Microsoft has an interesting problem on their hands when it comes to development and security for Internet Explorer. Because they have made the operating system dependent on Internet Explorer, you can't just download the latest version and install it, you also need all of these other OS patches as well. The downloads are also a lot larger than Firefox updates. This also inhibits development since Microsoft has to do a lot more testing and take a lot more care in the changes they make since it affects more than just the web browsing experience. Microsoft needs to separate the browser from the operating system if they want to compete with Firefox and Safari. They could possibly keep some integration by providing a light api that any browser could implement. This would help prevent the light api from getting too deeply integrated into the operating system.
Is it possible that the reason that Dell, HP, and Lenovo are now offering desktop PCs with Linux has little to do with Linux and it's merits and more to do with the fact that the antitrust enforcement against Microsoft is about to expire and is up for review/renewal. OEM bullying to lockout competitors was one of the biggest complaints against Microsoft. But since the big 3 desktop PC vendors are selling Linux, the measures slapped on Microsoft have obviously worked and are no longer needed.
Novell's agreement with Microsoft provides a license to the end user for the GPLed software that Novell distributes. From Novell's perspective, it believes that the agreement provides indemnification for it's customers. However, if Microsoft claims that GPLed code infringes it's patents and Novell is distributing the code, then Novell loses it's right to distribute the code under the terms of the GPL. So Microsoft effectively breaks the terms of it's agreement with Novell. If Novell sues for breach of contract, the courts might rule that because Microsoft entered an agreement of this nature and then took steps which legally invalidated the agreement, that Microsoft has effectively bestowed an end user license to all of it's patents to all distributors and users of the affected code. Wouldn't it be ironic if Microsoft's own tactics upheld it's claims concerning the viral nature of the GPL?
Novell paid Microsoft for a license to the end user for the GPLed software that it distributes. From Novell's perspective, it believes that it bought indemnification for it's customers. However, if Microsoft claims that GPLed code infringes it's patents and Novell is distributing the code, then Novell loses it's right to distribute the code. So Microsoft effectively breaks the terms of it's agreement with Novell. If Novell sues for breach of contract, the courts might rule that because Microsoft entered an agreement of this nature and then took steps which legally invalidated the agreement, that Microsoft has effectively bestowed an end user license to all of it's patents to all distributors and users of the affected code. Wouldn't it be ironic if Microsoft's own tactics upheld it's claims concerning the viral nature of the GPL?
"Biology is dependant on the concepts described in evolutionary theory."
You already said this. Substantiate it.
"Ignoring scientific evidence is not science. It is religion."
Definition of religion from dictionary.com:
religion
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I said "To cling to a particular philosophical application of a theory or idea and make unsubstantiatedly broad claims about it's impact on science and scientific progress as a whole is the same kind of argument that you indicate are the problem with the religious right wing."
My point was that your argument construction put you in the same category as those you oppose. Your argument complies in spirit with at least religion definition #4.
"Without discussing the merits of my claims, I might add."
You make the statement above that I didn't mention the merits of your claim. I don't call your response below discussing the merits of my claims.
"You are correct on most of what you have written above, but teaching ID or any other subject as an alternative to evolution is not scientific. In order to construct a *scientific* argument about human origins based on ID or any other creationist principle you will have to ignore scientific evidence that supports evolution."
You basically say, "you are correct on what most of you have written" and then you go off on a tangent about intelligent design. My arguments were about flaws in your argument concerning the discouragement of support for furthering the sciences by the religious right wing in government, and the dependence of scientific progress on the successful and wholely exclusive acceptance of a philosophical application of evolutionary theory. The necessity of your exclusivity seems to place you in definition #4 of religion. The religious right wing believes that they have evidence and method to back up their claims as well. They push exclusivity, how is what you claim and how you claim it any different?
"Engineering relies on fundemental science to progress. Chemistry is not the only area of science where the US is sliding."
