Scroll was a biblical text from the sixth century A.D. containing a column of text from the book of Leviticus. But the full CT scan results, published on Wednesday in Science Advances, tell a deeper story. Further analysis revealed an extra column of text, ultimately fleshing out the first two chapters of Leviticus -- ironically, a book that begins with God's instructions for burnt offerings. What's more, radiocarbon dating of the scroll suggests that it may be between 1,700 and 1,800 years old, at least 200 years older than previously thought. In fact, the scroll's distinctive handwriting hearkens back to the first or second century A.D., some five centuries earlier than the date ascribed to the scroll last year." University of Cambridge lecturer James Aitken told Smithsonian's Devin Powell in 2015: "There's little of surprise in finding a Leviticus scroll. We probably have many more copies of it than any other book, as its Hebrew style is so simple and repetitive that it was used for children's writing exercises."

First time accepted submitter tkel writes "On October 12, 2011 Theologian John Haught publicly debated prominent evolutionary scientist and atheist Jerry Coyne at the University of Kentucky. Although both agreed to a videotaping of the event, Haught later prohibited its release because he felt he had been treated unfairly. Coyne released blog posts addressing the matter as an offense to free speech. Reviewing their new status in the blogosphere, Haught and his associates at the University of Kentucky have decided to release the video."

sonnejw0 writes "Sea-faring vessels are a major contributor of greenhouse gas production due to a deficit in international laws and inherent inefficiencies at sea, such as barnacle build-up on hulls. Many marine animals avoid the build-up of drag-inducing barnacles through secreting oily residues from their pores or through the nano-molecular arrangement of their skin. Sailors regularly defoul their hulls, removing the barnacles at dry-dock, which requires them to reduce the amount of time they have at sea. Some synthetic chemicals in paints have been used to prevent barnacle build-up but have been found to be toxic to marine animals and thus outlawed by several nations. Now, engineers are trying to replicate the skin of marine animals to produce a slippery hull to which marine bacteria cannot attach, saving fuel costs and improving speeds."

sonnejw0 writes "NewScientist is reporting a link between sleep deprivation and Alzheimer's Disease via an increased amyloid-beta plaque load thought responsible for a large part of the symptoms of the disease, in mice. Medication to abrogate insomnia reduced the plaque load. Also discussed is a recently discovered sleep cycle of amyloid-beta deposition in the brain, in which levels decrease while asleep. 'Holtzman also tried sending the mice to sleep with a drug that is being trialled for insomnia, called Almorexant. This reduced the amount of plaque-forming protein. He suggests that sleeping for longer could limit the formation of plaques, and perhaps block it altogether.'"

Dave asks: "I have a render farm set up for 3D Studio Max. I have a Render user that runs 3dsmax.exe when it is sent jobs by the render farm server. I have tried to set the process to low when it runs, and it works. However, when the computer is finished rendering the images, and is sent a new set to render, the priority goes back to normal (program closes in between renderings). This obviously defeats the purpose of rendering an image in the background while others are still working, as you can imagine having 3dsmax.exe pegged at 100% CPU, slows down the machine tremendously. Is there anything that can be done to set the render user's instance of 3dsmax.exe permanently to low? Or is it possible to just set 3dsmax.exe to the low priority. I know there is a command line that sets any .exe to low, but that also starts the program. I would like 3dsmax.exe to be set to low either: when render launches the program, or set 3dsmax.exe to low whenever it is launched. Can anything be done?"

Uky writes "Convinced that the recent upswing in virus and Trojan attacks is directly linked to the creation of botnets for nefarious purposes, a group of high-profile security researchers is fighting back, vigilante-style. The objective of the group, which operates on closed, invite-only mailing lists, is to pinpoint and ultimately disable the C&C (command-and-control) infrastructure that sends instructions to millions of zombie drone machines hijacked by malicious hackers." From the article: "Using data from IP flows passing through routers and reverse-engineering tools to peek under the hood of new Trojans, Thompson said the researchers are able to figure out how the botnet owner sends instructions to the compromised machines."

