Since Quake is open-source, how about having each client download a signed precompiled client each time they want to play. The overall source would be open, but players would deal with encrypted black box only.
In your solution the last move is made by a queen, not a knight as required in a puzzle. Also, you only have 4 moves, not 5. I suppose, this puzzle is not about the quickest mate, but a very specific one.
Actually big companies do care about price. The way an OS finds its way into IT shops is when they need a quick solution for some problem, often behind the PHB's back. If it works it sticks.
This timeline includes a bunch of events, like people winning awards or producing offsprings. They are prominent people and those are all good things, but what does it have to do with Linux?
So if you build a hermetic enclosure and fill it with inert gas (say helium), then cold weather is no problem. Building a hermetic enclosure is easy - us, UHV scientists do it all the time. Plenty of companies sell UHV chambers and hardware, including feedthroughs. MDC, Huntington, Thermionics, Varian, Kimball Physics and probably a few others will all gladly help you with the engineering task. If you are a good welder and have ready supply of 304 stainless steel - you may want to weld something like this yourself. As an added bonus, with proper engineering, you'll get a very solid Faraday cage without any extra effort. There is also plenty of companies that sell specialty gases, although helium may be the easiest, since it is used in baloons. Despite its poor purity, it may be enough if condensation is the only thing to worry about.
What's the problem with cold weather? I thought cold was good. I myself thought of submerging my computer in liquid nitrogen (which I have plentiful access to) for OC'ing. Please let me know of any potential problems.
Your record so far is to join a group then leave it soon, renouncing what it stands for. While (as I have said in one of my replies to your post some other time) it seemed insane and still does to some extent, it may (or may not) turn out to be honorable to do this one more time. Being where the money is, is not wrong in any way, except it gives you a motive that you may not have had before, one that may run counter your other motives and values. It will certainly bring your credibility to nil. Let's assess your role so far. In place of commonly understood but unwritten rules for what is free software, you have substituted written guidelines, which are written with legal precision and thus allow software to be classified as free through loopholes or insufficiently strong language (QPL). Now you (admittedly, like most community advocates) are actively introducing greed to motivate developers, and core developers at that. By the time you are done, there may not be a community spirit to keep anyone in check.
Despite my scepticism about you being able to meet your goals wrt the community, I wish you luck in your undertaking.
P.S. IMHO, QPL is suitable for software where freedom to fork needs to be reduced. Java comes to mind. Software, whose primary value is compatibility, rather than speed or lack of bugs or ease of use, those projects are better off with something like QPL - an almost free license.
I would buy your logic if Sun hadn't made an effort to get java to be a real standard. They could have said what they are saying now about being the de-facto standard a long time ago, they could have told people that they want to retain all rights to java and then there wouldn't be a problem. However they twice tried to sell java as an open standard without any intent to make it open. That hurts. It is precisely the kind of bad business practice that makes people irate. I will not forgive Sun until they do give up copyright to java, as they have led us to believe they would.
Given that the real bandwidth is controlled by just a few corporations and given that this trend is growing, I'd say it's not up to us to keep internet cheap in the long run. We could indeed unionize and lay our own fiber but unions usually also fall under sway of Jimmy Hoffas. Show me an non-rotten union and I'll show you why you are wrong. Fundamentally, individualism cannot be promoted through cooperative activity. You can make a medium that you control, but then anyone subscribing to it is under your control, hence you are running a cult. Individualism can flourish if either you are in isolation or if there is no control. Any medium is the opposite of isolation, and lack of control is only possible if no commercial interests are involved. Notice that even on the net, individualism shows mostly in public forums such as newsgroups, IRC channels and places like/. - all non-commercial venues. How many truly deep, thought-provoking personal webpages have you come accross in the last month?
Will the person be able to tip-toe? Can you make the ball-barings small enough to feel flat AND keep track of all of them? Judging by problms with throughput to monitors which only need ~1 million units (pixels) to be controlled, I'd say you are optimistic.
