No, not every "too-whatever" weather event is said to be due to climate change. That's just your straw man.
You deniers aren't just "naysayers" - you're a stubborn part of a problem that'll soon be too late to fix. Maybe somebody shrilly equated you to a nazi - who cares? There's shrill nazi-callers in every crowd - especially in your Teabagger crowd.
Humans adapted to Ice Ages during past climate changes. I'd rather plant more trees and stop burning coal. The idea that the climate change will be good for plants when it will extinct a large percentage of species, possibly including ours, probably including your family, and destroy our civilization, is an aggressively stupid idea.
You're a fallacious denier. Shut up already. It's bad enough we have to save you and your descendants from your stupidity without listening to you cry all the time about how the mean hippie called you a nazi.
So what? Solyndra was a big energy industrial corp. Every single energy industry in America has always been driven ahead by government money. And now with strategic competitors like China, a Communist country where all new industrial development is totally government planned and subsidized, keeping and making America even relevant, if not #1, requires US government investment. Because the greedy, lazy, stupid American corporations don't invest in that kind of stuff.
The oil biz is still getting $4 BILLION in corporate welfare these years, even during record profits. You don't whine about that. You just whine about whatever Rush Limbo or your alternate favorite rightwing propaganda tells you to bunch your panties over.
Get the oil corps to stop robbing my taxes and I'll care that a risktaking company failed to return its loan valued at a small percentage of the oil welfare. You never will, so I'll never care.
What's the "eco-industrial complex"? You Teabaggers used to just call them "tree-huggers". You know - the people who urged you to plant and cultivate trees.
You Teabaggers will say anything to imagine you're punching a hippie. Even if it chokes you to death.
So what? You don't care about the data. You and they are worthy not of more data, or any more logic beyond what I charitably offered already. You'll get only insults now, since you disrespect the truth - and its bearers. Liar. Polluter.
What's a "revolution"? The revolts in Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria this year? How about the people who have been "occupying" Wall Street the past week? Does getting maced by the cops for no reason at all make a revolt a revolution?
It's in balance. The balance has a range. CFCs push it out of the range in which it's relatively safe for people. I already said that the Antarctic hole doesn't matter to us - until we enlarge it to cover Australia and New Zealand, and create one that ranges into Europe, Asia and North America. You're arguing a strawman.
You're the kind of person who argues that since most CO2 is produced by the ecosystem independent of humans, that it doesn't matter when humans overload the atmosphere with enough extra CO2 to cause changes that damage us. Or that because those changes have occurred in remote times, that it's OK to produce them now even though the changes damage us.
Or who argues that since there are so many gallons of water in the ocean, it couldn't possibly make any difference if a few thousand more gallons were poured into your car while you're driving to work. After all, there's water in the car's radiator.
Yes, but CFCs destroy it. Like everything else in nature, the ozone layer's thickness is a balance. Between generation by sunlight and destruction by the existing destructive chemistry plus the CFCs that humans added. When we spray CFCs they push the balance, and the ozone layer thickness gets so thin it's got a hole in it - or a bigger hole than before.
We don't care about the Antarctic ozone hole that humans and the rest of our contemporary species evolved with. What we care about is the bigger hole we made, that extends over Australia and New Zealand, and the one we made over the Arctic that extends over Europe, Asia and North America. And over the people and other animals under those holes.
But all that seems perfectly obvious, and has been well understood for several generations. You're just a polluter lobbying for ignorance and stupidity.
I'm an old friend of the Xilinx scientist who kicked off this Zynq project starting several years ago and has driven it to the market. They've done a lot more than buy a COTS ARM blob and fired off datasheets. I've been waiting for over two years for the final product to reach market after I heard it was finalized in engineering. I have expressed an interest, and indeed I believe my requirements helped influence the specs for the low end chip.
I'm not going for a "PC" as in form factor. I'm going for a PC as in device architecture: CPU, RAM, storage (HD/SSD), monitor (at least a 20x4 char LCD), keyboard and mouse option (USB), ethernet, other IO (RS-232/485), running an OS (Android). We design and build our own embedded PIC devices, including enclosures, and we'll switch to the one that works best in our industrial environment. But the point is that I want a PC with an ARM CPU that is a Zynq, running Android, that I can target for development the same way I target a desktop or server from my Eclipse IDE. If that means I have to build my own Zynq on a PCMCIA to use commodity HW for the rest, I will.
