The XFree86 site has a page that says they disbanded. Here is a mirrored list of core team members . Some have been around a while... easy to loose interest.
At least one of the recent geomagnetic events began just after dawn where I live, so that chance was pretty much shot. Others were overcast or inconvenient (check out the GOES magnetometer for times when the magnetic field was disturbed)
It helps to be in a really dark area - light pollution in a city will just about kill any chance of seeing it. The only time I ever saw it (the '89 geomagnetic storm event), I went out specifically determined to try and catch a glipmse (I was watching the data pretty closely). I drove 30 minutes away from the nearest city lightsource and waited in the dark about two hours total (two shifts). I was just about to call it quits (it was after midnight) and it appeared suddenly. Ten minutes later, it was gone.
Recall that the sunspot cycle actually refers to the number of sunspots visible at a given time. As someone already pointed out, flaring can occur whether or not the actual number of visible sunspots is high
Flares occur to relax the magnet field gradiant. This gradiant is correlated with sunspot size which, in turn, is correlated with sunspot number. Larger sunspots are correlated with solar max and are anti-correlated with solar min. But, just like earth weather throws a curveball, you can get atypical sunspot sizes and activity sometimes.
Having participated as contestant and (much) later judge, the projects that always impressed me the most were the ones that demonstrated the use scientific method to address a question. The question itself didn't have to be one of earth shaking significance - it simply had to be one for which the answer was not necessarily obvious.
A project I loved was one that sought the answer to the question of whether you get more wet running through the rain than walking. He built this chamber to simulate rain, attached a figure with absorbent material on it, and moved it at different speeds. Then, he measured the water collected on the material. The question wasn't pivotal but the project (the whole package - the examination of the details of the problem, the application of the scientific method, the consideration of errors and estimates of their contributions) demonstrated an honest attempt to look at a problem objectively and scientifically.
Just like you can't judge a book by it's cover, you can't judge a science fair project by it's title.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires retention of all received resumes for a period of one year (as evidence of compliance with non-discriminatory hiring practices in relation to disabled individuals).
I can't help but be reminded of a similar exchange in a cinematic venue:
Darl: Halt! Hallo! Hallo!
Linus: 'Allo! Who is zis?
Darl: It is Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, and this is the Unix copyright. Who's source is this?
Linux: This is the Linux - it's open source.
Darl: Go and tell your users that we have be charged by our board of directors with a sacred quest. If you will admit you have violated our copyright, you can pay money for a license to use the infringing software.
Linux: Um, I'll ask them, but I don't think they'll be very keen... Uh, they've already got a license, you see?
Darl: What?
Chris Sontag: He says he's already go one!
Darl: Are you sure they've got one?
Linus: Oh, yes - the GNU public license - it's very nice.
Darl: Well, um, we know you copied our code, so you need to purchase a license. Will you buy one?
Linus: Of course not! You are corporate types with no proof!
...
Darl: Now look here, my good man!
Linus: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Chris Sontag: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
Linus: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
BTW, nothing personal. I was commenting on wording, not ideas. At least you took the time to write a review, rather than the comparitively simple activity of criticism the rest of us are doing.
I thoroughly disagree. If one reads a review in order to determine the instructional utility of a given text, one typically wishes to determine if it adequately covers a topic (good) or does not (falls short). Using both descriptions is ambiguous, particularly when referencing a particular topic (like inheritance).
It would be quite useful to say something to the effect of it does a good job covering the basics of the topics while specific illustrations would have been helpful or perhaps it provides a very good overview of the concepts of inheritance but does not convey a appreciation for its importance in object oriented programming. It is less so to say that it does a good job inadequately.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't vacating the judge's ruling on that particular issue require an appeal by either of the litigants (or, at least, someone with standing - not entirely sure SCO qualifies)? Otherwise, the ruling is considered an established fact in legal proceedings in which the topic is relevant.
He probably meant to type 'empathize', though I agree with your criticism.
I was also did a double take with this remark:
First, although the book does a good job of covering the important C++ topics of classes, inheritance, and templates, I think it falls a bit short in these areas (especially the coverage of inheritance).
Um... OK... so, which was it? Does it do a good job or does it fall short?
Read the German article. The babelfishy version of a question posed to Chris Sontag was:
c't: In addition the copy is to go back substantially further as its rights at Unix. Besides they are by AT&T under BSD license to have been spread, thus have been freely available and can from there in Linux to have been received.