Scientific progress occurred before the theory of evolution and it's underpinnings. Scientific progress is therefore not dependent on it. The scientific progress of the human race is not dependent on a single theory or idea, only on the scientific method. The history of scientific progress would suggest that the theory of evolution will most likely either change dramatically or be replaced entirely in the next few hundred years. That is the nature of science, always changing.
Part of your original statement:
"This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating."
Your argument:
You state that the religious right wing opposes research in human evolution and radiometric dating. Your whole argument then assumes that
evolution & radiometric dating = science and scientific progress
therefore, the religious right wing and the government that supports them are against science and scientific progress.
To cling to a particular philosophical application of a theory or idea and make unsubstantiatedly broad claims about it's impact on science and scientific progress as a whole is the same kind of argument that you indicate are the problem with the religious right wing. I leave you and the religious right wing to your quarrel.
"Bullshit. Now I know you are high."
"Your statements are proof of my earlier posts."
Actually, I suggested that your post was flamebait. Your above responses are the kind typically found in slashdot flamebait. And from your original post
"but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic."
The last statement was obviously designed to provoke people with the opposite view point.
Having your post modded up as insightful was what annoyed me. It is obviously flamebait for the above reasons.
"Biology and any other field of science dealing with the age of the Earth are destined to decline in the US. The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue. This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating."
What do evolution and radiometric dating have to do with engineering and chemistry?
Evolution != Biology Radiometric Dating != Biology
Most practical applications of Biology have nothing to do with origin of life aspect of evolution or radiometric dating.
The observation that organisms adapt to their environment is not a disputed. The theory that life came into existence this way is the disputed point. The origin of life has always had more philosophical implications than scientific ones. That is where the trouble comes from.
I don't see how opposing the teaching of the origin of life aspect of evolution in public schools (or asking that intelligent design debate be covered) would motivate anyone to lobby against college scholarships for engineering and the sciences.
When I was in college, we studied a variety of opinions on more philosophical matters, as well as scientific ones. I don't see how teaching both in public schools is a bad idea since that is what you will do in college anyway.
If I had mod points, I would mod your post as flamebait. It sounds like a evolution versus intelligent design debate and doesn't establish a clear argument connecting point A to point B.
Doctors are human. They will always make mistakes. If you want to improve a system, look at what the wealthy people do. Do they go to one doctor? No. They have teams of physicians and they go to the very best doctors. Of course, the best doctors are a scarce resource, there would never be enough of them. What if you went to a team of doctors (three or four) instead of depending on just one? It would be especially beneficial in specialities like cardiology, neurology, vascular,... A team would be less likely to make a mistake than a single individual in the general case (assuming average doctors rather than great ones).
Dick Cheney has a team of physicians who look over his health.
The question of course is whether it would be more cost effective. Kind of like the original postal system where you paid on receipt. It became ridiculously expensive to send mail through the original postal system in England because people would place hide a message in the address field of the letter and the receiver of the letter would glance at the address, read the message, and hand the letter back to the postman refusing receipt (and payment). It go to the point where only the rich could afford to use the mail service legitimately. Then someone came a long with a pre-pay postage system and sending mail became cheap enough for the common person to legitimately use the mail service. They charged 1/1000 of the cost of the original system but were able to get the new system to cover its costs in less than two years. A decade later, the system was moving 100 times the amount of mail the original system did. Health care needs such a transformation, what that is remains to be seen. A team approach to medicine might be a piece of the puzzle.
Theft and Burglary have just gotten easier with the aid of RFID technology. Now you can find out what is in someone's home or business just by driving by the building! No need to waste your time trying to profile homes and select the most profitable targets. Just drive through the neighborhood and make out your Christmas list. Point and click profiling. Brought to you by IBM.
Why is every firefox vulnerability a news story? Why isn't every Internet Explorer flaw a news story? IE flaws only seem to be reported after a serious malicious use of the flaw. Firefox vulnerabilities are immediate news stories even though no such disaster occurs. Browser market share aside, why is this news? (not news on slashdot, but news in the press)
Is it some sort of negative PR campaign being launched by Microsoft or Opera Software to counter Firefox's popularity?