JoeBuck writes "According to this message from Ian Murdock on the Debian developer's mailing list, the Progeny folks have ported Red Hat's Anaconda installer to Debian. They have also written a tool that "facilitates the creation of Anaconda-based Debian installation CD sets". They are also engaged in other interesting unification work, and hope to be able to allow collections of managed RPM and .deb packages to coexist side-by-side." uberkludge points out an article with more details at Ars Technica.

Anonymous asks: "My company recently asked me to write them a report on how UNIX properly handles the switch to Daylight Savings Time, and back again. When our systems administrators received the report, I was somewhat surprised. Many of them weren't aware that 'cron' would run the affected jobs twice in the fall, and not at all in the spring. Apparently, the man pages on some operating systems, like Solaris, aren't forthcoming with details. Others groups, like database administrators, are completely unaware of the differences between epoch time and wall clock time. Are even technical users ignorant on how UNIX handles time, time zones, and time conversion?"

Ender, Duke_of_URL brought this Periodic Table of Elements to our attention. Of course adamantium is missing, and chemical X doesn't belong in a table of the elements of the comic book universe, it's mostly a collection of golden age and later comics. Modern comics are sorely underrepresented, unfortunately.

Quadropleen+ asks: "I work in a lab where we do real time control of industrial hardware. To this point, we've been using several old A/D and D/A boards to control these processes under DOS, due to the anti-real time properties of Windows. Well, our cards are beginning to fail, and we're looking for replacements. I've been trying to get my advisor to move to Linux, and I see this as a great opportunity to leverage a better OS onto our machines. Does anyone have suggestions/experience with using A/D & D/A boards with Linux? What are the best and worst ones out there?"

cvbear0 writes: "You didn't get the laptop you wanted for Christmas, did you? Well, surf on over to the Linux Laptop SuperGuide. The guys from the Linux Hardware Database and ZDNet have build a list of Linux-friendly laptops. Users can also post their comments about their experiences with certain model. Send back those 15 sweaters you received, and find the Linux laptop of your dreams!" My wish is that power management under Linux would be fully supported. Getting four hours battery life under Windows and two hours under Linux is disappointing.

Sadistic Yoda asks: "I walk into my entry level C++ class and the TA informs us that the code must compile under CodeWarrior for Windows, which is included with the text (Problem Solving with C++: The Object of Programming, Second Edition, by Walter Savitch), to receive passing grades. Personally I would rather use vi and g++ on the department's Debian machines from the shell. Will I run into any problems or do I bite my tongue and make it through class using their program?" I find it disappointing that schools think that "teaching programming" involves locking their students into a specific environment. I know it makes it easy for the teachers and TAs when it comes to technical support, but what about those students who already have a handle on their own system, are willing to learn the language (and its pitfalls in all environments) who can't (or won't) run the required software for whatever reason? Is this limited form of teaching really teaching?

V. asks: "Our local LUG is working on a roving webcam robot. In order to drive the motors we are planning to use a 68HC12 ucontroller. I've found some patches against an old release of gcc and egcs that will add support for this ucontroller but I don't think they are part of the normal gcc distribution. I'm wondering if anyone knows where I can find a Free(as in GPL) assembler and emu for the 68HC12 that aren't a pain to compile/install. I doubt there is anything apt-get-able but then again I really wouldn't know since the extent of my assembler and hardware experience is working with xspim for about a semester many moons ago."

unigeek writes: "CNN -- Florida judge approves class-action lawsuit against America Online At issue: 'Pop-up' advertisements. A Florida judge has approved a class-action, multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the world's largest Internet service provider, America Online, on behalf of hourly subscribers who viewed so-called "pop-up" advertisements." I for one of dreamt of this day. It'll never win 'cuz you can turn them off of course, but it's pretty dang funny.