Making an easily rotatable sphere is trivial (expensive though). Make it out of some strong magnet and levitate it above a superconductor. Detect sphere rotation using laser reflection (just polish the sphere to different reflectivity and detect intensity variation in reflected signal). Now are there any ideas on how to incorporate terrain or even simple stairs into VR?
Thanks, this made it almost clear. I still do not get why they did anything illegal given that two out of three entities in that business were licensed insurance companies. Why was UPS "operating as an unlicensed insurance company"? Seems to me that by getting National Union Fire into the loop they got around that pesky restriction. Where is my logic flawed? I must say that this is one of the few cases where I root for the big guy. I think that this is typical legal excercise at the expense of common sense. Common sense says that since noone had a problem then let UPS go with a warning.
I'd like to add a few more. They proclaim to be multilingual, with language support through add-on software packs. They list languages for which add-ons are available then in small font state that none of theose languages are available for any of their apps. As I can deduce from the phrase: "iBase standard now also supports SQL database formats" - they seem to think that SQL is a database format. According to their web page, their database is not SQL compliant and requires an add-on to interact with SQL-based databases, but this add-on is not available on many platforms (is it available at all?). Last thing about their software: they have their own CVS software, called VCS. Of course it is designed for their own language or IDE or compiler PPL.
Their hardware is weird. They make a distinction between AMD and Intel architectures (not processors - architectures). I know Athlon is slot A, but they don't sell Athlon systems. They also advertise MIPS, m68k and PowerPC units. The most versatile hardware company I heard of.
If you look at their iBase webpage you'll see what is meant by "Mr.James". In normal computing it is called context sensitive online help, the kind of help you usually get if you press F1. The big difference is that Mr.James gets invoked by pressing CTRL+F1 (check their VideoStore page). For a really good laugh check any of their products. I personally am addicted. This better than HBO. They have a wordporcessor which is touted as devoid of bloat yet you can surf the net from within it. It also can change to look like any other wordprocessor (that way the screenshot could be explained despite looking very much like Notepad). Did I mention their database software which is so powerful it EVEN has a scripting language, which BTW is a reduced form of PPL, their all powerful programming language... Except that the web page says PPL is not really a language but an IDE for several other languages. Nevertheless, this PPL can take code relying on say Applescript and compile it for Solaris. It can compile DDE calls for Solaris as well. They make an organizer which automatically arranges meetings for you, from negotiating convinient meeting time, to automatically planning your trip. They also have their own file system, but according to the web page it "is not a real product". Did I mention a spreadsheet that can open files with vba scripts in Linux. Macros too. The Iwin - Uloose corporation seems to believe that Microsoft invented HTML help. Their paperless office suite page says so. I am still laughing about FidelGastro, their hotel/restaurant suite, whose standard selling version includes five (count'em five) client licenses. They also advertise "ready-set-go" concept, which applies to some of their products. In gist, it seems that it translates into: install and 95% of the time you are ready to go. The other 5% are not mentioned.
Thanks for yet another laugh. The fun is at: http://www.iwin-corp.com/Products/Software/Mr_Ja mes/body_mr_james.htm
On a more serious note: this site uses quite a few gif's. Can anyone tell if those were made with a licensed program. I wouldn't mind if Unysis went after Uloose.
Did anyone notice the footnote: "Linux is a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds". Yes, Linux Torvalds. This site reminded me of that Turkish guy who was kissing everyone.
I think we are saying the same thing and differ mostly in judgement. If experiments are reproducible then they are trusted. My sole claim is that I do not believe you can claim reproducibility from a select few facilities. BTW, cold fusion had precisely this problem, where a few advocates would claim to have results and everyone else couldn't reproduce them. Now imagine these select few advocates are running high energy experiments. Makes you wonder, eh? It is also a clever claim to say that systematic error can exist in every experiment. Sure, but where is it more probable? My group has recently built a system and you can call it homemade, but it was designed to be one of the best in the field. Certainly there is no point in building a system with less accuracy than existing systems. I don't take a stance against "industry", although I do believe that fresh ideas are important (duh). I just think that high energy is a tight group of experimentalists and theorists each of which is brainwashing the other: Theorists: we need top quark. Experimentalists: we have a hundred events but we'll call it a discovery because you theorists need it to sleep at night. Theorists: we need neutrino oscillations (some) experimentalists: our evidence is inconclusive but let's say we found it. Theorists: we need Higgs...
