Funny. But it's the wrong way to look at it. We just want what should be ours anyway. You don't think "I get to use my own bed for free! I get to use my own oven for free!" do you? That we want to use our own stuff "for free" is just backwards thinking.
In Biochemistry 'The Great Pentaretraction' is along those very lines. One swallow might doesn't make a summer of course. Here's another swallow (as it were).. these guys are real fraudsters, the first group were simply relentlessly incompetent.
While Mark Purdey may not be right about organophosphates (although they may have been a contributing factor) he is (was) correct that the scientific orthodoxy about CJ-like diseases is wrong.
Although prions are not directly my area of research, I have been an interested observer. It is my belief that the idea tha prions are a self-reproducing pathogenic protein (the idea that won Stanley Prusiner a Nobel Prize) is fundamentally wrong. So called "prion diseases" do, in fact, have have nucleic acid genome.
Now, there are not many people who are willing to go up against a Nobel Prize winner and 20 years of research - getting funding for such heretical ideas is not easy.
However, I do believe and hope that the truth of the situation will become apparent and "Science" will have some serious questions to ask itself... how can we have been so wrong about this for so long..?
So, while some of the results of Folding@Home are pretty amazing, spending any CPU time on the structure of prion proteins is utterly pointless.
BTW, if you want to play with protein structures, check out FoldIt (fold.it), it's made by the same people who made Folding@Home, it's pretty cool (there is no "Linux" version - so not that cool (it does run under Wine though)).
Communication (sit together), frequent deployment, test-driven development, frequent feedback from users... does that sound like a good plan? If so then I highly recommend "The Art of Agile Development" by James Shore and Shane Warden.
That image at the top of the linked page is a fake. Someone has just pasted up some black pages, taken a photo and then superimposed a (pretty crappy) simple image over the top. Look closely at the lettering, it doesn't follow the folds of the underlying paper.
the same fondness for weird change-the-world schemes Yes... he should know by now that the rest of the world will never use Lisp and instead will be using python...
Actually, growing crystals in zero-G is at best only a small to marginal improvement.
AFAIR, when the space crystals were tested a few years ago, the only improvement was a limited reduction in the rocking width. The crystals did not diffract to higher resolutions. Better crystals could quite likely be achieved by reducing the micro-hetrogeneity (i.e. purification of some sort). That's a lot cheaper.
There may be one or 2 space structures at www.pdb.org, but they're probably lysozyme.
Also (IFRC again) NASA publicised about how worthwhile it was doing space research by highlighting the importance of improved crystals. They weren't very improved and many members of the community (including me) thought that sending astronauts in to space for reasons such as these was a waste - and the expense (in all ways) could not be justified by the returns.
The space shuttle Endeavour is named after HMB Endeavour, the ship (bark) used by Captain James Cook on his trip to the Pacific encountering ("discovering would have been the contemporary term, I guess) Australia, New Zealand and the Great Barrier Reef (amongst others).
(Actually, there have been several Endeavours in British Naval History).
Cook's Endeavour arrived home safely and (arguably) eventually sank off of Rhode Island.
Cook himself died at the hand of uppity native Hawaiian - they paid the price eventually, of course.
If this agreement contains the same "Clone Product" clause that Microsoft inserted into the Novell deal, then this deal is also practically useless (for Linspire customers). Microsoft thinks that pretty much most of "Linux" is a clone (they are careful to blur the distinction of the kernel (monitor) and the whole OS)....
THE KERNEL IS GPL V2 (TWO) ONLY. That is simply not the case. Please read the source code files for Linux and you will find literally thousands of files that are distributed under "version 2 or later".
i.e. Linux - at least in part - is v3 (optionally at users choice) whether Linus likes it or not.
Nice try, but that's just what the newspapers and TV stations will say when challenged. It's pretty obvious that it's a bogus line, at least sometimes. Can you please provide some corroboration to this statement? Neccessary Illusions - Noam Chomsky
3) It'd be a long process, but the kernel/could/ change to GPLv3, regardless of what many say,/if/ most/all of the current major contributors were to agree to it. It'd be quite a long journey, several years, but if all the major contributors agreed that's a lot of code that could be switched first to GPLv2 or 3, and later to v3 only, without any rewriting at all. Actually, a lot of Linux already is (or will be) under v3 (when it is released). Go back to an old version of Linux, or even a quite new one (e.g. 2.6.21) and you will find *hundreds* or *thousands* of files explicitly stating that they are distributed under "version 2 or later".
The Linux COPYING now says
... note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. Linus changed the COPYING file (and amazingly, they didn't object - I certainly would have done if I was a Linux author). But whatever Linus changes, it doesn't change what the original author intended - and that in many cases is "version 2 or later". It's not up to Linus to retrospectively change this. It's up to the original authors.
Bottom line: it's wrong to say that Linux is under version 2 only. It's under both.
It is not clear from the article if they mean "Linux the kernel" or "Linux the GNU/Linux OS", seeing as they talk about "couple of programs". However "Memory Technology Device" is mentioned and this is a Linux subsystem - so they may well mean the former. Of course parts of our userland may have been sucked in too, but that is still opaque...
IMHO, ignorance of the GNU GPL is no defence. We need a 1000 or so litigious lawyers on our side. I'd imagine that that'd sort out the common practice of code theft that the article hints at... Baah.
Walking up the steps to the podium, shaking hands, making some quip about the silly hats some of the audience are wearing, then actually moving the bits... that's the hard bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny...
I have a PhD in biochemistry and advanced training in crystallography,
me too.
but I couldn't look at a ribosome structure and easily figure out what it meant, because I don't know very much about ribosomes.
Likewise.
Now I write data analysis software instead, and leave the question-asking to more suitable minds.
