Hey, guess what? You have to use judgement. In fact, they actually have people in court called judges. You know. Those guys and gals in the funny black dresses and/or wigs depending on where you hail from. Last I heard the judges--get this--actually have to judge things.
That answer is totally inadequate. By this rationle the only things worth defending are those which are valuable enough or owned by those with enough money or influence to litigate an entire court case. If some one steals my car, they get in trouble, with very little financial or legal burden placed on me. It's my car, it has value, stealing it is wrong, everyone agrees. If I had to prove that my car is a car and is capable of fullfilling my transportation needs and that depriving me of it is indeed a crime to some judge that may be some how incapable of understanding the mathematical, logical, and economic implications of my dilemma, well, that just wouldn't be justice.
To expect judges and court cases (with all of the practical implications thereof such as socio-economic power differentials between litigants, etc.) to decide subtle issue like this with little or no guidance from the people via their legistlatures is naieve. (Of course, don't get me started about the sorry state of our representation, and by our I mean all of us, black, white, poor, rich, geek, and grandma alike, but that is another issue.)
Maybe this is just an honest mistake. That is, I am not saying they weren't trying to get away with something before, but maybe they really are trying to come clean now, but they just can't. From LKML:
On Sunday 28 September 2003 18:14, Andrew Miklas wrote:
. . .
At every proprietary softare company I've ever worked for, and this sort of
knowledge was limited to one or two individual engineers, who often left the
project when it shipped. The support guys often don't know diddly, and
management is seldom even aware how much there IS to know.
This totally jives with my experiences in trying to get code/documentation from different companies. They people you are talking to want to help, but the original engineers are gone and didn't document or save what they did.
I am not trying to say Linksys isn't wrong here. They used GPL code and need to abide by that agreement. But what if they can't? For all we know there are some junior engineeers wishing they could tweak someting in the kernel for their next firmware and can't because they can't compile the code.
When I think of Fortran90/95 I think of three things that f77 lacks, data types, pointers, and modules. From what I can see the g77 people are never going to add such things. Hence the existence of the g95 projects.
The current standard is Fortran 95 which, as another poster pointed out, is currently being developed into g77.
I am pretty sure that is not true. All of the g77 information I could find indicates that g77 is no longer being developed. There are two Fortran95 frontends to gcc out there: g95 and gcc-g95, but these really have nothing to do with g77.
There's already a team of very capable -- and young, not ancient/retired/whatever -- programmers implementing the Fortran 9x language, which defines some really interesting constructs. The current plan is for an initial release as part of 3.5.
Have you checked out current? We just rolled it out a few weeks ago in our lab and it is working great. If you have a big investment in 8.0 you could roll your own RPMs once support dies at the end of the year. A big pain compared to the old way, but you should be able to tweak the sources or upgrade the few packages you need from the current redhat version for a few years (i.e., when Redhat releases a security update, grab thier SRPM and rebuild it on 8.0, or use it to patch the 8.0 version. This can get kinda tricky, but I have done similar things before
Compute the Born-Oppenheimer (sp?) wavefunction using a huge basis set and CCSD(T) for something with more than a few atoms
Run genetic algoritms to search for the answers to things like model Hamiltonions.
God, I could just go on forever. As a compuational chemist, I basically spend my life being clever because the machines at the supercomputer institute aren't fast enough to finish a calculation before I die, or don't have 6000GB of memory to hold a matrix of all of my possible configurations.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is longevity. For example,
I wrote my undergraduate honors thesis in Word95. New versions of
Word totally mangle it. I could open it in a new Word, reformat it
again, and repeat every time (once every two or three years) I want to
look at it.
Since I started graduate school, it's been and all LaTeX world for
me. Since LaTeX/TeX had been around for a long time, is open source,
was written by some really smart people, etc. I am confident all of my
LaTeX documents will be readable in the future. If worse comes to
worse, I can always compile an old version of LaTeX if that much
changes in 10,20,50 years. If you care about your documents, and
especially their "digital longevity" (i.e., there ability to be
viewed, modified, and printed many years from now), LaTeX is the best
solution by far.
But how are they connected? 100/1000 Mbps Ethernet? Weta's cluster might be bigger, but without high speed interconnects (e.g., Myrinet) is is just a pile of CPU's, not a supercomputer.
CD-R's and DVD-R's are the largest writeable media format for backup right now
Just a little nit pick... My VXA-1 tapes can hold 33GB, and that isn't even the largest tape drive I have seen. So CD-R and DVD-R are not the largest. They are perhaps more convenient for backing up other CD's or DVD's, but are not the only solution.;)
These \psi_s (t) vectors are also all at "right-angles" to each other. So their cross products = 0.