So how do I do that? Once I understand what I need to do, I can also look to Xilinx for some support in doing it. But until I understand the path, and then accept it's for me, I'm not going to bother my Xilinx connections with it.
I don't think there's any TOS that's only clicked, is necessary to get started, and is practically never read by any of the large numbers of people who click through it, that has even been tested in a US court to bind the clicker to its terms. I do remember quite a bit of "shrinkwrap license" and "clickwrap license" cases that were rejected by the court as nonbinding.
What would be very helpful, and not require any lawyers or negotiations, would be a local TOS database I'd keep. When receiving an offered TOS, my local DB would capture it, and include metadata like whether I signed it, any other info I gave associated with it (address, email, credit card, account# etc). And when revised TOS is sent/offered/published to me (or in general), it would capture the new version, showing me changes. Then I might be able to track what were the TOS was that I actually agreed to, and the changes, and whether or not I agreed. Which would help protect me if the TOS were ever enforced on me in ways with which I disagreed. And compare new TOS to old ones I'd accepted or rejected, helping me decide what to do with the new one.
A really effective version would require that any TOS, to be acceptable, be delivered in structured XML, in a standardized or consensus dialect. Then I might actually abide by them, and hold the issuer to them. Which would require lawyers and negotiations up front, to move contracts to this usable modern basis. So lawyers and corporations that abuse with them would resist, but probably there would be an evolution to them eventually.
I thought something like this would have been a browser plugin already. At least to save typing and scrounging for personal info to supply. But maybe applying the approach to smartphones will catch on, since that kind of typing and scrounging is a real barrier in those limited form factors.
When it's in print it looks like libel, a more serious and costly offense, because it's being published to n people, rather than just spoken to one or a few.
Why just imagine, when I have a lab that maybe could do it? As I asked in another post in this discussion, is anyone putting a Zynq into EOMA? What would it take for my HW lab to do so?
What I want (for myself and for a productive community) is tools for Eclipse. So I can create a single project containing both CPU and FPGA code/resources that the IDE manages, spawning tools per target respectively. An integrated single-stepping debugger (integrating FPGA states into the hybrid CPU environment) would be ideal. But any IDE integration would be a step. Are there ways to package those tools for Eclipse to use them? Their wikis to which you linked don't indicate so.
Because we're currently running a PIC as a peripheral to an x86 PC in an embedded industrial control app. Zynq/Android might replace the PC, some networking equipment, and the PIC, not just the PIC. If I could use Arduino developer output, and Arduino developers, I'd have more tools and developers to get me there.
Plus maybe let us port sequential code from PIC MCU to the CPU, gradually as we have time, eventually leaving only the parallel circuits and stuff the PIC did that the CPU shouldn't. Maybe test out in the field new MCUs in their FPGA core versions, which we eventually integrate with the box in HW - upgradeable across the network, without physically ($) visiting the sites. And let us revise PIC code that was really a hack around PIC limitations into more appropriate circuits in the FPGA. All in a chip that's pitched as costing $15 in largest quantity, and maybe $25 in kiloqty.
Are there any existing ARM PC boards that can take the forthcoming Xilinx Zynq CPUs? Nothing fancy - I want to run an Android desktop on it while I port my PIC embedded industrial controller firmware to Zynq/Android/FPGA. Any PC I can swap a Zynq into now, or that will be available in 2012?
Or rather, is anyone putting a Zynq into EOMA? What would it take for my HW lab to do so?
Are there any existing ARM PC boards that can take the forthcoming Xilinx Zynq CPUs? Nothing fancy - I want to run an Android desktop on it while I port my PIC embedded industrial controller firmware to Zynq/Android/FPGA. Any PC I can swap a Zynq into now, or that will be available in 2012?
What I want is a desktop Zynq-7000, the ARM A-9 CPU from Xilinx with a large embedded FPGA, running Android. My lab desktop, anyway. I want to port my embedded industrial control PIC code to it, perhaps targeting a soft PIC core in the FPGA (at first, then gradually porting sequential functions to Android processes). A desktop ARM/FPGA would be a great way to use the large universe of desktop apps to get the embedded PC to do what I want, even if I then repackage it as an embedded device (text LCD, minimum IO ports, no local Desktop, etc).
The Zynq CPU itself is probably not shipping until 2012. But who's got a PC built on it in the pipeline? Who's got some other ARM PC that could take a Zynq popped into it with a minimum of electronics work?
