This might work -- in Europe, but not the US. And it's not the patents that are stopping something like this, it's the telcos. The Gillette analogy is that a company will sell you or even give you the razor handle -- as long as they can tie you into buying their proprietary and presumably more expensive blades, insuring a long term profit to cover the giveaway.
Add the ability to use this theoretical phone on ANY network, forcing Verizon, ATT, Sprint/Nextel, etc. into a world where if I get screwed by a vendor, I take my phone with me to another network, and it still works....just like radio does if it can reach the appropriate EM spectrum. (Checked the per-unit cost of an FM radio or walkie talkie lately?)
Suddenly the phone becomes a commodity, not a gatekeeper -- the proverbial razor handle -- so the various telcos have to be more competitive and the hand set developers that were previously beholden to produce phones for specific networks and technologies now have to compete and have the incentive to cross license their technologies to the nth degree -- like has already happened in the commoditization of hardware in the Win/DOS/Linux worlds.
But as long as there is a tie between which phones work on which networks, and extended service contracts are allowed and the norm, I just don't see things changing, meaning that patent wars are an inevitable but viable part of a company's strategies.
Somehow I don't feel too sorry for Marvel -- first they profited from the comics and all their iterations, then without too much of their own effort, they get another huge payday, enough to fund their own movie production using a healthy chunk of the movie profits -- from works that were already paid for by comic book purchaser's $ years and years ago.
How many publishing companies of other more serious works would LIKE to be so lucky?
Are world class optics -- used by Hasselblad, Rollei, Yashica and now Sony.and unless things have changed radically since I last checked, have been the top lenses along with Nikon for years and years. I think Leica used Zeiss lenses also and Leica cameras WERE top notch back when. Not sure how far Canon, Minolta, etc. have made up the distance since about 1996, by the way.
Having read all the arguments about giving up 1/2 of the green sensors, and admittedly not as an electronics fiend but as someone who worked in printing for years before moving to IT, I think the "sacrificing color" arguments are somewhat overstated. Here's why:
In printing technologies, at least in the early '90s they were using a technique called either "GCR" (gray color removal) or "UCR" (under color removal) which basically transfer almost all of the "light density" information from the cyan-magenta-yellow films of a color separation to the "K" film (black) -- because black ink is quite a bit cheaper than the alternatives. I have seen images printed with up to 90% of the density in the black that are virtually indistinguishable from images printed from a "normal" color separation by the naked eye, and sometimes if a high enough line screen value is used (+200 LPI) it is hard to tell that a print is a GCR'd image even with a magnifying glass.
So it stands to reason for me at least that if I devote more attention to capturing the "amount" of light with "one CCD eye" completely open, and the "quality" (hue and tint) of the light with my "other three CCD eyes" that are filtering for spectra, I should be able to do the same thing digitally that they have been doing optically in printing for yearsand still yield a superior result.
I'd love to hear a discussion about the best way to use the digital bits in a 32 bit "GCR" digital world by the way. For example, using 10 bits (1024 levels) for luma, 8 bits (256 hues and tints) for green, and 7 bits (128 hues and tints each) for red and blue, or whatever the optimal case could be
Thoughts?
Re:why not more prevalent
on
ISS Goes Solar
·
· Score: 1
Profit vs. Cost
It takes the same amount of silicon substrate and a whole lot of really cutting edge technology to make a super-efficient solar sell --like they use in the ISS-- that are literally worth their weight in gold-- which then outputs power at about a 3:1 factor over the cheap "thin film" chips. The cost of a thin film solar array to fully power one house is only about double the cost of buying electricity from the power company for 10 years.
So it isn't economically viable especially considering that same level of technology can be used to make the latest Pentium/AMD/micro chips -- that sell for a whole lot more and where there is and always will be a demand for the latest greatest silicon chips...
The true breakthrough in solar power will be a system that converts a large of the low-grade heat which gets to a house to useful power without requiring the risk of exposure to toxic or exotic chemicals or a huge investemnt by the homeowner in order to be profitable.
I respectfully disagree with much of your post for a simple reason -- the NCAA is a private organization, and most of the colleges and universities that are part of the NCAA are public institutions, i.e., partially funded by tax revenues. The NCAA does not own any events or the content of those events -- they don't even own rights to the broadcast content, which belongs to the networks. What they do have is a cozy relationship with both the networks and the colleges that basically says "hey, let us be the middle man to put successful revenue producing games together, and we'll all profit."
That does not constitute FCC permission to govern what is and is not recorded live and transmitted to/from an event. For example, if I am talking on a cell phone doing "play by play" to a friend outside, does the NCAA have the right to confiscate my cell phone?
As a sometimes professional photographer, I would use this in a heartbeat if and only if the wifi card can be 100% secured to a PC that I bring to an event. Because then I really don't have to worry about running out of memory card space -- I just have to confirm that the wifi upload is working properly. Which leads to a "heck yes" response
But if the card isn't secure enough to insure that no-one else can pick up the WIFI transmission and basically pirate my digital work right out of the air, then heck no.
Like many things Slashdot... more info required to judge the goodness or badness of any technology....