Don't your mean dot product? The cross product never gives you a scalar. In 3-space the dot product can be written as abcos(theta) which is zero when theta = 90 degrees (a right angle). The magnitude cross product is similarly absin(theta) which is equal to ab when theta = 90. When the cross product is zero, you have a null vector (zero magnitude).
Do any of the listed tools/languages take care of this problem for me?
Sure. At the expense of CPU time. Lots of CPU time. For most things, plain old 64-bit FP math is good enough if you are mildly careful. And if it isn't you better hope that you problem is simple enough to do in some sort of exetended/infinite precision because that takes many orders of magnitude more CPU.
Your right, understanding genetics is hard, Barbie. Let's drive down to the beach instead...
No scientist thinks that every trait is controlled by one gene. Some are, or at least mainly are, (like some pea things that Mendel studied), and when things are that simple, we use a simple model. When it gets more complicated we use a more complicated model. When it gets really complicated we need to use a really complicated model. It seems that FOXP2 is one important point in this genetic network that we are untangling. Just beacuse the problem is complicated doesn't mean that we scientists are going to pack up our toys and ignore it.
IANAGEBIAAS (I am not a genetic engineer, but I am a scientist)
(3) Contract out to another company to step in and do errata updates on EOL'd RH distributions. It's legal, but probably expensive, unless a bunch of people band together to do it.
My prediction is this is exactly what some people will do. In other words, the community will come together and release errata RPMS for 8.x and maybe even 7.3 when they EOL.
I have a whole lab of machines running 7.2 and 7.3 and they are working great. They do everything we need them to do. We don't need the down time and hassle of upgrading. With the SRPMs in hand and a look at the patches in the latest errata, it shouldn't be impossible for the community to release quality updates on its own.
I'm a chemist, not an investment banker, so sorry if this is naive...
Why does Google HAVE to IPO? Why can't they stay privately held forever? Sure, they would get tons of money, but tons of money doesn't seem to be their prime motivtion here. It's not like they are hurting for cash now, right? So why is an eventual IPO a forgone conclusion?
Re:Should there be a GNU-Google?
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 1
But it [FSF] can't modify currently GPL'ed software and put it under a diff. license.
If they own the copyright on the code they can. E.g., Emacs 23 is legally allowed to be closed source if FSF does the closing. (Of course I am sure OpenEmacs would soon be forked from the lst GPL'd code base). The author can always license however he wants, just not retroactively.
Slashdot Mirror
That answer is totally inadequate. By this rationle the only things worth defending are those which are valuable enough or owned by those with enough money or influence to litigate an entire court case. If some one steals my car, they get in trouble, with very little financial or legal burden placed on me. It's my car, it has value, stealing it is wrong, everyone agrees. If I had to prove that my car is a car and is capable of fullfilling my transportation needs and that depriving me of it is indeed a crime to some judge that may be some how incapable of understanding the mathematical, logical, and economic implications of my dilemma, well, that just wouldn't be justice.
To expect judges and court cases (with all of the practical implications thereof such as socio-economic power differentials between litigants, etc.) to decide subtle issue like this with little or no guidance from the people via their legistlatures is naieve. (Of course, don't get me started about the sorry state of our representation, and by our I mean all of us, black, white, poor, rich, geek, and grandma alike, but that is another issue.)
And that is a good thing? Why can't you just boot Linux directly?
Maybe this is just an honest mistake. That is, I am not saying they weren't trying to get away with something before, but maybe they really are trying to come clean now, but they just can't. From LKML:
This totally jives with my experiences in trying to get code/documentation from different companies. They people you are talking to want to help, but the original engineers are gone and didn't document or save what they did.
I am not trying to say Linksys isn't wrong here. They used GPL code and need to abide by that agreement. But what if they can't? For all we know there are some junior engineeers wishing they could tweak someting in the kernel for their next firmware and can't because they can't compile the code.
When I think of Fortran90/95 I think of three things that f77 lacks, data types, pointers, and modules. From what I can see the g77 people are never going to add such things. Hence the existence of the g95 projects.
I am pretty sure that is not true. All of the g77 information I could find indicates that g77 is no longer being developed. There are two Fortran95 frontends to gcc out there: g95 and gcc-g95, but these really have nothing to do with g77.
You mean gcc 3.5, not g77 3.5, right?