I thought binary pulsars established GR to higher precision than SM. As for double checking... In most experimental fields the argument is : "if you don't trust a result - verify it yourself". It is usually easy to build apparatuses up to $1M, because you can get funding. More expensive equipment is unique. It is not uncommon for a branch of science to use fudge factors and small calibration adjustments to keep data in agreement with theory. If I believe that the industry practice is unacceptable, I have no choice of building an accelerator the way I want and calibrating it the way I want. As for double checks with multiple detectors... High energy facilities are huge, and require a lot of personnel. To suggest that there is no exchange of information between groups before measurement is hardly believable. Thus you cannot in good faith claim that those are independent tests. Indeed, independent tests in other areas of physics can be and are done by newcomers with their own custom built equipment. You can build your own Auger if you do not trust commercial equipment, and many people do just that. If you think that those nanotech guys are bullshitting you, you can build your own STM or AFM (typical cost $50K-300K) and try it yourself. But try building your own SSC. Good luck. Also, when a paper has 100 names on it, I gotta believe that somewhere somehow at least one person made a mistake somewhere. It's just basic thermo that entropy goes up in statistical systems. And don't tell me what I should have learned. As a physicist my job is to be paranoid and doubtful. Theories are nice because you can rederive them yorself and in fact that's how you learn them. Experiments need not be trusted unless there is good reason to. Lastly, my point was exactly that Higgs may or _may not_ be discovered, we don't know one way or another. If they do discover it, I hope they produce some reasonable event count (unlike top quark discovery or neutrino experiments in which event counts are so small they can be done by hand, you don't need a computer to count those events).
The problem is that many theorists (including apparently Weinberg), are presumptious. To claim that Higgs boson will be discovered is a joke. It may be discovered, but given how many times its mass has been revised upward because they didn't find anything at lower masses, it'd sure be a surprise if Higgs existed. Similarly, there has been a ridiculous number of revisions of proton decay times and they just keep revising it up. They may have a point, but their case looks rather bleak right now. Being a physicist, I view high energy experiments as the greatest waste of money since welfare. At any given time you got two or three machines in the world capable of reproducing results from other groups. How anyone trusts high energy experiments is beyond me. And surely building an accelerator around earth is a bad idea, precisely because a unique apparatus will never produce trustable data.
Uh, no. Gorbachev was a political reformer but as for economy, he just let things slide. This is the root of why he is hated so much across Russia. I think you are mistaking Gorby for someone else, because I sure haven't heard anyone say a good word about him since he lost power, not in Russia anyway.
This is getting a bit offtopic, but anonymity is important. It lower the barrier to free speech. You feel much freer to say things when you know it can't or won't be traced back to you. From whistle-blowers to people exercising their right to self-expression, anonymity is what makes the web freer than any other medium. Come to think of it, there isn't any topic here. Some poorly written and poorly chosen questions didn't really get answered by a guy who is not worth thinking about.
Slashdot Mirror
At least USPTO lives off its own fees. But apparently that doesn't improve waiting time nor agency's judgement.
Since Quake is open-source, how about
having each client download a signed
precompiled client each time they want to
play. The overall source would be open,
but players would deal with encrypted
black box only.
In your solution the last move is made by
a queen, not a knight as required in a
puzzle. Also, you only have 4 moves, not 5.
I suppose, this puzzle is not about the
quickest mate, but a very specific one.
Actually big companies do care about price.
