Researchers don't much care about recognition on/.. They're getting a Nature publication out of this so you can bet that they're fairly happy with the exposure it's getting. Although from the looks of it, it's not that uncommon for that group, damn impressive publication record. Nano, nano, nano; they've got the right buzzword to collect high-profile publications anyway.
No kidding. If an app "should be free" because it clearly took so little effort to develop, then I encourage would-be-pirates people to simply write it themselves. If they don't have the ability to write it but want to use it, then it is worth something to them.
I would like someone who is informed about the patent process to clarify for me, and by extension the/. community, an aspect of the patent process that I do not understand and seems to be a point of confusion among readers here:
If a patent is (wrongly) awarded for a technology that has been covered by prior art, even if the prior art has not previously been patented, what is the legal status of the patent and the prior art? Can the patent be a threat to prior art (could previously existing podcasting/RSS technology be threatened by legal challenges)? Would a challenge by the patent holder risk invalidating the patent when the defendant produced evidence of prior art? In the event of a legal battle where the patent was found to be invalid due to prior art, who would be responsible for legal costs?
Linux deserves a Nobel Peace Prize but I don't think that Linus does. If he were to receive one, it would as a figure to represent the Linux community on the whole. While I think that GPL and Linux have done a great deal that is in line with the goals of equality and global freedoms, I think that it has been an effort by a huge number of people. Linus started that and represents that, but at the end of the day, what he did was write and maintain a UNIX-like kernel. I don't think that the act of releasing that kernel under a free license constitutes an act worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Well it really depends on the the power density in the beam. If a target is 90% reflective to the the wavelength used by the laser, then the laser would have to be 10 times more powerful to achieve the same heating in the target. My guess is that polished aluminum might maintain 90% reflectivity, but who knows. Of course, a speck of highly absorbing dust will burn very quickly, subsequently, the burned area around the dust will also begin absorbing so a hole may grow very quickly. The question is then: how long can the laser remain focused on the burning patch? If it wanders due to atmospheric disturbance the spot may not cause a failure of the target.
Here's the real problem. If you make the laser so powerful that a bit of dust will cause a significant burn to start, a speck of dust on your targeting optics will obliterate the laser platform itself. You could manage this by using a very large targeting mirror and focusing onto the target (possibly what the system does but I couldn't be bothered to look it up) but then you need accurate range-finding as well as directing and you need to keep the beam targeted precisely enough to hit a small focal point for an extended (probably still less than a second) period of time.
At the end of the day the whole system is damn hard to get working. Targeting an enemy missile rather than a slow-moving drone may still be an unsurmountable challenge. I suspect that the whole system is a giant waste of money made even more expensive by the possibility of shiny targets.
*awesome* if Google does it; video will be streamed live to overlay on Google Earth and Street View images. It will happen. Privately owned cameras streaming feeds of public spaces (or privately owned spaces owned by the same organization as the feed) are legal and many exist in the form of security cameras, webcams. The technology to do it is almost available and if it can be done it will be done. Soon (many decades) all public space in major urban centers will be visible to anyone, anytime. Okay, maybe *awesome* and scary.
That's your approach to transporting child pornography? Leave it on a privately owned, remote server that lawfully has to turn over data under a subpoena. That's more effective than drive encryption?
Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
Yes, using the term "the whole lot" did sound like I meant that the navigation software is open source when, of course, it isn't. The point is that, unlike Apple and RIM, the Android market is not controlled by Google. TomTom could write an app for Android but they would be competing with the free price point of Google's own app. I don't see that as anti-competitive on Google's part, but perhaps it is a similar case to IE and Windows and the fact that Android is open source doesn't actually change anything.
Google's page is simple and pure. There is one logo and a search bar.
It's so good, in fact, that they patented it.