Sontag: That is completely wrong. We possess all files of this code with the complete family tree in all versions until back for origin 1969. We durchforstet all volumes and all versions of the code. The questionable code originates from exactly the version from Unix system V, which we supplied with by signed contract at SGI licensed and. This version was to the licensee at the disposal and it never was in BSD or other release. And the literal copy of the code from this file is in Linux. On such flagranten offences we want to make attentive.
Apparently, they are disputing the claim that it was in BSD licensed code.
Do you plan to remove Samba from your coming release if you win your lawsuit on the grounds that the GPL is invalid under Federal copyright law? If so, how do you intend to provide the Windows compatibility that you have announced?"
If that were to happen, you can bet Microsquish will be glad to write the slayer of the GPL their very own connectivity package - especially after they buy them out and offer Microsoft Linux (or Microsoft Legacy Server or something like that).
The fact the 600 have preemptively licensed the product should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision for or against IBM. What is in the contract they signed and how that is legally interpretted will.
It is a misdirection - something you use to fool the gullible or those too busy to care. I can charge you a toll to cross the Golden Gate bridge and you can pay it, whether or not I have any right to do so.
Successfully conning one or 600 adds no legal validity to a scam.
That being said, your admonition to those who would license now is prudent. They would be entering into a binding agreement that may have validity even after the oil slick from the SCO Linux licensing ship has sunk. Wait for the proof.
You know, I have nothing against the concept of copyright, although the current legal implementation of copyright is messed up, IMO.
What I do have a problem with is the usage of federal funds and personnel to attempt to enforce copyright.
Patents enforcement is largely the responsibility of the holder, not the government. Why should the responsibility of copyright enforcement be any different? If a work is copyrighted and the holder does not want to pay to enforce the restrictions associated with copyright, why should the taxpayer have the responsibility to foot the bill?
The implication of the proposal implies the burden of providing for the reply is on the individual generating the original expression, not the rebutter. That would seem to limit what forms you can require.
It's hard to tell but the language on linking could have more to do with the same issues as linking to the DeCSS code. Looking at it from that point-of-view points toward the language as intending to legitimise linking as a form of distribution.
OK... but if they only have a 5 year shelf life, why invoke protection for 5 times their expected life?
I understand the gesture... it makes a point. But, when scale is considered, the protections afforded O'Reilly by the 1790 length of time is probably longer than those provided to Disney under current copyright protections. Assuming the real entertainment value of a movie is over in... say 50 years (personally, I enjoy movies some Disney flics from the 50s... it's probably longer), then the equivalent protection for Disney media should be 250 years.
Reading the article (for a change), I don't really see an implied relationship between the quantum and electrostatic spin concepts.
Quote:
Spin is used in quantum mechanics to explain phenomena at the nuclear, atomic, and molecular domains for which there is no concrete physical picture. "So the discovery of electrostatic rotation and the identification of electrostatic spin as a natural phenomenon opens up an entirely new field of inquiry with the potential for significant advances," Wistrom said.
Apart from the noting they have the same name and that the term 'spin' has a history of being used to encapsulate abstract phenomena, the article doesn't appear to link them.
Actually, as I understand it from the editorial document listed earlier on Slashdot, the name change looks like it may happen anyway:
Some expect the name Windows will be dropped completely. The antitrust agreement with the Bush DoJ specifically states "Microsoft Windows" throughout. By maintaining incompatibility (already planned due to design considerations), making it look different and calling it something else, Microsoft can free itself from antitrust oversight. "It's not Windows, it's a different product - the agreement doesn't apply."
If so, this would be a non-surprising strategy for a litigious, cash-flush company like M$. Since Linux was worming its way onto their hit list, they have nothing really to loose by defending a trademark they will probably look to jetison soon enough against an upstart needing a good thrashing. Given the inroads Lindows seems to be making these days, it probably looks like a good call in the M$ boardroom.
Slashdot Mirror
The XFree86 site has a page that says they disbanded. Here is a mirrored list of core team members . Some have been around a while ... easy to loose interest.
Here's the Auroral Activity Map from the Space Environment Center.
At least one of the recent geomagnetic events began just after dawn where I live, so that chance was pretty much shot. Others were overcast or inconvenient (check out the GOES magnetometer for times when the magnetic field was disturbed)
It helps to be in a really dark area - light pollution in a city will just about kill any chance of seeing it. The only time I ever saw it (the '89 geomagnetic storm event), I went out specifically determined to try and catch a glipmse (I was watching the data pretty closely). I drove 30 minutes away from the nearest city lightsource and waited in the dark about two hours total (two shifts). I was just about to call it quits (it was after midnight) and it appeared suddenly. Ten minutes later, it was gone.