The way an OS finds its way into IT shops is
when they need a quick solution for some
problem, often behind the PHB's back. If it
works it sticks.
This timeline includes a bunch of events, like people winning
awards or producing offsprings. They are prominent people and
those are all good things, but what does it have to do with Linux?
So if you build a hermetic enclosure and fill it with inert gas
(say helium), then cold weather is no problem. Building a
hermetic enclosure is easy - us, UHV scientists do it all the time.
Plenty of companies sell UHV chambers and hardware, including
feedthroughs. MDC, Huntington, Thermionics, Varian, Kimball Physics
and probably a few others will all gladly help you with the
engineering task. If you are a good welder and have ready supply of
304 stainless steel - you may want to weld something like this
yourself. As an added bonus, with proper engineering, you'll get
a very solid Faraday cage without any extra effort.
There is also plenty of companies that sell specialty gases, although
helium may be the easiest, since it is used in baloons. Despite its
poor purity, it may be enough if condensation is the only thing to worry
about.
What's the problem with cold weather? I thought cold was good.
I myself thought of submerging my computer in liquid nitrogen
(which I have plentiful access to) for OC'ing. Please let me know of
any potential problems.
Your record so far is to join a group
then leave it soon, renouncing what it
stands for. While (as I have said in one of
my replies to your post some other time)
it seemed insane and still does to some
extent, it may (or may not) turn out to be
honorable to do this one more time. Being
where the money is, is not wrong in any way,
except it gives you a motive that you may not
have had before, one that may run counter your
other motives and values. It will certainly
bring your credibility to nil.
Let's assess your role so far. In place of
commonly understood but unwritten rules for
what is free software, you have substituted
written guidelines, which are written with
legal precision and thus allow software to be
classified as free through loopholes or
insufficiently strong language (QPL). Now you
(admittedly, like most community advocates)
are actively introducing greed to motivate
developers, and core developers at that.
By the time you are done, there may not
be a community spirit to keep anyone in check.
Despite my scepticism about you being able to
meet your goals wrt the community, I wish
you luck in your undertaking.
P.S. IMHO, QPL is suitable for software where
freedom to fork needs to be reduced. Java comes
to mind. Software, whose primary value is
compatibility, rather than speed or lack of bugs
or ease of use, those projects are better off
with something like QPL - an almost free license.
I would buy your logic if Sun hadn't made an effort to get java to be a real standard. They could have said what they are saying now about being the de-facto standard a long time ago, they could have told people that they want to retain all rights to java and then there wouldn't be a problem. However they twice tried to sell java as an open standard without any intent to make it open. That hurts. It is precisely the kind of bad business practice that makes people irate. I will not forgive Sun until they do give up copyright to java, as they have led us to believe they would.
So does this mean that all GPL code written by
minors needs relicensing by their legal guardians?
Given that the real bandwidth is controlled by /. - all non-commercial venues. How many
just a few corporations and given that this
trend is growing, I'd say it's not up to us
to keep internet cheap in the long run. We
could indeed unionize and lay our own fiber
but unions usually also fall under sway of
Jimmy Hoffas. Show me an non-rotten union and
I'll show you why you are wrong.
Fundamentally, individualism cannot be promoted
through cooperative activity. You can make a
medium that you control, but then anyone
subscribing to it is under your control, hence
you are running a cult. Individualism can
flourish if either you are in isolation or
if there is no control. Any medium is the
opposite of isolation, and lack of control is
only possible if no commercial interests are
involved. Notice that even on the net,
individualism shows mostly in public forums
such as newsgroups, IRC channels and places
like
truly deep, thought-provoking personal
webpages have you come accross in the last month?
Will the person be able to tip-toe? Can
you make the ball-barings small enough
to feel flat AND keep track of all of them?
Judging by problms with throughput to
monitors which only need ~1 million units
(pixels) to be controlled, I'd say you
are optimistic.
Making an easily rotatable sphere is
trivial (expensive though). Make it out of
some strong magnet and levitate it above
a superconductor. Detect sphere rotation
using laser reflection (just polish the sphere
to different reflectivity and detect intensity
variation in reflected signal).
