Sure the GPL does not cover this and does not want to cover this. I'm not even sure if MS publically saying we don't sue has any legal binding. So everybody who trusts this would be very stupid. What the new GPLv3 tries to cover is two companies having an agreement not to sue which only covers part of the users.
100 W? Absolute rubbish. Professional cyclists do usually more than 550W in their fitness tests. Granted they don't mantain that for 1 h as they start out at lower Watts, however they do >300 W for an hour easily. I have done >250 W for several hours and I'm a mere amateur cyclist.
Oh yes it does: the path of a light beam going through the center of the core is less than the trajectory of light which is multi-reflected against the core boundaries; therefor the initial digital light packet is spread out when passing a certain length of optical fiber. The spread-out is directly related to the radius of the fiber, hence the area.
??? I suggest you look up fiber modes and single mode fiber propagation in a good fiber optics book. What you write just simply doesn't make sense. Let's talk about single mode fibers for simplicities sake, multi-mode fibers are quite a different beast and the whole thing becomes more complicated. If you couple light into a single mode fiber you essentially excite the fundamental mode inside this fiber. This is the only mode which propagates inside the fiber, it's area is given by the effective area of the fiber (the core diameter). Now there is no part which travels down the fiber in a straight line or which is multi-reflected, it is just this mode.
How can anyone label this as informative?! It is utter bullshit. If it's a joke it might be labeled funny. The area of the fiber as almost nothing to do the amount of information it can transmit (disregard multimode singlemode etc.). Light inside a waveguide (and a fiber is one) does not spread in the directions perpendicular to the propagation direction, that's why it is a _waveguide_, it guides light by total internal reflection. Now the spreading which limits the amount of information is caused by chromatic dispersion, light pulses spread in the temporal domain when propagating. Thus at some point pulses will overlap and we can't distinguish the ones and zeros anymore.
Re:Thought the summary was vacuous...
on
Sun Exec Backs GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually I find most of the critizism of the GPLv3 "empty, content-free" attacks. In particular Linus has not really shown any argumentation skills. I challenge you to go back and have a look at the discussion on Groklaw, he was only making personal attacks at the "FSF zealots" accusing them of not listening to any critizism. The most funny point was that he was upset that he had not been given a version of the (first?) draft upfront to comment. I mean who does he think he is?! Why should he receive any special treatment just because he wrote Linux. The other thing that really stood out in that discussion is that he was never really answering to any of the other peoples arguments. I find this really typical of the "anti-GPLv3" camp. They mainly accuse the FSF of not listening, but refuse to take part in the draft process. They also act like the GPLv3 is being pushed onto people, it is not. You still have the free choice to use the licence you want.
What I'm really missing in this discussion is the question why climate scientists would actually be biased. The reason which is given most often is the competition for grant money. Let's look at this in more detail: Most scientific grant money comes from the government and the government which is putting the most money into science would be the US government. I would not really count the current US government to the global warming believer crowd. So we at least should have seen a large increase in GC sceptic research when Bush came into office. Was that the case? I can't remember anything like that. Also the vast majority of scientific research is still "pro" GC. OK so it's not government funding, what about private funding? The enviromentalists with the big pockets funding the research, I mean come on. The pockets of the enviromentalists are tiny compared to Oil and energy industry. If it's not funding, maybe it's the other reason often given. "The enviromentalist/socialist agenda", do you really believe a diverse, large scientific community like the climatologists all have the same political believes and only practice science to push these believes. That is just plain ridiculous.
Google is not making the data freely available -- it is encryptedThat is simply wrong, if that was the case gaia would not be working. The gaia guys simply reverse engineered the google earth protocol, so that they could get the content. Perfectly legitimate and legal(at least in Russia, most of Europe) IMO. Now if google does not want people to access that data they should encrypt it.
I think you nailed it on the head. I'm actually quite surprised, if you look around everytime something like this happens, people just follow googles request (there was also a little perl program to stitch maps from google together, IIRC he was at MIT). Either google is "transfering" some money, just react differently to google. Personally I think their request is quite unreasonable, if they don't want other programs to use their data they should encrypt it. Reverse engineering the protocol is legal in most countries of the world.