Recall that the sunspot cycle actually refers to the number of sunspots visible at a given time. As someone already pointed out, flaring can occur whether or not the actual number of visible sunspots is high
Flares occur to relax the magnet field gradiant. This gradiant is correlated with sunspot size which, in turn, is correlated with sunspot number. Larger sunspots are correlated with solar max and are anti-correlated with solar min. But, just like earth weather throws a curveball, you can get atypical sunspot sizes and activity sometimes.
Having participated as contestant and (much) later judge, the projects that always impressed me the most were the ones that demonstrated the use scientific method to address a question. The question itself didn't have to be one of earth shaking significance - it simply had to be one for which the answer was not necessarily obvious.
A project I loved was one that sought the answer to the question of whether you get more wet running through the rain than walking. He built this chamber to simulate rain, attached a figure with absorbent material on it, and moved it at different speeds. Then, he measured the water collected on the material. The question wasn't pivotal but the project (the whole package - the examination of the details of the problem, the application of the scientific method, the consideration of errors and estimates of their contributions) demonstrated an honest attempt to look at a problem objectively and scientifically.
Just like you can't judge a book by it's cover, you can't judge a science fair project by it's title.
Write a successful NSF grant proposal to do it.
Any resumes which include the Santa Cruz Operation after May of 2003 will be immediately deleted as well.
Gotta be able to read it to see the reference to SCO.
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires retention of all received resumes for a period of one year (as evidence of compliance with non-discriminatory hiring practices in relation to disabled individuals).
Here's a guidance page for HR document retention
No law. However, there is a law (Americans with Disabilities Act) that requires employers to retain all received resumes for one year.
These resumes would serve as the basis for evaluating hiring practices for evidence of discrimination against disabled individuals.
Whether there is a real danger here is debatable as the discrimination does not fall under the scope of the act (IANAL).
I can't help but be reminded of a similar exchange in a cinematic venue:
... Uh, they've already got a license, you see?
Darl: Halt! Hallo! Hallo!
Linus: 'Allo! Who is zis?
Darl: It is Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, and this is the Unix copyright. Who's source is this?
Linux: This is the Linux - it's open source.
Darl: Go and tell your users that we have be charged by our board of directors with a sacred quest. If you will admit you have violated our copyright, you can pay money for a license to use the infringing software.
Linux: Um, I'll ask them, but I don't think they'll be very keen
Darl: What?
Chris Sontag: He says he's already go one!
Darl: Are you sure they've got one?
Linus: Oh, yes - the GNU public license - it's very nice.
Darl: Well, um, we know you copied our code, so you need to purchase a license. Will you buy one?
Linus: Of course not! You are corporate types with no proof!
...
Darl: Now look here, my good man!
Linus: I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Chris Sontag: Is there someone else up there we could talk to?
Linus: No, now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!
I presume the remainder of the group not playing video games are playing the boys.
BTW, nothing personal. I was commenting on wording, not ideas. At least you took the time to write a review, rather than the comparitively simple activity of criticism the rest of us are doing.
I thoroughly disagree. If one reads a review in order to determine the instructional utility of a given text, one typically wishes to determine if it adequately covers a topic (good) or does not (falls short). Using both descriptions is ambiguous, particularly when referencing a particular topic (like inheritance).
It would be quite useful to say something to the effect of it does a good job covering the basics of the topics while specific illustrations would have been helpful or perhaps it provides a very good overview of the concepts of inheritance but does not convey a appreciation for its importance in object oriented programming. It is less so to say that it does a good job inadequately.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't vacating the judge's ruling on that particular issue require an appeal by either of the litigants (or, at least, someone with standing - not entirely sure SCO qualifies)? Otherwise, the ruling is considered an established fact in legal proceedings in which the topic is relevant.
He probably meant to type 'empathize', though I agree with your criticism.
... OK ... so, which was it? Does it do a good job or does it fall short?
I was also did a double take with this remark:
First, although the book does a good job of covering the important C++ topics of classes, inheritance, and templates, I think it falls a bit short in these areas (especially the coverage of inheritance).
Um
Read the German article. The babelfishy version of a question posed to Chris Sontag was:
c't: In addition the copy is to go back substantially further as its rights at Unix. Besides they are by AT&T under BSD license to have been spread, thus have been freely available and can from there in Linux to have been received.