Now are there any ideas on how to incorporate
terrain or even simple stairs into VR?
Thanks, this made it almost clear. I still do not get why they did anything illegal given that two out of three entities in that business were licensed insurance companies. Why was UPS "operating as an unlicensed insurance company"? Seems to me that by getting National Union Fire into the loop they got around that pesky restriction. Where is my logic flawed? I must say that this is one of the few cases where I root for the big guy. I think that this is typical legal excercise at the expense of common sense. Common sense says that since noone had a problem then let UPS go with a warning.
I'd like to add a few more. They proclaim to be multilingual, with
language support through add-on software packs. They list languages
for which add-ons are available then in small font state that none of
theose languages are available for any of their apps.
As I can deduce from the phrase: "iBase standard now also supports SQL database
formats" - they seem to think that SQL is a database format. According to their
web page, their database is not SQL compliant and requires an add-on to
interact with SQL-based databases, but this add-on is not available on many
platforms (is it available at all?).
Last thing about their software: they have their own CVS software, called
VCS. Of course it is designed for their own language or IDE or compiler PPL.
Their hardware is weird. They make a distinction between AMD and Intel
architectures (not processors - architectures). I know Athlon is slot A, but they don't
sell Athlon systems. They also advertise MIPS, m68k and PowerPC units.
The most versatile hardware company I heard of.
If you look at their iBase webpage you'll see what is meant by "Mr.James".
In normal computing it is called context sensitive online help, the kind of
help you usually get if you press F1. The big difference is that Mr.James
gets invoked by pressing CTRL+F1 (check their VideoStore page).
For a really good laugh check any of their products. I personally am
addicted. This better than HBO. They have a wordporcessor which is
touted as devoid of bloat yet you can surf the net from within it. It also
can change to look like any other wordprocessor (that way the screenshot
could be explained despite looking very much like Notepad). Did I mention
their database software which is so powerful it EVEN has a scripting language,
which BTW is a reduced form of PPL, their all powerful programming language...
Except that the web page says PPL is not really a language but an IDE for
several other languages. Nevertheless, this PPL can take code relying on say
Applescript and compile it for Solaris. It can compile DDE calls for Solaris as well.
They make an organizer which automatically arranges meetings for you, from negotiating
convinient meeting time, to automatically planning your trip. They also have their own
file system, but according to the web page it "is not a real product". Did I mention
a spreadsheet that can open files with vba scripts in Linux. Macros too.
The Iwin - Uloose corporation seems to believe that Microsoft invented HTML help.
Their paperless office suite page says so.
I am still laughing about FidelGastro, their hotel/restaurant suite, whose
standard selling version includes five (count'em five) client licenses.
They also advertise "ready-set-go" concept, which applies to some of their products.
In gist, it seems that it translates into: install and 95% of the time you are ready
to go. The other 5% are not mentioned.
Thanks for yet another laugh.a mes/body_mr_james.htm
The fun is at:
http://www.iwin-corp.com/Products/Software/Mr_J
On a more serious note: this site uses quite a few gif's. Can anyone
tell if those were made with a licensed program. I wouldn't mind if
Unysis went after Uloose.
Xetos is brought to you by a company which also
o ry/body_iwin_history.htm
(allegedly) made "FidelGastro - a program for restaurants and hotels".
See http://www.iwin-corp.com/Iwin_internals/Iwin_hist
The reference to beowulf makes me think he was trying to be funny.
Did anyone notice the footnote:
"Linux is a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds".
Yes, Linux Torvalds.
This site reminded me of that Turkish guy who was
kissing everyone.
I think we are saying the same thing and differ
mostly in judgement. If experiments are
reproducible then they are trusted. My sole claim
is that I do not believe you can claim
reproducibility from a select few facilities.
BTW, cold fusion had precisely this problem,
where a few advocates would claim to have
results and everyone else couldn't reproduce them.