Re:Gee, it's almost like they have a monopoly or s
on
Less Than Free
·
· Score: 1
The amazing thing about Google is that it's really hard to find any truly anti-competitive behavior. Offering better service and better price points than your competition is perfectly legal. As long as they avoid exclusive licensing contracts (easy to do when so much of their software is open-source) what can they be accused of doing wrong? Price fixing? They offer everything for free. Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Another interesting aspect of Google is that the "less-than-free" business model almost requires a monopoly to work. If they didn't have dominant market share in search-based ad income, the business model wouldn't generate enough revenue to support the "free" ventures and they would rapidly fall back to look more like Yahoo. I can't decide if Google's position is rock solid or remarkably fragile. They're approach to dominating the mobile platform and GPS navigation markets require domination in search ad revenue or they don't make any money.
Sub-version numbers higher than 9 always bug me. In my mind 4.10 = 4.1 thanks to the decimal notation. Perhaps it's just me, but I feel that going above 9 should be avoided. Once it's mature (4.5ish), adding a sub-sub-version might make sense (like 2.5.9) because fewer major changes would be made and the new versions would reflect smaller refinements. The move the Qt 4.6 definitely warrants a full decimal in my mind thiugh.
You can extract dramatically more energy from a supply of uranium by using them and the by-products have a shorter half-life. I'm sure that by now safe, redundant control system can be built to keep them safe. Just NIMBY (not in my backyard).
I think they need to get away from the 4.x series, it's a great desktop now, but a lot of people still have a bad taste in their mouth from only having tried 4.0. Similarly to how Vista SP3 is called "Windows 7," KDE should abandon 4.x and jump on the 7 bandwagon (Windows 7, Intel i7) and release 4.4 as KDE7; possibly KDE8 just for good measure.
Disclaimer: I am aware that Vista SP3 is distinct from Windows 7.
KDE is really heading in the right direction but
on
What's Coming In KDE 4.4
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
they'll run out of version numbers in the 4.x series before the series reaches its full potential. I'm really looking forward to using 4.4 but, since it will be the first release that really starts developing the ideas that KDE wanted to implement in the 4 series, the.4 increment seems a bit high. Still, 4.3 already does what Windows 7 and OSX only hint at moving towards so 4.4 will be interesting.
It's a good point. If the laws are copyrighted but still publicly available then they're still applicable to the public by the logic of the parent. Universal access does not mean universal access via the internet. Of course, I also disagree with the idea that the law books should be copyrighted, it's absurd.
Won't help. Politicians aren't born politicians, they become politicians by going into politics. Even if you make a new government out of regular citizens, they will become politicians and you're back where you started.
That's funny; I got a ticket written off because the officer forgot to write down the amount of the fine on the ticket. I was actually trying to pay it when the court clerk informed me that it was void and updated the court documents to reflect that. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.
In any case, neither example is really a case of ignorance of the law. That would be trying to say: "gee officer, I didn't know that passing in a school zone was illegal." Which, incidentally is exactly what I was pulled over for and what I didn't try to argue because I doubt it would have helped. (I really didn't know that, even if there are two lanes for traffic going in your direction, you can't overtake a car in the other lane in a school zone. If a car in one lane is going well under the speed limit, it restricts the speed of traffic in both lanes because you can't pass it. Probably not true everywhere, but worthwhile knowing if it's the case where you live because ignorance of the fact isn't worth much.)
I thought science is when you confirm your theories by experimentation.
Science is the interplay between theory and experiment. Developing fields don't have to rigidly follow the hypothesis->experiment->modification->hypothesis->etc. model or risk being rejected as unscientific. Theoreticians and researchers can make valuable advances on untested theoretical work or unexplained experimental results to try to fill out new, poorly understood areas. The popular perception that science must evolve according to rigid principles is simply false. Like any other discipline it evolves organically and blunders in incorrect directions are often extremely valuable.
The important element that separates the scientists from the crackpots is lively debate and exchange with the broader community, not dogmatic pursuit of a rigid notion of scientific method. Everything within that debate is science. (Peer-review is the formalized structure of the debate and, while it's very far from perfect, does a decent job of filtering out the noise.)
Slashdot Mirror
Researchers don't much care about recognition on /.. They're getting a Nature publication out of this so you can bet that they're fairly happy with the exposure it's getting. Although from the looks of it, it's not that uncommon for that group, damn impressive publication record. Nano, nano, nano; they've got the right buzzword to collect high-profile publications anyway.