Well I disagree. Google is putting the data freely available on the net. They should not be able to prevent users from using that content. What if microsoft suddenly decides to have all it's servers only provide content to IE, and then threaten firefox developers because they develop a program which is able to access their content. On a different note google is reusing quite a significant amount of publically available image data as well AFAIK. If you read the notice on the Gaia site it is also not quite clear what Google mainly objects to. They talk about reverse engineering and improper use of license.
I am a physicist, but I have to say I really do not understand his argument. What is lambda? How does it follow from Boltzmann's law? Boltzmann's law is j=sigma*epsilon*T**4 now sigma is the Boltzmann constant ~5.6*1e-8 W/m**2/K**4, epsilon is a constant between 0 and 1, 1 being the perfect black body. j is the energy flux in W/m**2. So how do I get a T/P value from this? Am I just missing something?
When GW skeptics argue that scientists are deliberately producing results which indicate GW is happening and that they have an agenda I always ask myself "why?". The main argument brought forward is usually that you need to argue pro GW to receive funding. Now let's take a closer look at this argument. The biggest funding sources are usually government grants. Which government would provide the biggest research funding in the world, probably the US government. Now last time I looked the US government was, to put it mildly skeptical about GW. So why should they be trying to push a GW agenda? Then let's look at funding from outside the government. Who has the resources to fund large amount of fundamental research? Big cooperations, Now that is a group with a reputation of pushing environmental issues! .
The argument of biased results because of the funding sources just does not stand up to a serious investigation.
What I find really interesting is that all the free-market proponents, who usually cry out "let the market take care of itself" everytime somebody wants to introduce some regulations, are the ones biggest opponents of Kyoto, lamenting the ineffectiveness and suggesting regulations instead. Kyoto is a market approach to solving the problem. It is putting a price on a resource. This is not new and has happened many times before in history, with e.g. land, water. Now I can understand people arguing a free-market approach does not work, but it does not seem a credible argument coming from the free-market crowd (I count most Republicans to this). The same people would cry out foul if governments would introduce regulations and heavy penalties. What these people really want is that nothing is done at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure the GPL does not cover this and does not want to cover this. I'm not even sure if MS publically saying we don't sue has any legal binding. So everybody who trusts this would be very stupid. What the new GPLv3 tries to cover is two companies having an agreement not to sue which only covers part of the users.
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?!
Yes 100% sure. However, how's the horsepower defined, the power a horse can sustain for an hour, a day?
100 W? Absolute rubbish. Professional cyclists do usually more than 550W in their fitness tests. Granted they don't mantain that for 1 h as they start out at lower Watts, however they do >300 W for an hour easily. I have done >250 W for several hours and I'm a mere amateur cyclist.
OK so TIVO just never happened... right!
The way I understood the whole thing the experiment tests string theory assumptions, that is not a prediction!
Yeah that's why I wrote to disregard single mode vs. multi-mode fibre.
How can anyone label this as informative?! It is utter bullshit. If it's a joke it might be labeled funny. The area of the fiber as almost nothing to do the amount of information it can transmit (disregard multimode singlemode etc.). Light inside a waveguide (and a fiber is one) does not spread in the directions perpendicular to the propagation direction, that's why it is a _waveguide_, it guides light by total internal reflection. Now the spreading which limits the amount of information is caused by chromatic dispersion, light pulses spread in the temporal domain when propagating. Thus at some point pulses will overlap and we can't distinguish the ones and zeros anymore.
Actually I find most of the critizism of the GPLv3 "empty, content-free" attacks. In particular Linus has not really shown any argumentation skills. I challenge you to go back and have a look at the discussion on Groklaw, he was only making personal attacks at the "FSF zealots" accusing them of not listening to any critizism. The most funny point was that he was upset that he had not been given a version of the (first?) draft upfront to comment. I mean who does he think he is?! Why should he receive any special treatment just because he wrote Linux. The other thing that really stood out in that discussion is that he was never really answering to any of the other peoples arguments. I find this really typical of the "anti-GPLv3" camp. They mainly accuse the FSF of not listening, but refuse to take part in the draft process. They also act like the GPLv3 is being pushed onto people, it is not. You still have the free choice to use the licence you want.