It probably helps Firefox from a security stand point since it gets out in the open before a major malicious use and the Mozilla team has a patch shortly afterward. I wish Microsoft would get bad press just because of a vulnerability, not just after a major disaster.
Their is definitely a PR campaign going on here. But perhaps that is obvious.;)
"The European Union failed to adopt a new software law earlier this year, after a stalemate in the heated debate between advocates of free software and commercial companies which wanted more freedom to patent software."
Notice the last phrase...
"commercial companies which wanted more freedom to patent software."
Notice the use of the word freedom...
Political wars are won and lost with terminology.
Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union Pro Choice vs. Pro Life
I don't see how the word choice could have been accidental given the strong ideas that embody the word freedom. Especially the way it has been used these days.
I am not posting for or against the issue in the article, I just find the powerful use of terminology in stories concerning politically sensitive matters facinating. It jumps out at me like a misspelled word.
DISCLAIMER: The table below is 100% made up. It exists only for the sake of being an example.
Year Size (% increase over previous year) 1999 12.0 sq km ----- 2000 14.4 sq km 20.0% 2001 18.5 sq km 28.5% 2002 25.8 sq km 39.5% 2003 32.9 sq km 27.6% 2004 42.0 sq km 27.7% 2005 53.5 sq km 27.4%
In the above chart, the ozone whole is the largest it has ever been, yet the growth rate of the whole could be interpreted as stabilizing or at least slowing down.
So both are right. Your agenda determines how you will use the numbers.
"Current programming languages are insufficiently descriptive to permit compilers to generate usefully multi-threaded code."
The portion of importance is:
"insufficiently descriptive"
In C, C++, and Java, you must program with concurrency in mind to obtain any benefit from multiple threads of execution. In a functional programming language, the restrictions placed on the behavior of functions often imply concurrency without the programmer necessarily intending that as the result. If you write a C program without concurrency in mind and want to adapt your solution later to take advantage of multiple threads, you may need to code a completely different solution and also locate a compiler that knows how to take advantage of concurrency. In a functional language, you may only need to get an updated version of your compiler/interpreter. This is why C, C++, and Java are in the "insufficiently descriptive" category and functional programming languages are not.
"Current programming languages are insufficiently descriptive to permit compilers to generate usefully multi-threaded code."
I agree.
However, I believe that Functional programming languages would seem to have the best chance of successfully taking advantage of multiple threads of execution. Google has 100,000+ computers doing this now using functional programming ideas.
As pointed out in other posts, not every problem will benefit from parallelism. With research and time, this might change. Many problems can be represented in both procedural constructs and recursive constructs. The procedural has been considered the most comprehendable and implementable for the past three decades. This may have to change in light of the direction the hardware technology is going.
It doesn't look like your in a position to get the school to spend any money, so I am not sure if posting about our solution will help. At the college I worked for, we have installed switches from Enterasys that allow per port, per mac, and/or per user policies to be setup at the switch level. We block any port 137-139,445 activity to anything but our intranet server range and dmz. The 137-139,445 is just an example. We block traffic on any port we have found to be used for malicious intent. Aside from that, we have a completely open network. Students are free to play online games as much as they want. We use Enterasys's technology to block malicious traffic patterns at the switch port. One PC cannot infect another. Enterasys's technology applies a stateless firewall per port. It is very impress technology.
We have looked at Perfigo from Cisco. It automates some of the management tasks. We have found it far easier to prevent the problem at the switch port.
We also don't permit p2p apps. We use an IDS to disrupt p2p connection attempts. Between the IDS and the Enterasys switches, we have found them to be what I would call a very *quiet* solution. By quiet I mean that we set it up and forget it. We are not dealing with users everyday because of shutting off there ports. We were doing that, but not anymore.
We are using Enterasys DFEs, but those are probably overkill since they are distribution switches. Enterasys C2s are edge switches that have the same capability.
