1. Information. Like a dictionary or the manual
for a machine, code provides information detail.
Those are protected works...
2. Humor, drama, suspense! Code authors, by their
use of comments, variable names, entry point
labels (all of which are immaterial to the
function of the software) express their creative
style to build a literary work for their readers.
For example:
#
# If we got here, we may be in serious trouble...
#
if {$weAreNotDeadYet} {
#
# Boy, that was close!
#
liveDamnYou $stupidGeek
} else {
#
# It's no good I tell you
#
hesDeadJim $stupidgeek
}
That code clearly expresses humor above and beyond
the simple function of testing a variable in an
error handler. Likewise, ANY literary construct
can be establish as an overlay plane on the
functional structure of the software. Even bland
seemingly non-expressive code would then be
equally protected; an uninteresting news report
is just as protected as a heart wrenching story.
It just may not win any awards.
It seems that the less you pay for something, the better the support these days. I've always had excellent experiences with all shareware authors (that charge a pittance), and even better experiences with Linux developers (that charge nothing). Just this weekend, the amazing folks in the LinuxVideo Gatos project resolved a problem for me Saturday night into Sunday. That's not an isolated incident, either. It's that level of support (and the corresponding poor commercial support) that has convinced folks here to move to Linux as a viable platform, not the hype and PR wars. By the time commercial vendors realize the error of their ways, it may be too late to recover their markets.
Ummmm, much of this planets core is radioactive; why not place the radioactive waste into a subsuming tectonic plate, and let the planet recycle it naturally?
Safe nuclear battery technology for electronics
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 1
I remember reading an old Popular Science article about a nuclear battery technology that was intended for use in day to day electronics. It was an alpha emitter chemically bonded to a polymer along with a light emiting phosphor. The end result was a a translucent plastic that glowed. Because the radioactive eliment was part of the polymer, it was safe, even if the battery was shattered. The glowing plastic was thinly sliced, and sandwiched with solar cells. Many layers were stacked. The result was a battery that generated power for about 20 years. Coupled with a lithium battery for peak demand (which was constantly recharged by the nuclear battery), it was a perfect power supply for portable electronics. Does anyone know what happen to this thing?
Apparently, in IBM's stodgy corporate mindset, new stuff comes from hippies. Does anyone remember the OS/2 WARP commercials? Please, not again. The only thing that this type of ad will do is embarrass any corporate citizen that was thinking about using Linux into looking elsewhere. Nothing like risking your career on the latest hippie crap from IBM. We all know how successful OS/2 was (I still liked it...).
...just as a painting can be art. Art is the creation of beautiful or significant things, the product of human creativity (according to Noah).
I'm now in my 28th year of writing code, and I've seen much code that simply does the job. Much less that I would qualify as art, just as I wouldn't classify some of the "paint by numbers" stuff hanging in the halls at work as art.
Code that is art is beautiful, elegant, understandable and creative. Sometimes that only applies to a small section of a larger program, like a real jewel in a pile of rhinestones.
You can tell it's art the same way that you can tell that Beethoven is art; it evokes an emotional response. You look at it and it is beauty.
Just because everyone can't see the beauty in the code doesn't make it not art. It's enough that you can see it.
I don't see why this is a problem. Even the i386 branch is in this state. For example, I wanted to do exactly the same thing; upgrade a PC running a 2.2 kernel to 2.4.1. It turned out that the "official" 2.4.1 didn't correctly support some of the hardware I needed (Iomega Buz video capture), so I went with the Alan Cox 2.4.1-ac9 kernel (which incorporates the Buz patches and is working just fine for my configuration).
I periodically follow the kernel groups, and it's clear to me that the idea is to keep the kernel as stable as possible, while supporting the most mainstream environments. I'm sure the support I need will eventually find its way into the mainstream kernel.
If you're the type of person that needs the latest and greatest (probably most/. users...), then you already know how to get a kernel or apply a patch.
The Linux drivers are at the SmartDisk web page. You can get 64MB on a "floppy", readable in a standard floppy drive. The media is also compatible with a wide range of products (cameras, MP3, etc). You pay more for the media, but save on the drives and get better portability. As a bonus, the media is much smaller and is immune to magnetic fields.
The idea of using robotic arms (which Heinlein called "Waldos" to create progressively smaller robotic arms was described by SCI-FI author Robert Heinlein in his 1950(!) book, Waldo. It's about time someone actually did it:-)
One of the significant advantages that mainframes provide is large CPUs. Instead of 1000 small CPUs, you have 8, 16,... large engines. The difference is a function of the workload. If you have a processor intensive workload that is not divisible into multiple processes (or not many), the larger the individual CPU the lower the elapsed execution time. Even with smaller workloads, a smaller CPU will cause an elongation in the elapsed execution time. For tasks where this is important, mainframes do the job.
The I/O subsystem has been mentioned, but the architecture is impressive. All of the CPUs in the machine have access to the IOPs (I/O processors) -- multiple SEPARATE CPUs that are dedicated to only processing I/O operations, spread over as many as 256 (512? - it's been a while) Ultra-SCSI bus equivalents. Each of these I/O channels are then in turn controlling up to 16 I/O controllers. These are essentially powerful minicomputers that offload much of the I/O handling from the IOPs. The I/O controllers are then directly connected the I/O devices (up to 32 each).
To summarize, 1 mainframe, multiple IOP driving potentially thousands of I/O controllers and 10's of thousands of I/O devices all AT FULL SPEED CONTINUOUSLY.
Truly awesome.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
One less thing to do. Now I can get back to my recreational reading.
An even better idea; let's encrypt phone calls with digital phones (sorry, analog not supported), so answering machines don't work!
Why stop there? Encrypt all written text (need those secret decoder contact lenses), so copy machines don't work.