otter42 asks: "Has anyone thought about using a portable MP3 player's flash module port to interface with an external hard drive? I think the major obstacles are: how to find the protocols and write the interface, how to build a interface port to IDE card, and how to power the external drive. Having a 10 GB HD for $100 sure beats the heck out of 32 MB for $90! I'd be willing to pay an extra $100 so that my Rio could carry a worthwile amount of music." I'm sure someone has looked into something like this...if so, please share your experiences!

rapett0 writes "Sega of Japan has decided to take a much welcomed step and support downloading and playing of Genesis/Mega Drive and PC Engine/TurboGrafx-16 games on the Dreamcast via a service called DreamLibrary. Apparently they will cost $1.50 per download/per day and you lose the game after you turn off your system, but can redownload if you still have rental time left on the game that day. The same article makes mention that Bleem! might be released for Dreamcast as well. " Granted, this is only for Japan right now - but it's a cool step.

Jason Swank writes "It looks like previous model of Sony's Glasstron was mentioned back in July, but it seems like they are now better and MUCH cheaper: 52" Virtual Viewing, 3.5 ounces, and only $499. " The one we reported on last july costed 5 times as much, but the cheaper model is 800x255, the $2600 version is 800x640. Still it looks pretty sweet. I wonder if I could use these without my contacts. That would make things a lot easier.

Ron Petty writes "This weekend the University of Kentucky Linux Users Group proved that with no money you can make a difference. Linux Demo was going in full swing this weekend and we did out share by doing it with members equipment and donated distros. We are trying to help everyone help themselves. So if you are in education and missed out on this event you might want to check out UKLUGS site and we can help you do the same and help promote linux. " LDD is a great concept - I think it's something that ever LUG should look into doing. Click here for the pictures.

Ron Petty writes "This weekend the University of Kentucky Linux Users Group proved that with no money you can make a difference. Linux Demo was going in full swing this weekend and we did out share by doing it with members equipment and donated distros. We are trying to help everyone help themselves. So if you are in education and missed out on this event you might want to check out UKLUGS site and we can help you do the same and help promote linux. " LDD is a great concept - I think it's something that ever LUG should look into doing. Click here for the pictures.

Ron Petty writes "This weekend the University of Kentucky Linux Users Group proved that with no money you can make a difference. Linux Demo was going in full swing this weekend and we did out share by doing it with members equipment and donated distros. We are trying to help everyone help themselves. So if you are in education and missed out on this event you might want to check out UKLUGS site and we can help you do the same and help promote linux. " LDD is a great concept - I think it's something that ever LUG should look into doing. Click here for the pictures.

Robert Petty writes "Here is an article about the 640 Gb Pacific Rim network of submarine cables that Qwest is laying out. It will have a direct connect between California and Japan. (13,125 miles of fiber.) "

The fun just keeps rolling in with the iMac stuff so I guess I'll just keep posting it. The major notable is that LinuxPPC.org has a page up for the iMac/Linux porting effort. As we all know, the messy stuff is the USB support. Robert Petty sent us this link where you can read about the iMac mystery slot. Tom Drabenstott sent us a link comparing windows and Macs at various every day tasks. Finally Sean Harding sent us a link to a page dedicated to documenting the iMac firmware.

Next up is Kyle Eli who was the first person to submit an essay on the whole linux standards hoopla. He wrote in with a piece called "A User's Realistic View of the LSA" The following is a feature written by Slashdot reader Kyle Eli A User's Realistic View of the LSA The Linux Standards Association is a group created by few which will grow to many, despite the public outcry of those on the popular news site "Slashdot". In fact, many of those who have initially voiced against it will becoming paying, voting members of this organization. Despite what many of you may think, they are doing The Right Thing(tm). Linux has grown from nothing into something, a big, popular something that doesn't show any sign of slowing in growth. The problem is that random growth is not a good thing, a good analogy would be "cancer". You need a clearly defined specification which tells you how to grow so that past growth will not be destroyed by the new growth, ultimately causing an overall loss to the system. Now, I'm not saying that as it is presently defined, the LSA is the perfect idea. It is, however, a step in the right direction. First, I'm going to look at the bad points, and then I'll go on to try and bring to light some things that many of you appear blind to.