Now imagine these select few advocates are running
high energy experiments. Makes you wonder, eh?
It is also a clever claim to say that systematic
error can exist in every experiment. Sure, but
where is it more probable?
My group has recently built a system and you can
call it homemade, but it was designed to be one of
the best in the field. Certainly there is no point
in building a system with less accuracy than
existing systems. I don't take a stance against
"industry", although I do believe that fresh ideas
are important (duh). I just think that high
energy is a tight group of experimentalists and
theorists each of which is brainwashing the other:
Theorists: we need top quark.
Experimentalists: we have a hundred events but
we'll call it a discovery because you theorists
need it to sleep at night.
Theorists: we need neutrino oscillations
(some) experimentalists: our evidence is
inconclusive but let's say we found it.
Theorists: we need Higgs...
I thought binary pulsars established GR
to higher precision than SM.
As for double checking... In most experimental
fields the argument is : "if you don't
trust a result - verify it yourself". It is
usually easy to build apparatuses up to
$1M, because you can get funding. More
expensive equipment is unique. It is not
uncommon for a branch of science to use
fudge factors and small calibration
adjustments to keep data in agreement with theory.
If I believe that the industry practice is
unacceptable, I have no choice of building
an accelerator the way I want and calibrating it
the way I want.
As for double checks with multiple detectors...
High energy facilities are huge, and require
a lot of personnel. To suggest that there is no
exchange of information between groups before
measurement is hardly believable. Thus you cannot
in good faith claim that those are independent
tests. Indeed, independent tests in other areas
of physics can be and are done by newcomers
with their own custom built equipment. You can
build your own Auger if you do not trust
commercial equipment, and many people do just
that. If you think that those nanotech guys
are bullshitting you, you can build your own
STM or AFM (typical cost $50K-300K) and try it
yourself. But try building your own SSC.
Good luck.
Also, when a paper has 100 names on it, I gotta
believe that somewhere somehow at least one
person made a mistake somewhere. It's just
basic thermo that entropy goes up in statistical
systems.
And don't tell me what I should have learned. As
a physicist my job is to be paranoid and doubtful.
Theories are nice because you can rederive them
yorself and in fact that's how you learn them.
Experiments need not be trusted unless there is
good reason to.
Lastly, my point was exactly that Higgs may or
_may not_ be discovered, we don't know one way
or another. If they do discover it, I hope they
produce some reasonable event count (unlike
top quark discovery or neutrino experiments
in which event counts are so small they can be
done by hand, you don't need a computer to count
those events).
The problem is that many theorists (including
apparently Weinberg), are presumptious. To claim
that Higgs boson will be discovered is a joke.
It may be discovered, but given how many times
its mass has been revised upward because they
didn't find anything at lower masses, it'd sure be
a surprise if Higgs existed. Similarly, there has
been a ridiculous number of revisions of proton
decay times and they just keep revising it up.
They may have a point, but their case looks
rather bleak right now.
Being a physicist, I view high energy experiments
as the greatest waste of money since welfare. At
any given time you got two or three machines
in the world capable of reproducing results from
other groups. How anyone trusts high energy
experiments is beyond me. And surely building an
accelerator around earth is a bad idea, precisely
because a unique apparatus will never produce
trustable data.
Uh, no. Gorbachev was a political reformer
but as for economy, he just let things slide.
This is the root of why he is hated so much
across Russia. I think you are mistaking Gorby
for someone else, because I sure haven't heard
anyone say a good word about him since he lost
power, not in Russia anyway.
This is getting a bit offtopic, but anonymity is important.
It lower the barrier to free speech. You feel much freer
to say things when you know it can't or won't be traced
back to you. From whistle-blowers to people exercising
their right to self-expression, anonymity is what makes
the web freer than any other medium.
Come to think of it, there isn't any topic here. Some poorly
written and poorly chosen questions didn't really get
answered by a guy who is not worth thinking about.