All you have to do to copyright something is to publish it. You don't even need to explicitly say "copyright XXXX" in the published code or text, but it is a warning. When someone publishes something, it's automatically copyrighted to them. If you register a copyright with the Library of Congress you're entitled to triple damages if someone infringes the copyright, otherwise it's just 1x damages, but the registration is not the copyright itself - publishing is. However, registering at LoC is another warning to an infringer that you know what you're doing, that you'll act to defend, and that you're serious.
If you had just published your code on some website that gets archived reliably somewhere with a timestamp, including Google or archive.org, you'd have had all the evidence you need to crush your prof. You'd have gotten an adequate lawyer to defend you without fronting them their fees, since it's open and shut and a good investment for the lawyer.
If the LoC offered the registration service as a simple Web form that archives and timestamps anything published on which copyright can be claimed, the entire process would be simple. Lawyers would defend such cases without asking for payment up front, since the triple damages would ensure any case the defendant had any value in perpetrating would fairly quickly and solidly pay the lawyer suing them for you.
Public domain protects anyone else from copyrighting it, but of course doesn't prevent anyone else from copying it. Claiming it as their own and trying to enforce copyright would be fraud, but someone might possibly try it. Public domain will not prevent anyone from removing attribution to you, or prevent anyone from doing anything else with the content except possibly prevent them from (successfully) claiming it as their own (if you or someone else challenges them).
A license like a Creative Commons one could do all that the public domain does, but also require attribution to you, and make it easier in court (or in threatening letters) to prevent others from falsely claiming your work or interfering with distribution through a frauduent copyright claim.
But in any case you'd have to actually do something to prevent someone else from doing something with what you publish.
Yes, still closing after 30 years of prohibiting the chemicals that tore it open. IOW, taking too long. Eliminating the other sources, like inhalers, accelerates the closing.
We don't suffer from the sign of the change in the hole's size. We suffer from its existence. The sooner it closes, the better.
The EPA should go even further, and eliminate more of the particles that cause asthma sufferers to suffer. By eliminating coal and other burnt fuels.
Slashdot Mirror
Just like god did the dinosaur fossils - to trick the faithless into believing evolution.
Hooray! Climate change is fake and god is real! And we all get diamonds!
Faithy science is the best.
No, not every "too-whatever" weather event is said to be due to climate change. That's just your straw man.
You deniers aren't just "naysayers" - you're a stubborn part of a problem that'll soon be too late to fix. Maybe somebody shrilly equated you to a nazi - who cares? There's shrill nazi-callers in every crowd - especially in your Teabagger crowd.
Humans adapted to Ice Ages during past climate changes. I'd rather plant more trees and stop burning coal. The idea that the climate change will be good for plants when it will extinct a large percentage of species, possibly including ours, probably including your family, and destroy our civilization, is an aggressively stupid idea.
You're a fallacious denier. Shut up already. It's bad enough we have to save you and your descendants from your stupidity without listening to you cry all the time about how the mean hippie called you a nazi.
So what? Solyndra was a big energy industrial corp. Every single energy industry in America has always been driven ahead by government money. And now with strategic competitors like China, a Communist country where all new industrial development is totally government planned and subsidized, keeping and making America even relevant, if not #1, requires US government investment. Because the greedy, lazy, stupid American corporations don't invest in that kind of stuff.
The oil biz is still getting $4 BILLION in corporate welfare these years, even during record profits. You don't whine about that. You just whine about whatever Rush Limbo or your alternate favorite rightwing propaganda tells you to bunch your panties over.
Get the oil corps to stop robbing my taxes and I'll care that a risktaking company failed to return its loan valued at a small percentage of the oil welfare. You never will, so I'll never care.
Yes - people who cultivate trees.
What's the "eco-industrial complex"? You Teabaggers used to just call them "tree-huggers". You know - the people who urged you to plant and cultivate trees.
You Teabaggers will say anything to imagine you're punching a hippie. Even if it chokes you to death.
So what? You don't care about the data. You and they are worthy not of more data, or any more logic beyond what I charitably offered already. You'll get only insults now, since you disrespect the truth - and its bearers. Liar. Polluter.
What's a "revolution"? The revolts in Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria this year? How about the people who have been "occupying" Wall Street the past week? Does getting maced by the cops for no reason at all make a revolt a revolution?
That's pretty cool. If its source were open, I'd consider revising it to do more of the DB features I described.