What I'm really missing in this discussion is the question why climate scientists would actually be biased. The reason which is given most often is the competition for grant money. Let's look at this in more detail: Most scientific grant money comes from the government and the government which is putting the most money into science would be the US government. I would not really count the current US government to the global warming believer crowd. So we at least should have seen a large increase in GC sceptic research when Bush came into office. Was that the case? I can't remember anything like that. Also the vast majority of scientific research is still "pro" GC. OK so it's not government funding, what about private funding? The enviromentalists with the big pockets funding the research, I mean come on. The pockets of the enviromentalists are tiny compared to Oil and energy industry. If it's not funding, maybe it's the other reason often given. "The enviromentalist/socialist agenda", do you really believe a diverse, large scientific community like the climatologists all have the same political believes and only practice science to push these believes. That is just plain ridiculous.
Google is not making the data freely available -- it is encryptedThat is simply wrong, if that was the case gaia would not be working. The gaia guys simply reverse engineered the google earth protocol, so that they could get the content. Perfectly legitimate and legal(at least in Russia, most of Europe) IMO. Now if google does not want people to access that data they should encrypt it.
I think you nailed it on the head. I'm actually quite surprised, if you look around everytime something like this happens, people just follow googles request (there was also a little perl program to stitch maps from google together, IIRC he was at MIT). Either google is "transfering" some money, just react differently to google. Personally I think their request is quite unreasonable, if they don't want other programs to use their data they should encrypt it. Reverse engineering the protocol is legal in most countries of the world.
Well I disagree. Google is putting the data freely available on the net. They should not be able to prevent users from using that content. What if microsoft suddenly decides to have all it's servers only provide content to IE, and then threaten firefox developers because they develop a program which is able to access their content. On a different note google is reusing quite a significant amount of publically available image data as well AFAIK. If you read the notice on the Gaia site it is also not quite clear what Google mainly objects to. They talk about reverse engineering and improper use of license.
In Germany everybody can stay and oversee the counting process. That is how a democracy should work.
I am a physicist, but I have to say I really do not understand his argument. What is lambda? How does it follow from Boltzmann's law? Boltzmann's law is j=sigma*epsilon*T**4 now sigma is the Boltzmann constant ~5.6*1e-8 W/m**2/K**4, epsilon is a constant between 0 and 1, 1 being the perfect black body. j is the energy flux in W/m**2. So how do I get a T/P value from this? Am I just missing something?
When GW skeptics argue that scientists are deliberately producing results which indicate GW is happening and that they have an agenda I always ask myself "why?". The main argument brought forward is usually that you need to argue pro GW to receive funding. Now let's take a closer look at this argument. The biggest funding sources are usually government grants. Which government would provide the biggest research funding in the world, probably the US government. Now last time I looked the US government was, to put it mildly skeptical about GW. So why should they be trying to push a GW agenda? Then let's look at funding from outside the government. Who has the resources to fund large amount of fundamental research? Big cooperations, Now that is a group with a reputation of pushing environmental issues! . The argument of biased results because of the funding sources just does not stand up to a serious investigation.
What I find really interesting is that all the free-market proponents, who usually cry out "let the market take care of itself" everytime somebody wants to introduce some regulations, are the ones biggest opponents of Kyoto, lamenting the ineffectiveness and suggesting regulations instead. Kyoto is a market approach to solving the problem. It is putting a price on a resource. This is not new and has happened many times before in history, with e.g. land, water. Now I can understand people arguing a free-market approach does not work, but it does not seem a credible argument coming from the free-market crowd (I count most Republicans to this). The same people would cry out foul if governments would introduce regulations and heavy penalties. What these people really want is that nothing is done at all.