The one major advantage of the Enterasys DFEs is that they can be setup to limit the number of connections initiated from a port. So if there is a virus that we don't catch with our per port firewall rules, we can turn on the rate limiting and packets will be dropped once they exceed the threshhold. That is a connection setup threshhold. This is typically the pattern that malware follows, trying to setup as many connections as possible to propogate. The Enterasys technologies have saved us ALOT on staff time.
When the country was first formed, our legislative branch was setup such that each state was permitted 2 senators regardless of size and a number of representatives in the house proportional to population size. Why would a state with a smaller population want to join together with larger states and be dominated over in the elections? The electoral college also reflects these early compromises. It represents the mortar of the compromises which built this country. Should California have the right to dictate who becomes president? Iowa, Nebraska, and other smaller population states don't think so. Oh, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the states to change the matter. Which means it won't be happening anytime soon. If you don't like who won, work to change people's minds, not the rules. Remember why such compromises exist, they made us a country and keep us a country.
So the university cannot prevent you from using the 2.4ghz spectrum. As your ISP, they can prevent you from plugging the device into their network. So you can setup the access point in your room and have your own private wireless lan, you just can't hook it into their network. You could still use the wireless access point for local gaming, but you couldn't get any internet access (unless you setup dialup or some form of wireless independent of the university). So yes you can use an access point, but no you can't plug it into the university network without violating their terms of service.
Actually, Corel once had a pretty solid linux distribution based on debian. They sold it with the WordPerfect office suite. It was a very promising distribution. Promising enough that microsoft bought a 30% stake in Corel and several months later Corel dropped all work on linux related projects and started rambling on about a new windows strategy. It sounds like that didn't pan out and now they are looking to try linux again. I believe that microsoft sold some or all of their stake in Corel some time ago. If Corel would have kept on the linux path, their is a good chance that they might be in the position OpenOffice is today. Unfortunately, that opportunity has passed them by. Novel has realized that developing products for the Microsoft platform is fruitless and they are moving over to linux. As microsoft develops more and more functionality and integrates it into windows, more and more big software companies are going to realize that developing for the microsoft platform is fruitless. Microsoft develops it's own media player and integrates into windows. Microsoft will be integrating it's own firewall software and anti-virus software pretty soon. Some big software companies will stand by and watch as their markets dry up. The smart ones will be watching for their linux opportunity. And when that opportunity comes, it may only come once.
Self-appointed economists annoy me. Internet Explorer is free. Windows Media Player is free. You need to use the windows platform to take advantage of the software microsoft makes freely available. While both software packages are freely available, microsoft uses them to make money off of windows. Microsoft is a software company and uses free software to sell it's proprietary software. IBM is a hardware and services company that uses free software to sell it's hardware and software. In the case of open source, you not only get the software for free, but the source code as well. The misconception most likely occurs when thinking of linux as a competitor to microsoft. Microsoft sells proprietary software. The companies using linux are using the software in a very different way and their business models differ greatly from microsoft's. Yet they all make money. Why is this such a hard concept for self-pronounced economists.
The website says that only the industrial version is available. I contacted them and the commercial version has been available for several months. The residential version may be available now as well, I would suggest contacting them if you are interested.
The cost of the AirGen is $5995.00, which may be too high for a 1KW fuel cell. The AirGen is very similiar to a UPS in terms of features. The fuelcellstore.com website has other UPSes with varying feature sets. I wanted to post to make sure that people know that this technology exists, whether the need is for home or business.
The market responds to what management and IT *think* they want and that perception is often limited to their knowledge of vendor offerings acquired via vendor marketing or product experience. IT many times just goes with what they know and not with what is the best choice. Not to say that what they know isn't the best choice, my point is the lack of consideration and proper evaluation of the alternatives. If you don't know them and have to learn them, that somehow makes you seem less important.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has an interesting problem on their hands when it comes to development and security for Internet Explorer. Because they have made the operating system dependent on Internet Explorer, you can't just download the latest version and install it, you also need all of these other OS patches as well. The downloads are also a lot larger than Firefox updates. This also inhibits development since Microsoft has to do a lot more testing and take a lot more care in the changes they make since it affects more than just the web browsing experience. Microsoft needs to separate the browser from the operating system if they want to compete with Firefox and Safari. They could possibly keep some integration by providing a light api that any browser could implement. This would help prevent the light api from getting too deeply integrated into the operating system.