Let us begin with the Charter. In the first paragraph, it states, "Such a standard will allow members to develop their software, hardware, and/or installation routines with the expectation that they will operate properly in any Linux environment". My problem is with the statement "in any Linux environment". You simply cannot expect all of the distributions using Linux to conform to the standards put forth by the LSA, and the LSA cannot expect those distributions which do not to simply die and go away. Red Hat could easily decide not to conform, and the LSA is certainly not going to kill Red Hat. This statement should be amended to say "in any Standard Linux(tm) based environment". The "Standard Linux(tm)" is the distribution put forth by the LSA, and is what all LSA members would theoretically be using. However, they can't expect everyone to use it, and they can't /force/ anyone to use it. However, you can't use the LSA stamp if your product doesn't pass the LSA tests. Saying that your product won't sell without LSA approval is ludicrous, though. LSA approval MAY, however, enhance the worth of your product. The Charter states that it will "add significant value", this may or may not prove to be true.

Now, the first three proposals of the LSA are POSIX.1 certification, POSIX.2 certification, and a standard package management system that works on various platforms (including those which compete with Linux). Now /wait just one minute/, the Charter goes on to state the following:

"Such misuse includes, but is not limited to, use on a non- con-formant product, use on an untested product, or use on a product for a competing operating system."

If the Package Management system works on Windows, and carries the LSA seal, by these terms, it is "misusing" the seal. Aren't we being a bit hypocritical? Using the LSA seal on something that works with Standard Linux(tm) AS WELL AS a competing operating system should be fine and dandy.

The next thing I want to ask is--who is going to do all of the work? Making everything POSIX.1 as well as POSIX.2 compliant ALONG with developing a cross-platform package management system (that can't carry the LSA seal, by the way) is a great deal of effort. /WHO/ is going to do it?

Next is "Minimization of Vendor Specific components in a Linux distribution". Now wait a second, several distributions depend upon their vendor-specific components. I'm sure SOME people out there actually use Red Hat's administration programs. Is the LSA trying to say that Red Hat can't include these components any more? And any way, so long as the vendor specific components don't break other applications..then who cares? Some people DO find these things to be useful.

The next problem I see is that it states that Regular members may submit proposals, but doesn't say that Observers enjoy this right. It must be made clear that anyone can submit a proposal. Restricting voting to Regular members is a necessity though--but the membership fee /must/ be kept fair. In fact, there should be a clause stating that the membership fee cannot be raised above a certain amount by any member or group of members, including charter members.

Now for my favorite problem, the part about "Intellectual Property". I'm sorry, at most you should demand that submissions contain a clause stating that the LSA may incorporate, publish, and alter the submission--but claiming ownership is /not/ the Right Thing(tm). The author should retain ownership, and the LSA should have no rights above and beyond those of the author under any circumstances.

Next, voting. Voting should NOT be anonymous. A list of all voting members and their current vote on each issue should be available to the public /at all times/. There are an infinite number of bad things that can come from anonymous voting.

Now that I'm through with the bad things, I'll move on. Linux has evolved thus far without having to conform to any real standard. Many of you seem to think it will continue such growth without a standard of any kind, or an association to create and modify such standards. You are quite wrong. Real world corporations developing products need some sort of assurance that what they're developing is definitely going to work somewhere. The LSA gives these corporations a solid idea of where their product is going to work, where it might work, and where it definitely won't work. It's a foundation from which they can begin work. Without this foundation, they are unlikely to even try breaking ground. Linux needs clear standards to survive in the corporate world as a top contender.