Have you checked out current? We just rolled it out a few weeks ago in our lab and it is working great. If you have a big investment in 8.0 you could roll your own RPMs once support dies at the end of the year. A big pain compared to the old way, but you should be able to tweak the sources or upgrade the few packages you need from the current redhat version for a few years (i.e., when Redhat releases a security update, grab thier SRPM and rebuild it on 8.0, or use it to patch the 8.0 version. This can get kinda tricky, but I have done similar things before
Oh, yeah. I wasn't saying it was a good idea, just that it wasn't news.
Personally, I can't even stand a scrollwheel. Just give me a plain old three button mouse, thank you very much.
I was browsing thinkgeek and ran across this mouse. Sounds like this is old news.
God, I could just go on forever. As a compuational chemist, I basically spend my life being clever because the machines at the supercomputer institute aren't fast enough to finish a calculation before I die, or don't have 6000GB of memory to hold a matrix of all of my possible configurations.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is longevity. For example, I wrote my undergraduate honors thesis in Word95. New versions of Word totally mangle it. I could open it in a new Word, reformat it again, and repeat every time (once every two or three years) I want to look at it.
Since I started graduate school, it's been and all LaTeX world for me. Since LaTeX/TeX had been around for a long time, is open source, was written by some really smart people, etc. I am confident all of my LaTeX documents will be readable in the future. If worse comes to worse, I can always compile an old version of LaTeX if that much changes in 10,20,50 years. If you care about your documents, and especially their "digital longevity" (i.e., there ability to be viewed, modified, and printed many years from now), LaTeX is the best solution by far.
Then why does the mouse wheel work under windows though the KVM?
But how are they connected? 100/1000 Mbps Ethernet? Weta's cluster might be bigger, but without high speed interconnects (e.g., Myrinet) is is just a pile of CPU's, not a supercomputer.
They also sell Wintel supercomputers. We recently got one.
I have not had the pleasure of using it yet. Hopefully I won't have to...
Goddamn. If I had mod points you would have got them. That is 100 times funnier than most of the "funny" shit on slashdot.
Thanks. I checked for that once, and it went right by me.
Okay. I use 1.3 at work.... Damn. Now it says that javascript is not a registered protocol...
Wow, it even works in Mozilla!
What version? I just tried with 1.0.1 and it took me to javascript.com... :(
Just a little nit pick... My VXA-1 tapes can hold 33GB, and that isn't even the largest tape drive I have seen. So CD-R and DVD-R are not the largest. They are perhaps more convenient for backing up other CD's or DVD's, but are not the only solution. ;)
Don't your mean dot product? The cross product never gives you a scalar. In 3-space the dot product can be written as abcos(theta) which is zero when theta = 90 degrees (a right angle). The magnitude cross product is similarly absin(theta) which is equal to ab when theta = 90. When the cross product is zero, you have a null vector (zero magnitude).
Sure. At the expense of CPU time. Lots of CPU time. For most things, plain old 64-bit FP math is good enough if you are mildly careful. And if it isn't you better hope that you problem is simple enough to do in some sort of exetended/infinite precision because that takes many orders of magnitude more CPU.
Your right, understanding genetics is hard, Barbie. Let's drive down to the beach instead...
No scientist thinks that every trait is controlled by one gene. Some are, or at least mainly are, (like some pea things that Mendel studied), and when things are that simple, we use a simple model. When it gets more complicated we use a more complicated model. When it gets really complicated we need to use a really complicated model. It seems that FOXP2 is one important point in this genetic network that we are untangling. Just beacuse the problem is complicated doesn't mean that we scientists are going to pack up our toys and ignore it.
IANAGEBIAAS (I am not a genetic engineer, but I am a scientist)
My prediction is this is exactly what some people will do. In other words, the community will come together and release errata RPMS for 8.x and maybe even 7.3 when they EOL.
I have a whole lab of machines running 7.2 and 7.3 and they are working great. They do everything we need them to do. We don't need the down time and hassle of upgrading. With the SRPMs in hand and a look at the patches in the latest errata, it shouldn't be impossible for the community to release quality updates on its own.
I'm a chemist, not an investment banker, so sorry if this is naive...
Why does Google HAVE to IPO? Why can't they stay privately held forever? Sure, they would get tons of money, but tons of money doesn't seem to be their prime motivtion here. It's not like they are hurting for cash now, right? So why is an eventual IPO a forgone conclusion?
If they own the copyright on the code they can. E.g., Emacs 23 is legally allowed to be closed source if FSF does the closing. (Of course I am sure OpenEmacs would soon be forked from the lst GPL'd code base). The author can always license however he wants, just not retroactively.