I took a look at the paper in case I managed to understand something, and came across this:
Information Storage Capacity
If each extended kinase can either phosphorylate at the S-T site on a tubulin substrate, or not, the process effectively conveys one bit of information (e.g. no phosphorylation = 0, phosphorylation = 1). Each set of six extended kinases on either side of a CaMKII holoenzyme can thus act collectively as 6 bits of information. Ordered arrays of bits are termed âbytesâ(TM). [...]
Logic Gates
Clusters of phosphorylated tubulin, and/or MAP attachment may serve as logic gates for propagating information. Figures 9 and 10 demonstrate two types of Boolean logic gates, an AND gate and an exclusive OR gate (XOR) in which MAPs convey inputs, with output along tubulin pathways. Figures 11 and 12 show AND and XOR gates in which MAPs convey output of inputs and processes in tubulins within the MT. The combination of XOR and AND logic gates forms a universal set for computation in which all other logic gates (NOT, OR etc.) can be conceived. Signals propagating through MT-MAP logic circuits may extend throughout cytoskeletal networks, regulating synaptic function, cognition and behavior.
Whoa. If that research is correct then that's really amazing.
For instance, I made contributions to the Second Life client. Some people actually reused my code. Where could I look for improved versions of it? Well, given that it was quite SL specific due to ties to their UI code, I'd say that in other people's SL viewers.
Heh! I don't care for terminology arguments. It's not important to me what it's called. It does precisely what I want it to do, and that's why I use it, and not because I'm committed to some philosophical concept of freedom.
But, most practical freedom does come with strings attached. Even back when everybody was proudly saying that America is the Land of the Free, it wasn't by any means anarchic.
If you want to write free software for the benefit of the IT community and not a certain unemployed American self-righteous zealot, you should definitely release it into the public domain or â" if you want attribution â" use some easier and more relaxed license (both to understand and read) than any GNU license.
I don't want any of those things.
I write for my own benefit, not for the "IT community". I want attribution, and your improvements to my code, or your money in exchange for a different license. I have no reason to give you code with no strings attached, no matter how much that might displease you.
GPL is perfectly usable in a closed management model when the code is used internally, for example when you provide a service not a software product like google.
That doesn't apply to software that's intended to be sold to end users, which can take advantage of the GPL. For the rest, there's the AGPL. Google doesn't seem to like it.
look at the Linux kernel being locked into GPL v2 because all the contributors of patches and new features/functionality can't/won't authorize a switch to GPL v3
Actually that's in a way a benefit. Part of what I like about the GPL is precisely the situation with the kernel. By mixing together so much code from authors that would disagree with a change, are unavailable, dead, etc, it'd take the rewrite of a huge amount of code to relicense the kernel, to the point it's not worth trying. It exists in a weird category of its own where nobody really owns it, and nobody can ever become the owner. I consider that state to be desirable, even if there are problems like with the GPL3.
BSD licensed projects have been easier sells for some, for example Sun Microsystems and Apple Computers.
They like it better for sure, but why would be that a good thing for me? Darwin last time I looked at it was unusable and pretty much dead, for instance.
My guess would be that for programmers who plan a livelyhood based on writing wholly (or near to it) FOSS code, something like the GPL protects their interests and future business possibilities in the market more than a permissive license like the 3-clause BSD. For programmers who write a lot of code under proprietary licenses, I can totally understand that they would (1) want (or rather NEED) to use permissively-licensed libraries, and (2) thus would be much inclined to release their code under those same permissive terms.
Actually I'm not so sure of that. In my experience, companies don't like to help their competition. My company releases an open source product, and you can bet every bit of code has the GPL3 on it. There's no good reason for BSD licensing anything. We have competitors, why would we help those for free? With the GPL at least if we solve some thorny problem and they take that code, we can then get the improvements to that.
Same goes for me personally. I have no interest in helping a competitor in my free time, and if unemployed I don't want to be working for free for some company earning good profit.
To me, BSD people seem to have mostly an anti-copyright and academic background.
I've personally witnessed the opposite happening: a project releasing under the BSD, then getting upset about it being forked and after I talked to one of its developers, it changed to GPLd afterwards.
