OK, it was done by aggregating journal citations.... Just goes to show you how Math gets short shrift. Mathematicians should ask for proper attribution when their ideas are used in other fields (of course the reverse applies as well;-).
Love to see a similar one which is based upon conceptual relationships in the various fields. Then again, it would be just one big lump for Math, with smaller satellites for everything else. OK maybe three lumps... The second one would be the Simple Harmonic Oscillator, the third - Statistical Mechanics.;-)
You are of course correct. I did over simplify based on the "NASA goes open source" rehtoric.
Often the circumstance you pointed out comes up when a third party does the work for the government under contract; then you sometimes see this kind of thing. But in those cases, usually the third party retains the copyright in the first place.
Personally, I don't see how their license is "better" than having something in the public domain. Sure there is potentially a derviative works issue, but hey you can't get much more open than public domain!
The Bayh-Dole act does have provisions where the Feds can exercise their march in rights, but this is usually applied in cases of national security. Unlikely, the case here. And there have been recent cases where they have taken back IP when the private entity neglected to follow IP reporting requirements of contracts.
But these are usually special situations. I have seen some OSS licenses come out of the NIH, and these are a clear violation, since the work was doen entirely within the agency.
As you, I would want to see the details, before I touched this one.
Copyright (C) 2005 United States Government as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). All Rights Reserved.
The above statement from the license is not legal.
By defn all copyrightable materials produced by the feds are Public Domain... in the most legal sense of the phrase.
Someone at NASA wasn't paying attention.
Furthermore, since the copyleft principle relies on Copyright to grant certain permissions, the fact that the Feds can't hold copyright means that they can't use "traditional" open source licenses.
That's why you don't see this whole flood of OSS from the feds.
I saw a presentation on this two years ago by Philip Kuekes. The data they showed was very impressive. Sure it needs development, but it is a legit avenue for potentially replacing what we have today. The real cool thing is that their tech is amenable to self assembly. That's why defect analysis is so important. The things are so small though that you can afford to have a bunch of bad lines and still get a working widget - just like marking defects on a HD.
Vitrification has been around for quite a while. One trick was to drill a bunch of holes and lower in microwave emitters to heat/melt the ground in-situ. Hardness is only one small part of the question. Chemical reactivity is the bigger question. What happens when the mass comes in contact with ground water? Working in the assay business, you get a lot of hard glass from melting dirt/soil, but when it comes in contact with water, it often just disolves away, releasing whatever was mixed with it. When storing stuff for +100 kyr, this is probably the biggest issue. Water is wonderfully chemically reactive. Since they are using "soil" as the primary matrix, as opposed to some engineered material, my bet is that even if it doesn't dissolve fully, it will leach out an appreacable amount of waste. At least enough to be an issue.... Of course it's better than storing 55 gal drums of the stuff in your backyard.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
OK, it was done by aggregating journal citations.... Just goes to show you how Math gets short shrift. Mathematicians should ask for proper attribution when their ideas are used in other fields (of course the reverse applies as well ;-).
;-)
Love to see a similar one which is based upon conceptual relationships in the various fields. Then again, it would be just one big lump for Math, with smaller satellites for everything else. OK maybe three lumps... The second one would be the Simple Harmonic Oscillator, the third - Statistical Mechanics.
You are of course correct. I did over simplify based on the "NASA goes open source" rehtoric.
Often the circumstance you pointed out comes up when a third party does the work for the government under contract; then you sometimes see this kind of thing. But in those cases, usually the third party retains the copyright in the first place.
Personally, I don't see how their license is "better" than having something in the public domain. Sure there is potentially a derviative works issue, but hey you can't get much more open than public domain!
The Bayh-Dole act does have provisions where the Feds can exercise their march in rights, but this is usually applied in cases of national security. Unlikely, the case here. And there have been recent cases where they have taken back IP when the private entity neglected to follow IP reporting requirements of contracts.
But these are usually special situations. I have seen some OSS licenses come out of the NIH, and these are a clear violation, since the work was doen entirely within the agency.
As you, I would want to see the details, before I touched this one.
The federal govenrment can't hold a copyright.
Copyright (C) 2005 United States Government as represented by the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). All Rights Reserved.
The above statement from the license is not legal.
By defn all copyrightable materials produced by the feds are Public Domain... in the most legal sense of the phrase.
Someone at NASA wasn't paying attention.
Furthermore, since the copyleft principle relies on Copyright to grant certain permissions, the fact that the Feds can't hold copyright means that they can't use "traditional" open source licenses.
That's why you don't see this whole flood of OSS from the feds.
I saw a presentation on this two years ago by Philip Kuekes. The data they showed was very impressive. Sure it needs development, but it is a legit avenue for potentially replacing what we have today. The real cool thing is that their tech is amenable to self assembly. That's why defect analysis is so important. The things are so small though that you can afford to have a bunch of bad lines and still get a working widget - just like marking defects on a HD.
Vitrification has been around for quite a while. One trick was to drill a bunch of holes and lower in microwave emitters to heat/melt the ground in-situ. Hardness is only one small part of the question. Chemical reactivity is the bigger question. What happens when the mass comes in contact with ground water? Working in the assay business, you get a lot of hard glass from melting dirt/soil, but when it comes in contact with water, it often just disolves away, releasing whatever was mixed with it. When storing stuff for +100 kyr, this is probably the biggest issue. Water is wonderfully chemically reactive. Since they are using "soil" as the primary matrix, as opposed to some engineered material, my bet is that even if it doesn't dissolve fully, it will leach out an appreacable amount of waste. At least enough to be an issue.... Of course it's better than storing 55 gal drums of the stuff in your backyard. ;-)