Next, you people seem to think that the LSA is going to attempt to micro-manage every little detail about what you can and can't have on your Linux installation. This is not even close to truth. Linux and the GNU system is still GPL no matter what the LSA says. You can install and munge any little piece of your software you damn well please. The LSA is providing standards for people who want to use them, they aren't forcing them on anyone. If you want to be a part of the LSA, pay the fee and cast your vote, and use LSA-approved products. If you grab Debian, which happens to not conform, and install it, LSA agents are NOT going to show up on your doorstep ready with a boot to the neck with an LSA stamp on the heel. However, personally, I think it would be nice to have a system guided by clearly defined standards. I would also love the opportunity to pay my annual fee and cast my vote on this or that alteration, and actually see the standard make a difference. I want to see products coming to my Standard Linux(tm) desktop that are guaranteed to work right out of the box. I have no visions of not paying for every little piece of software I use, that just isn't fair to developers. They have to make a living too. Just because they want to devote their time to working on the product at hand and not trying to write books about it so they can actually eat a square meal doesn't bother me at all.

So people, don't get so angry, you're just looking the fool. No one is forcing you into doing anything. Take part in the LSA if you wish, and if you don't, just leave it be. If the companies that develop products /you/ want decide to go with the LSA, feel free to pay an annual fee and vote so that you'll have a say in it. Otherwise just pray that their product will run on your non-LSA conforming distribution.

Saying, "OH, YOU SUPPORT THE LSA, BOYCOTT BOYCOTT!!!" is a BAD, BAD, **BAD** IDEA. Throwing around language like that is one SURE way to drive companies away from the Linux/GNU platform. Just because they carry the LSA seal is NO reason to avoid their products like some kind of plague.

Give it some time folks, it may work out a whole lot better than you seem to think it will.

Next up is Kyle Eli who was the first person to submit an essay on the whole linux standards hoopla. He wrote in with a piece called "A User's Realistic View of the LSA" The following is a feature written by Slashdot reader Kyle Eli A User's Realistic View of the LSA The Linux Standards Association is a group created by few which will grow to many, despite the public outcry of those on the popular news site "Slashdot". In fact, many of those who have initially voiced against it will becoming paying, voting members of this organization. Despite what many of you may think, they are doing The Right Thing(tm). Linux has grown from nothing into something, a big, popular something that doesn't show any sign of slowing in growth. The problem is that random growth is not a good thing, a good analogy would be "cancer". You need a clearly defined specification which tells you how to grow so that past growth will not be destroyed by the new growth, ultimately causing an overall loss to the system. Now, I'm not saying that as it is presently defined, the LSA is the perfect idea. It is, however, a step in the right direction. First, I'm going to look at the bad points, and then I'll go on to try and bring to light some things that many of you appear blind to.

Let us begin with the Charter. In the first paragraph, it states, "Such a standard will allow members to develop their software, hardware, and/or installation routines with the expectation that they will operate properly in any Linux environment". My problem is with the statement "in any Linux environment". You simply cannot expect all of the distributions using Linux to conform to the standards put forth by the LSA, and the LSA cannot expect those distributions which do not to simply die and go away. Red Hat could easily decide not to conform, and the LSA is certainly not going to kill Red Hat. This statement should be amended to say "in any Standard Linux(tm) based environment". The "Standard Linux(tm)" is the distribution put forth by the LSA, and is what all LSA members would theoretically be using. However, they can't expect everyone to use it, and they can't /force/ anyone to use it. However, you can't use the LSA stamp if your product doesn't pass the LSA tests. Saying that your product won't sell without LSA approval is ludicrous, though. LSA approval MAY, however, enhance the worth of your product. The Charter states that it will "add significant value", this may or may not prove to be true.

Now, the first three proposals of the LSA are POSIX.1 certification, POSIX.2 certification, and a standard package management system that works on various platforms (including those which compete with Linux). Now /wait just one minute/, the Charter goes on to state the following:

"Such misuse includes, but is not limited to, use on a non- con-formant product, use on an untested product, or use on a product for a competing operating system."