No kidding. If an app "should be free" because it clearly took so little effort to develop, then I encourage would-be-pirates people to simply write it themselves. If they don't have the ability to write it but want to use it, then it is worth something to them.
Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the world yet?
I would like someone who is informed about the patent process to clarify for me, and by extension the /. community, an aspect of the patent process that I do not understand and seems to be a point of confusion among readers here:
If a patent is (wrongly) awarded for a technology that has been covered by prior art, even if the prior art has not previously been patented, what is the legal status of the patent and the prior art? Can the patent be a threat to prior art (could previously existing podcasting/RSS technology be threatened by legal challenges)? Would a challenge by the patent holder risk invalidating the patent when the defendant produced evidence of prior art? In the event of a legal battle where the patent was found to be invalid due to prior art, who would be responsible for legal costs?
Linux deserves a Nobel Peace Prize but I don't think that Linus does. If he were to receive one, it would as a figure to represent the Linux community on the whole. While I think that GPL and Linux have done a great deal that is in line with the goals of equality and global freedoms, I think that it has been an effort by a huge number of people. Linus started that and represents that, but at the end of the day, what he did was write and maintain a UNIX-like kernel. I don't think that the act of releasing that kernel under a free license constitutes an act worthy of a Nobel Prize.
what a segmentation fault feels like...
Well it really depends on the the power density in the beam. If a target is 90% reflective to the the wavelength used by the laser, then the laser would have to be 10 times more powerful to achieve the same heating in the target. My guess is that polished aluminum might maintain 90% reflectivity, but who knows. Of course, a speck of highly absorbing dust will burn very quickly, subsequently, the burned area around the dust will also begin absorbing so a hole may grow very quickly. The question is then: how long can the laser remain focused on the burning patch? If it wanders due to atmospheric disturbance the spot may not cause a failure of the target.
Here's the real problem. If you make the laser so powerful that a bit of dust will cause a significant burn to start, a speck of dust on your targeting optics will obliterate the laser platform itself. You could manage this by using a very large targeting mirror and focusing onto the target (possibly what the system does but I couldn't be bothered to look it up) but then you need accurate range-finding as well as directing and you need to keep the beam targeted precisely enough to hit a small focal point for an extended (probably still less than a second) period of time .
At the end of the day the whole system is damn hard to get working. Targeting an enemy missile rather than a slow-moving drone may still be an unsurmountable challenge. I suspect that the whole system is a giant waste of money made even more expensive by the possibility of shiny targets.
*awesome* if Google does it; video will be streamed live to overlay on Google Earth and Street View images. It will happen. Privately owned cameras streaming feeds of public spaces (or privately owned spaces owned by the same organization as the feed) are legal and many exist in the form of security cameras, webcams. The technology to do it is almost available and if it can be done it will be done. Soon (many decades) all public space in major urban centers will be visible to anyone, anytime. Okay, maybe *awesome* and scary.
That's your approach to transporting child pornography? Leave it on a privately owned, remote server that lawfully has to turn over data under a subpoena. That's more effective than drive encryption?
It's a lightweight WM without much bloat
There's no support for compositing
They may be related.
Yes, using the term "the whole lot" did sound like I meant that the navigation software is open source when, of course, it isn't. The point is that, unlike Apple and RIM, the Android market is not controlled by Google. TomTom could write an app for Android but they would be competing with the free price point of Google's own app. I don't see that as anti-competitive on Google's part, but perhaps it is a similar case to IE and Windows and the fact that Android is open source doesn't actually change anything.
Google's page is simple and pure. There is one logo and a search bar.
It's so good, in fact, that they patented it.
The amazing thing about Google is that it's really hard to find any truly anti-competitive behavior. Offering better service and better price points than your competition is perfectly legal. As long as they avoid exclusive licensing contracts (easy to do when so much of their software is open-source) what can they be accused of doing wrong? Price fixing? They offer everything for free. Arguably, bundling turn-by-turn navigation software in Android is similar bundling IE in Windows (enter the MS anti-trust suits) but it's a tough argument to make when the whole lot is open-source.