Yup, we can stop all those nasty copyRIGHT infringements. Oh, and all technological progress while we're at it. Doh!
It expresses:
1. Information. Like a dictionary or the manual
for a machine, code provides information detail.
Those are protected works...
2. Humor, drama, suspense! Code authors, by their
use of comments, variable names, entry point
labels (all of which are immaterial to the
function of the software) express their creative
style to build a literary work for their readers.
For example:
#
# If we got here, we may be in serious trouble...
#
if {$weAreNotDeadYet} {
#
# Boy, that was close!
#
liveDamnYou $stupidGeek
} else {
#
# It's no good I tell you
#
hesDeadJim $stupidgeek
}
That code clearly expresses humor above and beyond
the simple function of testing a variable in an
error handler. Likewise, ANY literary construct
can be establish as an overlay plane on the
functional structure of the software. Even bland
seemingly non-expressive code would then be
equally protected; an uninteresting news report
is just as protected as a heart wrenching story.
It just may not win any awards.
It seems that the less you pay for something, the better the support these days. I've always had excellent experiences with all shareware authors (that charge a pittance), and even better experiences with Linux developers (that charge nothing). Just this weekend, the amazing folks in the LinuxVideo Gatos project resolved a problem for me Saturday night into Sunday. That's not an isolated incident, either. It's that level of support (and the corresponding poor commercial support) that has convinced folks here to move to Linux as a viable platform, not the hype and PR wars. By the time commercial vendors realize the error of their ways, it may be too late to recover their markets.
Does the concept of an easement (a grant of access after prolonged use) apply to protocols? Are there any lawyers out there?
Ummmm, much of this planets core is radioactive; why not place the radioactive waste into a subsuming tectonic plate, and let the planet recycle it naturally?
I remember reading an old Popular Science article about a nuclear battery technology that was intended for use in day to day electronics. It was an alpha emitter chemically bonded to a polymer along with a light emiting phosphor. The end result was a a translucent plastic that glowed. Because the radioactive eliment was part of the polymer, it was safe, even if the battery was shattered. The glowing plastic was thinly sliced, and sandwiched with solar cells. Many layers were stacked. The result was a battery that generated power for about 20 years. Coupled with a lithium battery for peak demand (which was constantly recharged by the nuclear battery), it was a perfect power supply for portable electronics. Does anyone know what happen to this thing?
Apparently, in IBM's stodgy corporate mindset, new stuff comes from hippies. Does anyone remember the OS/2 WARP commercials? Please, not again. The only thing that this type of ad will do is embarrass any corporate citizen that was thinking about using Linux into looking elsewhere. Nothing like risking your career on the latest hippie crap from IBM. We all know how successful OS/2 was (I still liked it...).
...just as a painting can be art. Art is the creation of beautiful or significant things, the product of human creativity (according to Noah). I'm now in my 28th year of writing code, and I've seen much code that simply does the job. Much less that I would qualify as art, just as I wouldn't classify some of the "paint by numbers" stuff hanging in the halls at work as art. Code that is art is beautiful, elegant, understandable and creative. Sometimes that only applies to a small section of a larger program, like a real jewel in a pile of rhinestones. You can tell it's art the same way that you can tell that Beethoven is art; it evokes an emotional response. You look at it and it is beauty. Just because everyone can't see the beauty in the code doesn't make it not art. It's enough that you can see it.
I don't see why this is a problem. Even the i386 branch is in this state. For example, I wanted to do exactly the same thing; upgrade a PC running a 2.2 kernel to 2.4.1. It turned out that the "official" 2.4.1 didn't correctly support some of the hardware I needed (Iomega Buz video capture), so I went with the Alan Cox 2.4.1-ac9 kernel (which incorporates the Buz patches and is working just fine for my configuration).
/. users...), then you already know how to get a kernel or apply a patch.
I periodically follow the kernel groups, and it's clear to me that the idea is to keep the kernel as stable as possible, while supporting the most mainstream environments. I'm sure the support I need will eventually find its way into the mainstream kernel.
If you're the type of person that needs the latest and greatest (probably most
So what's the problem?
The Linux drivers are at the SmartDisk web page. You can get 64MB on a "floppy", readable in a standard floppy drive. The media is also compatible with a wide range of products (cameras, MP3, etc). You pay more for the media, but save on the drives and get better portability. As a bonus, the media is much smaller and is immune to magnetic fields.
The idea of using robotic arms (which Heinlein called "Waldos" to create progressively smaller robotic arms was described by SCI-FI author Robert Heinlein in his 1950(!) book, Waldo. It's about time someone actually did it :-)
One of the significant advantages that mainframes provide is large CPUs. Instead of 1000 small CPUs, you have 8, 16, ... large engines. The difference is a function of the workload. If you have a processor intensive workload that is not divisible into multiple processes (or not many), the larger the individual CPU the lower the elapsed execution time. Even with smaller workloads, a smaller CPU will cause an elongation in the elapsed execution time. For tasks where this is important, mainframes do the job.
The I/O subsystem has been mentioned, but the architecture is impressive. All of the CPUs in the machine have access to the IOPs (I/O processors) -- multiple SEPARATE CPUs that are dedicated to only processing I/O operations, spread over as many as 256 (512? - it's been a while) Ultra-SCSI bus equivalents. Each of these I/O channels are then in turn controlling up to 16 I/O controllers. These are essentially powerful minicomputers that offload much of the I/O handling from the IOPs. The I/O controllers are then directly connected the I/O devices (up to 32 each).
To summarize, 1 mainframe, multiple IOP driving potentially thousands of I/O controllers and 10's of thousands of I/O devices all AT FULL SPEED CONTINUOUSLY.
Truly awesome. :-)