Is it possible that the reason that Dell, HP, and Lenovo are now offering desktop PCs with Linux has little to do with Linux and it's merits and more to do with the fact that the antitrust enforcement against Microsoft is about to expire and is up for review/renewal. OEM bullying to lockout competitors was one of the biggest complaints against Microsoft. But since the big 3 desktop PC vendors are selling Linux, the measures slapped on Microsoft have obviously worked and are no longer needed.
Even better, when you offer someone a penny for their thoughts, it might someday be worth more than your two cents. :)
Novell's agreement with Microsoft provides a license to the end user for the GPLed software that Novell distributes. From Novell's perspective, it believes that the agreement provides indemnification for it's customers. However, if Microsoft claims that GPLed code infringes it's patents and Novell is distributing the code, then Novell loses it's right to distribute the code under the terms of the GPL. So Microsoft effectively breaks the terms of it's agreement with Novell. If Novell sues for breach of contract, the courts might rule that because Microsoft entered an agreement of this nature and then took steps which legally invalidated the agreement, that Microsoft has effectively bestowed an end user license to all of it's patents to all distributors and users of the affected code. Wouldn't it be ironic if Microsoft's own tactics upheld it's claims concerning the viral nature of the GPL?
Novell paid Microsoft for a license to the end user for the GPLed software that it distributes. From Novell's perspective, it believes that it bought indemnification for it's customers. However, if Microsoft claims that GPLed code infringes it's patents and Novell is distributing the code, then Novell loses it's right to distribute the code. So Microsoft effectively breaks the terms of it's agreement with Novell. If Novell sues for breach of contract, the courts might rule that because Microsoft entered an agreement of this nature and then took steps which legally invalidated the agreement, that Microsoft has effectively bestowed an end user license to all of it's patents to all distributors and users of the affected code. Wouldn't it be ironic if Microsoft's own tactics upheld it's claims concerning the viral nature of the GPL?
"You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means..."
"Biology is dependant on the concepts described in evolutionary theory."
You already said this. Substantiate it.
"Ignoring scientific evidence is not science. It is religion."
Definition of religion from dictionary.com:
religion
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
I said "To cling to a particular philosophical application of a theory or idea and make unsubstantiatedly broad claims about it's impact on science and scientific progress as a whole is the same kind of argument that you indicate are the problem with the religious right wing."
My point was that your argument construction put you in the same category as those you oppose. Your argument complies in spirit with at least religion definition #4.
"Without discussing the merits of my claims, I might add."
You make the statement above that I didn't mention the merits of your claim. I don't call your response below discussing the merits of my claims.
"You are correct on most of what you have written above, but teaching ID or any other subject as an alternative to evolution is not scientific. In order to construct a *scientific* argument about human origins based on ID or any other creationist principle you will have to ignore scientific evidence that supports evolution."
You basically say, "you are correct on what most of you have written" and then you go off on a tangent about intelligent design. My arguments were about flaws in your argument concerning the discouragement of support for furthering the sciences by the religious right wing in government, and the dependence of scientific progress on the successful and wholely exclusive acceptance of a philosophical application of evolutionary theory. The necessity of your exclusivity seems to place you in definition #4 of religion. The religious right wing believes that they have evidence and method to back up their claims as well. They push exclusivity, how is what you claim and how you claim it any different?
"Engineering relies on fundemental science to progress. Chemistry is not the only area of science where the US is sliding."
Scientific progress occurred before the theory of evolution and it's underpinnings. Scientific progress is therefore not dependent on it. The scientific progress of the human race is not dependent on a single theory or idea, only on the scientific method. The history of scientific progress would suggest that the theory of evolution will most likely either change dramatically or be replaced entirely in the next few hundred years. That is the nature of science, always changing.