Me too....
You know how when you're done eating the waiter or waitress [...]
Man, what type of McDonalds do you go to?
Have you missed an "out" or just a comma? :-/
> You just want shit for free :D
Funny. But it's the wrong way to look at it. We just want what should be ours anyway. You don't think "I get to use my own bed for free! I get to use my own oven for free!" do you? That we want to use our own stuff "for free" is just backwards thinking.
OS X echo system...
QTF?
> I know you were being facetious
I was trying to be funny.
> "gay people shouldn't have any rights" guy caught in the toilets
A bit like Harvey Proctor then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Proctor
An orange, a CAT5 cable and a pair of stockings..?
In Biochemistry 'The Great Pentaretraction' is along those very lines. One swallow might doesn't make a summer of course. Here's another swallow (as it were).. these guys are real fraudsters, the first group were simply relentlessly incompetent.
From Wikipedia:
> "He became engaged to actress Kelly Rowan in late June 2007. They broke off their engagement just before Rowan gave birth to their daughter."
Sounds like a nice guy :-/
While Mark Purdey may not be right about organophosphates (although they may have been a contributing factor) he is (was) correct that the scientific orthodoxy about CJ-like diseases is wrong.
Although prions are not directly my area of research, I have been an interested observer. It is my belief that the idea tha prions are a self-reproducing pathogenic protein (the idea that won Stanley Prusiner a Nobel Prize) is fundamentally wrong. So called "prion diseases" do, in fact, have have nucleic acid genome.
Now, there are not many people who are willing to go up against a Nobel Prize winner and 20 years of research - getting funding for such heretical ideas is not easy.
However, I do believe and hope that the truth of the situation will become apparent and "Science" will have some serious questions to ask itself... how can we have been so wrong about this for so long..?
So, while some of the results of Folding@Home are pretty amazing, spending any CPU time on the structure of prion proteins is utterly pointless.
BTW, if you want to play with protein structures, check out FoldIt (fold.it), it's made by the same people who made Folding@Home, it's pretty cool (there is no "Linux" version - so not that cool (it does run under Wine though)).
Communication (sit together), frequent deployment, test-driven development, frequent feedback from users... does that sound like a good plan? If so then I highly recommend "The Art of Agile Development" by James Shore and Shane Warden.
Data is data.
Data are data (unless you have ST:TNG in mind).One datum, many data.
(otherwise you sound like a scientific newbie.)
Goosh is a process control library for guile.
http://arglist.com/guile/
I've been using goosh for years.
Stefan Grothkopp: go away and find your own God damned project name - not ours.
That image at the top of the linked page is a fake. Someone has just pasted up some black pages, taken a photo and then superimposed a (pretty crappy) simple image over the top. Look closely at the lettering, it doesn't follow the folds of the underlying paper.
Baah.
Cylons come pre-boxed?
Well, seven of them at least.
The other one was Microsoft.
p.s. shame on you Apple for supporting (OK, I'm going to take a hit for that, but it's true).
Actually, growing crystals in zero-G is at best only a small to marginal improvement.
AFAIR, when the space crystals were tested a few years ago, the only improvement was a limited reduction in the rocking width. The crystals did not diffract to higher resolutions. Better crystals could quite likely be achieved by reducing the micro-hetrogeneity
(i.e. purification of some sort). That's a lot cheaper.
There may be one or 2 space structures at www.pdb.org, but they're probably lysozyme.
Also (IFRC again) NASA publicised about how worthwhile it was doing space research by highlighting the importance of improved crystals. They weren't very improved and many members of the community (including me) thought that sending astronauts in to space for reasons such as these was a waste - and the expense (in all ways) could not be justified by the returns.
The space shuttle Endeavour is named after HMB Endeavour, the ship (bark) used by Captain James Cook on his trip to
the Pacific encountering ("discovering would have been the contemporary term, I guess) Australia, New Zealand and the Great Barrier Reef (amongst others).
(Actually, there have been several Endeavours in British Naval History).
Cook's Endeavour arrived home safely and (arguably) eventually sank off of Rhode Island.
Cook himself died at the hand of uppity native Hawaiian - they paid the price eventually, of course.
Anyway, Endeavour is indeed spelled with an u.
If this agreement contains the same "Clone Product" clause that Microsoft inserted into the Novell deal, then this deal is also practically useless (for Linspire customers). Microsoft thinks that pretty much most of "Linux" is a clone (they are careful to blur the distinction of the kernel (monitor) and the whole OS)....
i.e. Linux - at least in part - is v3 (optionally at users choice) whether Linus likes it or not.
The Linux COPYING now says
... note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernelis concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated. Linus changed the COPYING file (and amazingly, they didn't object - I certainly would have done if I was a Linux author). But whatever Linus changes, it doesn't change what the original author intended - and that in many cases is "version 2 or later". It's not up to Linus to retrospectively change this. It's up to the original authors.
Bottom line: it's wrong to say that Linux is under version 2 only. It's under both.
It is not clear from the article if they mean "Linux the kernel" or "Linux the GNU/Linux OS", seeing as they talk about "couple of programs". However "Memory Technology Device" is mentioned and this is a Linux subsystem - so they may well mean the former. Of course parts of our userland may have been sucked in too, but that is still opaque...
IMHO, ignorance of the GNU GPL is no defence. We need a 1000 or so litigious lawyers on our side. I'd imagine that that'd sort out the common practice of code theft that the article hints at... Baah.
Absolutely.
Playing chess is the easy part.
Walking up the steps to the podium, shaking hands, making some quip about the silly hats some of the audience are wearing, then actually moving the bits... that's the hard bit.
Funny, I always thought it was Ximian.