Another interesting aspect of Google is that the "less-than-free" business model almost requires a monopoly to work. If they didn't have dominant market share in search-based ad income, the business model wouldn't generate enough revenue to support the "free" ventures and they would rapidly fall back to look more like Yahoo. I can't decide if Google's position is rock solid or remarkably fragile. They're approach to dominating the mobile platform and GPS navigation markets require domination in search ad revenue or they don't make any money.
Surprisingly, it almost can
Sub-version numbers higher than 9 always bug me. In my mind 4.10 = 4.1 thanks to the decimal notation. Perhaps it's just me, but I feel that going above 9 should be avoided. Once it's mature (4.5ish), adding a sub-sub-version might make sense (like 2.5.9) because fewer major changes would be made and the new versions would reflect smaller refinements. The move the Qt 4.6 definitely warrants a full decimal in my mind thiugh.
You can extract dramatically more energy from a supply of uranium by using them and the by-products have a shorter half-life. I'm sure that by now safe, redundant control system can be built to keep them safe. Just NIMBY (not in my backyard).
I think they need to get away from the 4.x series, it's a great desktop now, but a lot of people still have a bad taste in their mouth from only having tried 4.0. Similarly to how Vista SP3 is called "Windows 7," KDE should abandon 4.x and jump on the 7 bandwagon (Windows 7, Intel i7) and release 4.4 as KDE7; possibly KDE8 just for good measure.
Disclaimer: I am aware that Vista SP3 is distinct from Windows 7.
they'll run out of version numbers in the 4.x series before the series reaches its full potential. I'm really looking forward to using 4.4 but, since it will be the first release that really starts developing the ideas that KDE wanted to implement in the 4 series, the .4 increment seems a bit high. Still, 4.3 already does what Windows 7 and OSX only hint at moving towards so 4.4 will be interesting.
You just referenced their names in relation to the killings.
Depending on how much of their business depended on contracts from Microsoft, they may not have an HQ anymore.
It's a good point. If the laws are copyrighted but still publicly available then they're still applicable to the public by the logic of the parent. Universal access does not mean universal access via the internet. Of course, I also disagree with the idea that the law books should be copyrighted, it's absurd.
Won't help. Politicians aren't born politicians, they become politicians by going into politics. Even if you make a new government out of regular citizens, they will become politicians and you're back where you started.
That's funny; I got a ticket written off because the officer forgot to write down the amount of the fine on the ticket. I was actually trying to pay it when the court clerk informed me that it was void and updated the court documents to reflect that. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.
In any case, neither example is really a case of ignorance of the law. That would be trying to say: "gee officer, I didn't know that passing in a school zone was illegal." Which, incidentally is exactly what I was pulled over for and what I didn't try to argue because I doubt it would have helped. (I really didn't know that, even if there are two lanes for traffic going in your direction, you can't overtake a car in the other lane in a school zone. If a car in one lane is going well under the speed limit, it restricts the speed of traffic in both lanes because you can't pass it. Probably not true everywhere, but worthwhile knowing if it's the case where you live because ignorance of the fact isn't worth much.)
I thought science is when you confirm your theories by experimentation.
Science is the interplay between theory and experiment. Developing fields don't have to rigidly follow the hypothesis->experiment->modification->hypothesis->etc. model or risk being rejected as unscientific. Theoreticians and researchers can make valuable advances on untested theoretical work or unexplained experimental results to try to fill out new, poorly understood areas. The popular perception that science must evolve according to rigid principles is simply false. Like any other discipline it evolves organically and blunders in incorrect directions are often extremely valuable.
The important element that separates the scientists from the crackpots is lively debate and exchange with the broader community, not dogmatic pursuit of a rigid notion of scientific method. Everything within that debate is science. (Peer-review is the formalized structure of the debate and, while it's very far from perfect, does a decent job of filtering out the noise.)
Chipzilla has always been able to keep abreast because of their fabrication prowess
Well that helps, but also due to the anti-competitive tactics that Intel used against AMD.