Sontag: That is completely wrong. We possess all files of this code with the complete family tree in all versions until back for origin 1969. We durchforstet all volumes and all versions of the code. The questionable code originates from exactly the version from Unix system V, which we supplied with by signed contract at SGI licensed and. This version was to the licensee at the disposal and it never was in BSD or other release. And the literal copy of the code from this file is in Linux. On such flagranten offences we want to make attentive.
Apparently, they are disputing the claim that it was in BSD licensed code.
Now, the nurses will be unable to outrun the dirty old men.
...
Fortunately, they will still have control of the keys to the Viagra cabinet
Do you plan to remove Samba from your coming release if you win your lawsuit on the grounds that the GPL is invalid under Federal copyright law? If so, how do you intend to provide the Windows compatibility that you have announced?"
If that were to happen, you can bet Microsquish will be glad to write the slayer of the GPL their very own connectivity package - especially after they buy them out and offer Microsoft Linux (or Microsoft Legacy Server or something like that).
Yes ... electrical ... through the bolts in their necks.
...
Don't you know the tradition at law school commencement ceremonies is to end with the pronouncement "They're alive! ALIVE!"
Quite stirring, really
IANAL, YMMV, IMHO, YADA YADA YADA ...
The fact the 600 have preemptively licensed the product should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision for or against IBM. What is in the contract they signed and how that is legally interpretted will.
It is a misdirection - something you use to fool the gullible or those too busy to care. I can charge you a toll to cross the Golden Gate bridge and you can pay it, whether or not I have any right to do so.
Successfully conning one or 600 adds no legal validity to a scam.
That being said, your admonition to those who would license now is prudent. They would be entering into a binding agreement that may have validity even after the oil slick from the SCO Linux licensing ship has sunk. Wait for the proof.
You know, I have nothing against the concept of copyright, although the current legal implementation of copyright is messed up, IMO.
What I do have a problem with is the usage of federal funds and personnel to attempt to enforce copyright.
Patents enforcement is largely the responsibility of the holder, not the government. Why should the responsibility of copyright enforcement be any different? If a work is copyrighted and the holder does not want to pay to enforce the restrictions associated with copyright, why should the taxpayer have the responsibility to foot the bill?
The implication of the proposal implies the burden of providing for the reply is on the individual generating the original expression, not the rebutter. That would seem to limit what forms you can require.
It's hard to tell but the language on linking could have more to do with the same issues as linking to the DeCSS code. Looking at it from that point-of-view points toward the language as intending to legitimise linking as a form of distribution.
OK ... but if they only have a 5 year shelf life, why invoke protection for 5 times their expected life?
... it makes a point. But, when scale is considered, the protections afforded O'Reilly by the 1790 length of time is probably longer than those provided to Disney under current copyright protections. Assuming the real entertainment value of a movie is over in ... say 50 years (personally, I enjoy movies some Disney flics from the 50s ... it's probably longer), then the equivalent protection for Disney media should be 250 years.
I understand the gesture
Forget that! Just think of the field work, man!
Reading the article (for a change), I don't really see an implied relationship between the quantum and electrostatic spin concepts.
Quote:
Spin is used in quantum mechanics to explain phenomena at the nuclear, atomic, and molecular domains for which there is no concrete physical picture. "So the discovery of electrostatic rotation and the identification of electrostatic spin as a natural phenomenon opens up an entirely new field of inquiry with the potential for significant advances," Wistrom said.
Apart from the noting they have the same name and that the term 'spin' has a history of being used to encapsulate abstract phenomena, the article doesn't appear to link them.
Actually, as I understand it from the editorial document listed earlier on Slashdot, the name change looks like it may happen anyway:
Some expect the name Windows will be dropped completely. The antitrust agreement with the Bush DoJ specifically states "Microsoft Windows" throughout. By maintaining incompatibility (already planned due to design considerations), making it look different and calling it something else, Microsoft can free itself from antitrust oversight. "It's not Windows, it's a different product - the agreement doesn't apply."
If so, this would be a non-surprising strategy for a litigious, cash-flush company like M$. Since Linux was worming its way onto their hit list, they have nothing really to loose by defending a trademark they will probably look to jetison soon enough against an upstart needing a good thrashing. Given the inroads Lindows seems to be making these days, it probably looks like a good call in the M$ boardroom.