Yes, people really don't think enough about licensing, but that goes for both those who choose permissive and strict copyleft licenses. People should think for a bit on subjects like "What if my code ends up in every computer on the planet, but I still get nothing from it? Will I be proud to say 'I contributed this bit', or will I be really pissed off?". Some people might choose the first answer, but my general impression is that people on the whole aren't all that altruistic and quite a few would fall into the second. I don't think it does anybody much good to pretend to be more altruistic than they really are.
In my experience at least many people who choose BSD have this IMO weird idea: that despite the permissive licensing, people should still be polite, and treat it as if it was the GPL in some cases. You can take the code, but you should contribute back. You technically can incorporate it into a GPL project, but it pisses them off (probably because the improved code is out there in plain sight, but they still can't use it), so you should be nice and contribute a BSD licensed version back.
The GPL is a more legalistic approach: here are the rules, if you don't like them then go away and write your own code. It also has a few more ways to adjust to the creator's wishes with options like the LGPL and AGPL.
IMO, if you're writing or releasing software, the GPL is preferrable. You benefit from patches, even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute. You keep your code unusuable to those competitors who follow a closed management model. You also get to use it as advertisement if you're willing to offer an alternate license for money.
If you're looking to use somebody else's software though, of course the BSD is best. But the thing is that once you spent a few months working on code, a BSD license can be a bit of a hard sell for anything important, because you have nothing of the above. I think for most people some degree of attachment and desire of control develops after spending a lot of time on something.
The switch will happen either way of course. But there are different types of changes. When it's clear that change is imminent anyway I'd rather have it happen smoothly.
It seems it is currently the cheapest option.
Money isn't the only thing of value in life. I'd gladly have funded the transition to cars back then, to ensure that I have to spend less years drowning in manure. Life is short and I'd prefer to spend it as pleasantly as possible.
Money is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.
The important thing is not just oil, but cheap oil. This specific article is about exploiting the less available fields, which is expensive, complicated, and more polluting than the easy to access wells.
And of course, as can be seen with BP the industry will do anything they can to weasel out of paying for the damage.
The lesson is that sometimes* there's a currently unknown technical development that will alleviate the linearly projected future problem.
The good thing is that we have alternatives right now. No need to wait for wait for something to magically happen.
The conference in the listed article had to be aborted since they could not even foresee how the problem would be solved.
Again, we're in a better situation: we have options, so we don't need to sit and wait until a solution happens to be found.
No subsidies or regulations were ever needed.
If you were back then, in a city full of flies, bacteria filled water and stinking of cow manure, would you want to try to push the change a bit faster, or would you be happy to wait a few more years until the transition happened naturally?
Also note that the oil industry gets plenty subsidies. This guy's point is that you shouldn't subsidize cars, you should subsidize this horse farm instead.
Regardless of all that, oil is still going to run at some point.
Regarding solar panels, sure, production of electronics is going to generate pollution, which is why agree with the article that the industry needs to be cleaned up. Thought that's nowhere near the only way of renewable energy production.
And while "everything pollutes to some point" is true, some things pollute more than others.
The lesson that I extract from that is that horses were indeed an unsustainable technology and had to be replaced with something better and less polluting.
The same way, applied to the current situation, the point is that oil is unsustainable and needs to be replaced with something better and less polluting.
If back then things were like today, then we'd have lots of people insisting that manure isn't really a problem, after all it's an entirely natural thing, and that cars will spell doom for the economy.
Samsung ML-2850 and similar for instance: costs around $130, has a network interface and is compatible with everything, prints double sided out of the box. Box advertises it as Linux compatible even. I'm not sure if it's possible to plug a stick into it though.
Only downside to it I can see so far is chipped cartridges, but there seem to be workarounds for that.
If you're going to replicate an existing project you're always going to be behind it, whether you follow an open or closed development model.
Now, Mono could (and does) add functionality MS doesn't offer, creating exactly the same situation in the opposite direction, assuming the Mono additions become desirable enough that MS would want to keep parity.
Seriously, if Linux won't support it out of the box, I'm not buying it. Got burned before with printers that only work on specific versions of Windows before, not going to have that again.
I only make an exception for 3D drivers and will stop doing that as soon as I can switch to an open driver.
Actually I don't particularly care for the app store. I've got a N900 currently, and haven't installed a single paid application on it. What I'm looking for is more or less a Linux laptop in cell phone form.