If the Package Management system works on Windows, and carries the LSA seal, by these terms, it is "misusing" the seal. Aren't we being a bit hypocritical? Using the LSA seal on something that works with Standard Linux(tm) AS WELL AS a competing operating system should be fine and dandy.

The next thing I want to ask is--who is going to do all of the work? Making everything POSIX.1 as well as POSIX.2 compliant ALONG with developing a cross-platform package management system (that can't carry the LSA seal, by the way) is a great deal of effort. /WHO/ is going to do it?

Next is "Minimization of Vendor Specific components in a Linux distribution". Now wait a second, several distributions depend upon their vendor-specific components. I'm sure SOME people out there actually use Red Hat's administration programs. Is the LSA trying to say that Red Hat can't include these components any more? And any way, so long as the vendor specific components don't break other applications..then who cares? Some people DO find these things to be useful.

The next problem I see is that it states that Regular members may submit proposals, but doesn't say that Observers enjoy this right. It must be made clear that anyone can submit a proposal. Restricting voting to Regular members is a necessity though--but the membership fee /must/ be kept fair. In fact, there should be a clause stating that the membership fee cannot be raised above a certain amount by any member or group of members, including charter members.

Now for my favorite problem, the part about "Intellectual Property". I'm sorry, at most you should demand that submissions contain a clause stating that the LSA may incorporate, publish, and alter the submission--but claiming ownership is /not/ the Right Thing(tm). The author should retain ownership, and the LSA should have no rights above and beyond those of the author under any circumstances.

Next, voting. Voting should NOT be anonymous. A list of all voting members and their current vote on each issue should be available to the public /at all times/. There are an infinite number of bad things that can come from anonymous voting.

Now that I'm through with the bad things, I'll move on. Linux has evolved thus far without having to conform to any real standard. Many of you seem to think it will continue such growth without a standard of any kind, or an association to create and modify such standards. You are quite wrong. Real world corporations developing products need some sort of assurance that what they're developing is definitely going to work somewhere. The LSA gives these corporations a solid idea of where their product is going to work, where it might work, and where it definitely won't work. It's a foundation from which they can begin work. Without this foundation, they are unlikely to even try breaking ground. Linux needs clear standards to survive in the corporate world as a top contender.

Next, you people seem to think that the LSA is going to attempt to micro-manage every little detail about what you can and can't have on your Linux installation. This is not even close to truth. Linux and the GNU system is still GPL no matter what the LSA says. You can install and munge any little piece of your software you damn well please. The LSA is providing standards for people who want to use them, they aren't forcing them on anyone. If you want to be a part of the LSA, pay the fee and cast your vote, and use LSA-approved products. If you grab Debian, which happens to not conform, and install it, LSA agents are NOT going to show up on your doorstep ready with a boot to the neck with an LSA stamp on the heel. However, personally, I think it would be nice to have a system guided by clearly defined standards. I would also love the opportunity to pay my annual fee and cast my vote on this or that alteration, and actually see the standard make a difference. I want to see products coming to my Standard Linux(tm) desktop that are guaranteed to work right out of the box. I have no visions of not paying for every little piece of software I use, that just isn't fair to developers. They have to make a living too. Just because they want to devote their time to working on the product at hand and not trying to write books about it so they can actually eat a square meal doesn't bother me at all.

So people, don't get so angry, you're just looking the fool. No one is forcing you into doing anything. Take part in the LSA if you wish, and if you don't, just leave it be. If the companies that develop products /you/ want decide to go with the LSA, feel free to pay an annual fee and vote so that you'll have a say in it. Otherwise just pray that their product will run on your non-LSA conforming distribution.

Saying, "OH, YOU SUPPORT THE LSA, BOYCOTT BOYCOTT!!!" is a BAD, BAD, **BAD** IDEA. Throwing around language like that is one SURE way to drive companies away from the Linux/GNU platform. Just because they carry the LSA seal is NO reason to avoid their products like some kind of plague.

Give it some time folks, it may work out a whole lot better than you seem to think it will.