Part of your original statement:
"This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating."
Your argument:
You state that the religious right wing opposes research in human evolution and radiometric dating. Your whole argument then assumes that
evolution & radiometric dating = science and scientific progress
therefore, the religious right wing and the government that supports them are against science and scientific progress.
To cling to a particular philosophical application of a theory or idea and make unsubstantiatedly broad claims about it's impact on science and scientific progress as a whole is the same kind of argument that you indicate are the problem with the religious right wing. I leave you and the religious right wing to your quarrel.
"Bullshit. Now I know you are high."
"Your statements are proof of my earlier posts."
Actually, I suggested that your post was flamebait. Your above responses are the kind typically found in slashdot flamebait. And from your original post
"but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic."
The last statement was obviously designed to provoke people with the opposite view point.
Having your post modded up as insightful was what annoyed me.
It is obviously flamebait for the above reasons.
"Biology and any other field of science dealing with the age of the Earth are destined to decline in the US. The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue. This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating."
What do evolution and radiometric dating have to do with engineering and chemistry?
Evolution != Biology
Radiometric Dating != Biology
Most practical applications of Biology have nothing to do with origin of life aspect of evolution or radiometric dating.
The observation that organisms adapt to their environment is not a disputed. The theory that life came into existence this way is the disputed point. The origin of life has always had more philosophical implications than scientific ones. That is where the trouble comes from.
I don't see how opposing the teaching of the origin of life aspect of evolution in public schools (or asking that intelligent design debate be covered) would motivate anyone to lobby against college scholarships for engineering and the sciences.
When I was in college, we studied a variety of opinions on more philosophical matters, as well as scientific ones. I don't see how teaching both in public schools is a bad idea since that is what you will do in college anyway.
If I had mod points, I would mod your post as flamebait. It sounds like a evolution versus intelligent design debate and doesn't establish a clear argument connecting point A to point B.
Doctors are human. They will always make mistakes. If you want to improve a system, look at what the wealthy people do. Do they go to one doctor? No. They have teams of physicians and they go to the very best doctors. Of course, the best doctors are a scarce resource, there would never be enough of them. What if you went to a team of doctors (three or four) instead of depending on just one? It would be especially beneficial in specialities like cardiology, neurology, vascular, ... A team would be less likely to make a mistake than a single individual in the general case (assuming average doctors rather than great ones).
d octor// 205935.shtml
Dick Cheney has a team of physicians who look over his health.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/05/cheney.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/5
So does president Bush.
So do many celebrities.
The question of course is whether it would be more cost effective. Kind of like the original postal system where you paid on receipt. It became ridiculously expensive to send mail through the original postal system in England because people would place hide a message in the address field of the letter and the receiver of the letter would glance at the address, read the message, and hand the letter back to the postman refusing receipt (and payment). It go to the point where only the rich could afford to use the mail service legitimately. Then someone came a long with a pre-pay postage system and sending mail became cheap enough for the common person to legitimately use the mail service. They charged 1/1000 of the cost of the original system but were able to get the new system to cover its costs in less than two years. A decade later, the system was moving 100 times the amount of mail the original system did. Health care needs such a transformation, what that is remains to be seen. A team approach to medicine might be a piece of the puzzle.
Theft and Burglary have just gotten easier with the aid of RFID technology. Now you can find out what is in someone's home or business just by driving by the building! No need to waste your time trying to profile homes and select the most profitable targets. Just drive through the neighborhood and make out your Christmas list. Point and click profiling. Brought to you by IBM.
Why is every firefox vulnerability a news story? Why isn't every Internet Explorer flaw a news story? IE flaws only seem to be reported after a serious malicious use of the flaw. Firefox vulnerabilities are immediate news stories even though no such disaster occurs. Browser market share aside, why is this news? (not news on slashdot, but news in the press)
;)
Is it some sort of negative PR campaign being launched by Microsoft or Opera Software to counter Firefox's popularity?