I'll probably get the N9 if it's any good, but I don't think anything else of that sort is going to come out of Nokia, so I'll have to look at alternatives.
I found this which suggests quite a lot can be removed, but not nearly all I'd like.
For instance, this can't be removed: "DrmProvider.apk: Provides DRM functions, needed to access media files (including ringtones)" and I most definitely would want it gone. I'll play my music on my own terms.
They really aren't, you're just trying to be a hipster and jump ahead of everyone else to where you think they're heading.
What's a hipster? I see the term thrown around quite a lot, but I still haven't figured out what it refers to.
I don't particularly care for for jumping ahead. In fact I think that most likely things are heading to some place I'm not going to like, so I'm in no rush of getting there first.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, I await your refutation of this paper. I'm sure it'll be interesting to read.
I took a look at the paper in case I managed to understand something, and came across this:
Whoa. If that research is correct then that's really amazing.
Well, most code stays in the same "niche".
For instance, I made contributions to the Second Life client. Some people actually reused my code. Where could I look for improved versions of it? Well, given that it was quite SL specific due to ties to their UI code, I'd say that in other people's SL viewers.
Heh! Actually SL still exists, and is doing quite well as far as I can tell.
This would actually be perfect for a SL web shop.
Heh! I don't care for terminology arguments. It's not important to me what it's called. It does precisely what I want it to do, and that's why I use it, and not because I'm committed to some philosophical concept of freedom.
But, most practical freedom does come with strings attached. Even back when everybody was proudly saying that America is the Land of the Free, it wasn't by any means anarchic.
I don't want any of those things.
I write for my own benefit, not for the "IT community". I want attribution, and your improvements to my code, or your money in exchange for a different license. I have no reason to give you code with no strings attached, no matter how much that might displease you.
That doesn't apply to software that's intended to be sold to end users, which can take advantage of the GPL. For the rest, there's the AGPL. Google doesn't seem to like it.
Actually that's in a way a benefit. Part of what I like about the GPL is precisely the situation with the kernel. By mixing together so much code from authors that would disagree with a change, are unavailable, dead, etc, it'd take the rewrite of a huge amount of code to relicense the kernel, to the point it's not worth trying. It exists in a weird category of its own where nobody really owns it, and nobody can ever become the owner. I consider that state to be desirable, even if there are problems like with the GPL3.
They like it better for sure, but why would be that a good thing for me? Darwin last time I looked at it was unusable and pretty much dead, for instance.
Actually I'm not so sure of that. In my experience, companies don't like to help their competition. My company releases an open source product, and you can bet every bit of code has the GPL3 on it. There's no good reason for BSD licensing anything. We have competitors, why would we help those for free? With the GPL at least if we solve some thorny problem and they take that code, we can then get the improvements to that.
Same goes for me personally. I have no interest in helping a competitor in my free time, and if unemployed I don't want to be working for free for some company earning good profit.
To me, BSD people seem to have mostly an anti-copyright and academic background.
I've personally witnessed the opposite happening: a project releasing under the BSD, then getting upset about it being forked and after I talked to one of its developers, it changed to GPLd afterwards.
Yes, people really don't think enough about licensing, but that goes for both those who choose permissive and strict copyleft licenses. People should think for a bit on subjects like "What if my code ends up in every computer on the planet, but I still get nothing from it? Will I be proud to say 'I contributed this bit', or will I be really pissed off?". Some people might choose the first answer, but my general impression is that people on the whole aren't all that altruistic and quite a few would fall into the second. I don't think it does anybody much good to pretend to be more altruistic than they really are.
In my experience at least many people who choose BSD have this IMO weird idea: that despite the permissive licensing, people should still be polite, and treat it as if it was the GPL in some cases. You can take the code, but you should contribute back. You technically can incorporate it into a GPL project, but it pisses them off (probably because the improved code is out there in plain sight, but they still can't use it), so you should be nice and contribute a BSD licensed version back.
The GPL is a more legalistic approach: here are the rules, if you don't like them then go away and write your own code. It also has a few more ways to adjust to the creator's wishes with options like the LGPL and AGPL.
Actually agreed there. I was really speaking of personal or commercial projects. Things made by universities definitely should be permissive.