And make a Linux version - and encourage a Mac version. Why browsers and their plugins aren't all coded in Java for cross-platform I don't know.
It's in balance. The balance has a range. CFCs push it out of the range in which it's relatively safe for people. I already said that the Antarctic hole doesn't matter to us - until we enlarge it to cover Australia and New Zealand, and create one that ranges into Europe, Asia and North America. You're arguing a strawman.
You're the kind of person who argues that since most CO2 is produced by the ecosystem independent of humans, that it doesn't matter when humans overload the atmosphere with enough extra CO2 to cause changes that damage us. Or that because those changes have occurred in remote times, that it's OK to produce them now even though the changes damage us.
Or who argues that since there are so many gallons of water in the ocean, it couldn't possibly make any difference if a few thousand more gallons were poured into your car while you're driving to work. After all, there's water in the car's radiator.
Yes, but CFCs destroy it. Like everything else in nature, the ozone layer's thickness is a balance. Between generation by sunlight and destruction by the existing destructive chemistry plus the CFCs that humans added. When we spray CFCs they push the balance, and the ozone layer thickness gets so thin it's got a hole in it - or a bigger hole than before.
We don't care about the Antarctic ozone hole that humans and the rest of our contemporary species evolved with. What we care about is the bigger hole we made, that extends over Australia and New Zealand, and the one we made over the Arctic that extends over Europe, Asia and North America. And over the people and other animals under those holes.
But all that seems perfectly obvious, and has been well understood for several generations. You're just a polluter lobbying for ignorance and stupidity.
I'm an old friend of the Xilinx scientist who kicked off this Zynq project starting several years ago and has driven it to the market. They've done a lot more than buy a COTS ARM blob and fired off datasheets. I've been waiting for over two years for the final product to reach market after I heard it was finalized in engineering. I have expressed an interest, and indeed I believe my requirements helped influence the specs for the low end chip.
I'm not going for a "PC" as in form factor. I'm going for a PC as in device architecture: CPU, RAM, storage (HD/SSD), monitor (at least a 20x4 char LCD), keyboard and mouse option (USB), ethernet, other IO (RS-232/485), running an OS (Android). We design and build our own embedded PIC devices, including enclosures, and we'll switch to the one that works best in our industrial environment. But the point is that I want a PC with an ARM CPU that is a Zynq, running Android, that I can target for development the same way I target a desktop or server from my Eclipse IDE. If that means I have to build my own Zynq on a PCMCIA to use commodity HW for the rest, I will.
So how do I do that? Once I understand what I need to do, I can also look to Xilinx for some support in doing it. But until I understand the path, and then accept it's for me, I'm not going to bother my Xilinx connections with it.
What evidence would you produce? Sloppy clicks?
I don't think there's any TOS that's only clicked, is necessary to get started, and is practically never read by any of the large numbers of people who click through it, that has even been tested in a US court to bind the clicker to its terms. I do remember quite a bit of "shrinkwrap license" and "clickwrap license" cases that were rejected by the court as nonbinding.
What would be very helpful, and not require any lawyers or negotiations, would be a local TOS database I'd keep. When receiving an offered TOS, my local DB would capture it, and include metadata like whether I signed it, any other info I gave associated with it (address, email, credit card, account# etc). And when revised TOS is sent/offered/published to me (or in general), it would capture the new version, showing me changes. Then I might be able to track what were the TOS was that I actually agreed to, and the changes, and whether or not I agreed. Which would help protect me if the TOS were ever enforced on me in ways with which I disagreed. And compare new TOS to old ones I'd accepted or rejected, helping me decide what to do with the new one.
A really effective version would require that any TOS, to be acceptable, be delivered in structured XML, in a standardized or consensus dialect. Then I might actually abide by them, and hold the issuer to them. Which would require lawyers and negotiations up front, to move contracts to this usable modern basis. So lawyers and corporations that abuse with them would resist, but probably there would be an evolution to them eventually.
I thought something like this would have been a browser plugin already. At least to save typing and scrounging for personal info to supply. But maybe applying the approach to smartphones will catch on, since that kind of typing and scrounging is a real barrier in those limited form factors.
When it's in print it looks like libel, a more serious and costly offense, because it's being published to n people, rather than just spoken to one or a few.
Why just imagine, when I have a lab that maybe could do it? As I asked in another post in this discussion, is anyone putting a Zynq into EOMA? What would it take for my HW lab to do so?