It probably helps Firefox from a security stand point since it gets out in the open before a major malicious use and the Mozilla team has a patch shortly afterward. I wish Microsoft would get bad press just because of a vulnerability, not just after a major disaster.
Their is definitely a PR campaign going on here. But perhaps that is obvious.
From the article...
"The European Union failed to adopt a new software law earlier this year, after a stalemate in the heated debate between advocates of free software and commercial companies which wanted more freedom to patent software."
Notice the last phrase...
"commercial companies which wanted more freedom to patent software."
Notice the use of the word freedom...
Political wars are won and lost with terminology.
Gay Marriage vs. Civil Union
Pro Choice vs. Pro Life
I don't see how the word choice could have been accidental given the strong ideas that embody the word freedom. Especially the way it has been used these days.
I am not posting for or against the issue in the article, I just find the powerful use of terminology in stories concerning politically sensitive matters facinating. It jumps out at me like a misspelled word.
Simple. There both right. Just look at the chart.
DISCLAIMER: The table below is 100% made up. It exists only for the sake of being an example.
Year Size (% increase over previous year)
1999 12.0 sq km -----
2000 14.4 sq km 20.0%
2001 18.5 sq km 28.5%
2002 25.8 sq km 39.5%
2003 32.9 sq km 27.6%
2004 42.0 sq km 27.7%
2005 53.5 sq km 27.4%
In the above chart, the ozone whole is the largest it has ever been, yet the growth rate of the whole could be interpreted as stabilizing or at least slowing down.
So both are right. Your agenda determines how you will use the numbers.
Gates also had a $1,000,000 trust fund...
From the parent post:
"Current programming languages are insufficiently descriptive to permit compilers to generate usefully multi-threaded code."
The portion of importance is:
"insufficiently descriptive"
In C, C++, and Java, you must program with concurrency in mind to obtain any benefit from multiple threads of execution. In a functional programming language, the restrictions placed on the behavior of functions often imply concurrency without the programmer necessarily intending that as the result. If you write a C program without concurrency in mind and want to adapt your solution later to take advantage of multiple threads, you may need to code a completely different solution and also locate a compiler that knows how to take advantage of concurrency. In a functional language, you may only need to get an updated version of your compiler/interpreter. This is why C, C++, and Java are in the "insufficiently descriptive" category and functional programming languages are not.
"Current programming languages are insufficiently descriptive to permit compilers to generate usefully multi-threaded code."
I agree.
However, I believe that Functional programming languages would seem to have the best chance of successfully taking advantage of multiple threads of execution. Google has 100,000+ computers doing this now using functional programming ideas.
As pointed out in other posts, not every problem will benefit from parallelism. With research and time, this might change. Many problems can be represented in both procedural constructs and recursive constructs. The procedural has been considered the most comprehendable and implementable for the past three decades. This may have to change in light of the direction the hardware technology is going.
It doesn't look like your in a position to get the school to spend any money, so I am not sure if posting about our solution will help. At the college I worked for, we have installed switches from Enterasys that allow per port, per mac, and/or per user policies to be setup at the switch level. We block any port 137-139,445 activity to anything but our intranet server range and dmz. The 137-139,445 is just an example. We block traffic on any port we have found to be used for malicious intent. Aside from that, we have a completely open network. Students are free to play online games as much as they want. We use Enterasys's technology to block malicious traffic patterns at the switch port. One PC cannot infect another. Enterasys's technology applies a stateless firewall per port. It is very impress technology.
We have looked at Perfigo from Cisco. It automates some of the management tasks. We have found it far easier to prevent the problem at the switch port.
We also don't permit p2p apps. We use an IDS to disrupt p2p connection attempts. Between the IDS and the Enterasys switches, we have found them to be what I would call a very *quiet* solution. By quiet I mean that we set it up and forget it. We are not dealing with users everyday because of shutting off there ports. We were doing that, but not anymore.
We are using Enterasys DFEs, but those are probably overkill since they are distribution switches. Enterasys C2s are edge switches that have the same capability.