IMO, if you're writing or releasing software, the GPL is preferrable. You benefit from patches, even being able to take those people don't intentionally contribute. You keep your code unusuable to those competitors who follow a closed management model. You also get to use it as advertisement if you're willing to offer an alternate license for money.
If you're looking to use somebody else's software though, of course the BSD is best. But the thing is that once you spent a few months working on code, a BSD license can be a bit of a hard sell for anything important, because you have nothing of the above. I think for most people some degree of attachment and desire of control develops after spending a lot of time on something.
Hello!
I would like to ask a question in your journal, but it's been archived.
The switch will happen either way of course. But there are different types of changes. When it's clear that change is imminent anyway I'd rather have it happen smoothly.
Money isn't the only thing of value in life. I'd gladly have funded the transition to cars back then, to ensure that I have to spend less years drowning in manure. Life is short and I'd prefer to spend it as pleasantly as possible.
Money is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself.
I see many problems.
The important thing is not just oil, but cheap oil. This specific article is about exploiting the less available fields, which is expensive, complicated, and more polluting than the easy to access wells.
And of course, as can be seen with BP the industry will do anything they can to weasel out of paying for the damage.
The good thing is that we have alternatives right now. No need to wait for wait for something to magically happen.
Again, we're in a better situation: we have options, so we don't need to sit and wait until a solution happens to be found.
If you were back then, in a city full of flies, bacteria filled water and stinking of cow manure, would you want to try to push the change a bit faster, or would you be happy to wait a few more years until the transition happened naturally?
Also note that the oil industry gets plenty subsidies. This guy's point is that you shouldn't subsidize cars, you should subsidize this horse farm instead.
Regardless of all that, oil is still going to run at some point.
Regarding solar panels, sure, production of electronics is going to generate pollution, which is why agree with the article that the industry needs to be cleaned up. Thought that's nowhere near the only way of renewable energy production.
And while "everything pollutes to some point" is true, some things pollute more than others.
The lesson that I extract from that is that horses were indeed an unsustainable technology and had to be replaced with something better and less polluting.
The same way, applied to the current situation, the point is that oil is unsustainable and needs to be replaced with something better and less polluting.
If back then things were like today, then we'd have lots of people insisting that manure isn't really a problem, after all it's an entirely natural thing, and that cars will spell doom for the economy.
Your first link: 165 million barrels.
US consumption: about 20 million per day.
Yep, an 8 days supply proves that there's nothing to worry about.
Hope it sticks. Also should result in more of the money going to research instead of being used up on patent fees.
Thousands? They're dirt cheap these days.
Samsung ML-2850 and similar for instance: costs around $130, has a network interface and is compatible with everything, prints double sided out of the box. Box advertises it as Linux compatible even. I'm not sure if it's possible to plug a stick into it though.
Only downside to it I can see so far is chipped cartridges, but there seem to be workarounds for that.
If you're going to replicate an existing project you're always going to be behind it, whether you follow an open or closed development model.
Now, Mono could (and does) add functionality MS doesn't offer, creating exactly the same situation in the opposite direction, assuming the Mono additions become desirable enough that MS would want to keep parity.
In such a case, I do not care for what you make.
Seriously, if Linux won't support it out of the box, I'm not buying it. Got burned before with printers that only work on specific versions of Windows before, not going to have that again.
I only make an exception for 3D drivers and will stop doing that as soon as I can switch to an open driver.
Thanks, I'll consider it.
Actually I don't particularly care for the app store. I've got a N900 currently, and haven't installed a single paid application on it. What I'm looking for is more or less a Linux laptop in cell phone form.
I'll probably get the N9 if it's any good, but I don't think anything else of that sort is going to come out of Nokia, so I'll have to look at alternatives.
I found this which suggests quite a lot can be removed, but not nearly all I'd like.
For instance, this can't be removed: "DrmProvider.apk: Provides DRM functions, needed to access media files (including ringtones)" and I most definitely would want it gone. I'll play my music on my own terms.
What's a hipster? I see the term thrown around quite a lot, but I still haven't figured out what it refers to.
I don't particularly care for for jumping ahead. In fact I think that most likely things are heading to some place I'm not going to like, so I'm in no rush of getting there first.