What I want (for myself and for a productive community) is tools for Eclipse. So I can create a single project containing both CPU and FPGA code/resources that the IDE manages, spawning tools per target respectively. An integrated single-stepping debugger (integrating FPGA states into the hybrid CPU environment) would be ideal. But any IDE integration would be a step. Are there ways to package those tools for Eclipse to use them? Their wikis to which you linked don't indicate so.
Because we're currently running a PIC as a peripheral to an x86 PC in an embedded industrial control app. Zynq/Android might replace the PC, some networking equipment, and the PIC, not just the PIC. If I could use Arduino developer output, and Arduino developers, I'd have more tools and developers to get me there.
Plus maybe let us port sequential code from PIC MCU to the CPU, gradually as we have time, eventually leaving only the parallel circuits and stuff the PIC did that the CPU shouldn't. Maybe test out in the field new MCUs in their FPGA core versions, which we eventually integrate with the box in HW - upgradeable across the network, without physically ($) visiting the sites. And let us revise PIC code that was really a hack around PIC limitations into more appropriate circuits in the FPGA. All in a chip that's pitched as costing $15 in largest quantity, and maybe $25 in kiloqty.
Or rather, is anyone putting a Zynq into EOMA? What would it take for my HW lab to do so?
Are there any existing ARM PC boards that can take the forthcoming Xilinx Zynq CPUs? Nothing fancy - I want to run an Android desktop on it while I port my PIC embedded industrial controller firmware to Zynq/Android/FPGA. Any PC I can swap a Zynq into now, or that will be available in 2012?
What I want is a desktop Zynq-7000, the ARM A-9 CPU from Xilinx with a large embedded FPGA, running Android. My lab desktop, anyway. I want to port my embedded industrial control PIC code to it, perhaps targeting a soft PIC core in the FPGA (at first, then gradually porting sequential functions to Android processes). A desktop ARM/FPGA would be a great way to use the large universe of desktop apps to get the embedded PC to do what I want, even if I then repackage it as an embedded device (text LCD, minimum IO ports, no local Desktop, etc).
The Zynq CPU itself is probably not shipping until 2012. But who's got a PC built on it in the pipeline? Who's got some other ARM PC that could take a Zynq popped into it with a minimum of electronics work?
All you have to do to copyright something is to publish it. You don't even need to explicitly say "copyright XXXX" in the published code or text, but it is a warning. When someone publishes something, it's automatically copyrighted to them. If you register a copyright with the Library of Congress you're entitled to triple damages if someone infringes the copyright, otherwise it's just 1x damages, but the registration is not the copyright itself - publishing is. However, registering at LoC is another warning to an infringer that you know what you're doing, that you'll act to defend, and that you're serious.
If you had just published your code on some website that gets archived reliably somewhere with a timestamp, including Google or archive.org, you'd have had all the evidence you need to crush your prof. You'd have gotten an adequate lawyer to defend you without fronting them their fees, since it's open and shut and a good investment for the lawyer.
If the LoC offered the registration service as a simple Web form that archives and timestamps anything published on which copyright can be claimed, the entire process would be simple. Lawyers would defend such cases without asking for payment up front, since the triple damages would ensure any case the defendant had any value in perpetrating would fairly quickly and solidly pay the lawyer suing them for you.
Public domain protects anyone else from copyrighting it, but of course doesn't prevent anyone else from copying it. Claiming it as their own and trying to enforce copyright would be fraud, but someone might possibly try it. Public domain will not prevent anyone from removing attribution to you, or prevent anyone from doing anything else with the content except possibly prevent them from (successfully) claiming it as their own (if you or someone else challenges them).
A license like a Creative Commons one could do all that the public domain does, but also require attribution to you, and make it easier in court (or in threatening letters) to prevent others from falsely claiming your work or interfering with distribution through a frauduent copyright claim.
But in any case you'd have to actually do something to prevent someone else from doing something with what you publish.
Yes, still closing after 30 years of prohibiting the chemicals that tore it open. IOW, taking too long. Eliminating the other sources, like inhalers, accelerates the closing.
We don't suffer from the sign of the change in the hole's size. We suffer from its existence. The sooner it closes, the better.
The EPA should go even further, and eliminate more of the particles that cause asthma sufferers to suffer. By eliminating coal and other burnt fuels.
Because it's destroying the ozone layer and causing cancer. Everyone knows that.
You Republicans, er "libertarians", are really nuts. Worshiping the corporate propaganda can do that to you.