The one major advantage of the Enterasys DFEs is that they can be setup to limit the number of connections initiated from a port. So if there is a virus that we don't catch with our per port firewall rules, we can turn on the rate limiting and packets will be dropped once they exceed the threshhold. That is a connection setup threshhold. This is typically the pattern that malware follows, trying to setup as many connections as possible to propogate. The Enterasys technologies have saved us ALOT on staff time.
When the country was first formed, our legislative branch was setup such that each state was permitted 2 senators regardless of size and a number of representatives in the house proportional to population size. Why would a state with a smaller population want to join together with larger states and be dominated over in the elections? The electoral college also reflects these early compromises. It represents the mortar of the compromises which built this country. Should California have the right to dictate who becomes president? Iowa, Nebraska, and other smaller population states don't think so. Oh, and it takes a 2/3 majority of the states to change the matter. Which means it won't be happening anytime soon. If you don't like who won, work to change people's minds, not the rules. Remember why such compromises exist, they made us a country and keep us a country.
So the university cannot prevent you from using the 2.4ghz spectrum. As your ISP, they can prevent you from plugging the device into their network. So you can setup the access point in your room and have your own private wireless lan, you just can't hook it into their network. You could still use the wireless access point for local gaming, but you couldn't get any internet access (unless you setup dialup or some form of wireless independent of the university). So yes you can use an access point, but no you can't plug it into the university network without violating their terms of service.
How about a dozen roses and ballet tickets? It works everytime according to the MSN butterfly.
Actually, Corel once had a pretty solid linux distribution based on debian. They sold it with the WordPerfect office suite. It was a very promising distribution. Promising enough that microsoft bought a 30% stake in Corel and several months later Corel dropped all work on linux related projects and started rambling on about a new windows strategy. It sounds like that didn't pan out and now they are looking to try linux again. I believe that microsoft sold some or all of their stake in Corel some time ago. If Corel would have kept on the linux path, their is a good chance that they might be in the position OpenOffice is today. Unfortunately, that opportunity has passed them by. Novel has realized that developing products for the Microsoft platform is fruitless and they are moving over to linux. As microsoft develops more and more functionality and integrates it into windows, more and more big software companies are going to realize that developing for the microsoft platform is fruitless. Microsoft develops it's own media player and integrates into windows. Microsoft will be integrating it's own firewall software and anti-virus software pretty soon. Some big software companies will stand by and watch as their markets dry up. The smart ones will be watching for their linux opportunity. And when that opportunity comes, it may only come once.
Self-appointed economists annoy me. Internet Explorer is free. Windows Media Player is free. You need to use the windows platform to take advantage of the software microsoft makes freely available. While both software packages are freely available, microsoft uses them to make money off of windows. Microsoft is a software company and uses free software to sell it's proprietary software. IBM is a hardware and services company that uses free software to sell it's hardware and software. In the case of open source, you not only get the software for free, but the source code as well. The misconception most likely occurs when thinking of linux as a competitor to microsoft. Microsoft sells proprietary software. The companies using linux are using the software in a very different way and their business models differ greatly from microsoft's. Yet they all make money. Why is this such a hard concept for self-pronounced economists.
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/
n .h tml
Take a look at the AirGen.
http://fuelcellstore.com/products/coleman/airge
http://fuelcellstore.com/item/393
The website says that only the industrial version is available. I contacted them and the commercial version has been available for several months. The residential version may be available now as well, I would suggest contacting them if you are interested.
The cost of the AirGen is $5995.00, which may be too high for a 1KW fuel cell. The AirGen is very similiar to a UPS in terms of features. The fuelcellstore.com website has other UPSes with varying feature sets. I wanted to post to make sure that people know that this technology exists, whether the need is for home or business.
The market responds to what management and IT *think* they want and that perception is often limited to their knowledge of vendor offerings acquired via vendor marketing or product experience. IT many times just goes with what they know and not with what is the best choice. Not to say that what they know isn't the best choice, my point is the lack of consideration and proper evaluation of the alternatives. If you don't know them and have to learn them, that somehow makes you seem less important.