Good questions. In my theoretical framework here, what I was suggesting is that the "supervisory set" is the immutable set, with the "human known immutable set" being that way because we don't have knowledge or possibly access to the supervisory set. So in theory as the "human known set" expands, it covers more and more of the "god" set. Part of this is probably already happening -- consider that atomic weapons were once considered "god weapons", only to be supplanted by nukes -- and that some of the medical technology of today is truly miraculous in what it accomplishes compares to medicine even thirty to forty years ago.
One really amazing "thought" along these lines that I read some twenty years ago related to the question of "would a "good" God like being limit knowledge of certain principles in order to restrain evil?" -- which if answered affirmatively, would mean that knowledge of or technology using part of the supervisory set would be off limits -- though how that limitation would be imposed I don't know.
Hmmm...paraphrasing badly: a fairly well known recent astrophysicist came to an interesting conclusion which he published in a book not too terribly long ago -- which is that "the universe has always existed". Or an earlier physicist who stated his thought that "God does not play dice with the universe". I do believe that the names of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein come to mind...
Thing is, if you define a "God" as a being with certain capabilities that go beyond our current level of scientific comprehension to what we would call supernatural (planetary creation, historical intervention and some form of the preservation of individual human consciousness outside the physical body being the "powers" that most religions are concerned with...) then the "Almighty" for this planet becomes "the being or beings with the power to affect and control all physics properties in this physical domain of the universe", not some incomprehensible being that has to predate and supercede even the universe itself.
Item 1: about the Immutable laws of physics... Assume that there is a set of "principles of physics" that we humans consider to be "immutable", i.e. that can't change. Assume secondarily that there is another set of physics that "God" uses whenever he wants to super-cede the first set. Would it make sense for the "God set" to be incompatible with the "known set"? Or is it one set with two basic divisions, i.e. 1) physics principles currently theorized and either confirmed or considered confirmable by known science and 2) the "supervisory set" -- the stuff not covered by the known set that is in reality the "rest of the story". I would argue that the knowledge and ability to use the principles in this supervisory set is what a "God being" uses to do what we consider to be miraculous/supernatural, etc.
Item 2: Under our current understanding of both the Hebrew source docs and science, our "24 hour" marker for a day, doesn't make sense. But if the idea of a day is "one revolution of the planet" consisting of one lit period and one night period makes sense -- Genesis 1:1-4 still isn't bound by that period -- because the time period named a "day" doesn't take place until v5 -- and it still doesn't state the time period as being our currently astronomically determined roughly "23 hour 56 minute" day.
Overall what I am saying is that a literal constructionist version of our planet history represented by the creation museum has as much chance as getting it right as a "no-God, all-science" version if in fact there is a supremely powerful being behind the organization of this planet. Which is to say, zero.
My take on that is that the trouble with most Creation theory is that it requires that God has powers that are not comprehensible that do NOT obey the laws of physics. The trouble with science is that we don't understand physics [or chemistry , botany, etc. -- or even human nature for that matter] as well as God does, so we assume that what science has documented as knowledge is "the rest of the story" and "all the news that is news" AKA everything important has been discovered.
What if, for example, one of the "God" level powers governs the ability to change the gravitational exerted by matter at a molecular level in a cohesive organized manner (i.e. like the theoretical Star Trek transporter technology here -- convert the matter to a beamable energy matrix, beam it to the destination, and convert it back to the matter stream). Makes all sorts of stuff (planetary creation, parting of oceans, healing the sick, ascensions, heavenly messengers (the greek word is Angels) "flying" in the midst of heaven (AKA unbound by earth's gravitational field)) and other things possible, ya think?
Would some of those who seem to have a brain built for more than just Pro Linux or pro Linux or anti- whatever rants PLEASE comment on whether they think this will be a good thing or a bad thing and why? because I don't know a thing about this person.
Yes but the Novell insider I am referring to was on the team that wrote much of the code that stabilized Netware's data layer in the early going (prior to Netware 4 but I don't want to be more specific than that-- which was also the exact code which turned up elsewhere on M$ machines prior to a deal being concluded but that M$ insisted had been "deleted from all of the offending machines."
At the time I was installing networks and a few months after the conversation I am mentioning, , M$ networking stabilized at the same data layer under Windows NT in a way that was exactly compatible at the data layer level with the Novell implementation. Hmmmmm....
You should be -- because most of the arguments I've read aren't about creation theory at all -- they are about insisting that a very narrow interpretation and English language translation of an even narrower set of ancient documents has to be understood "their way". And before anyone gets their dander up, let me announce something: I am both a Christian believer AND a rational scientifically oriented person -- who wouldn't spend a nickel let alone five minutes at that museum which might as well be about Star Wars in terms of "doctrinal" accuracy.
Let me use a fairly simple example: the six "days" of creation. Literal? not possible -- the physics involved (mass + energy in the form of movement) bringing together the sheer amount of matter contained in the earth's crust and core in a 24 hour period would not result in a planet but a rather spectacular explosion that wouldn't result in a land mass and an atmosphere -- which is really what Genesis 1:1 says -- that this planet (earth) began when the Almighty (the Hebrew is plural here) organized the land mass and the "heavens" AKA the atmosphere. Then there's a verse about God checking up on how the first task was accomplished but that the "deep" was still dark (v2), and light being brought to the planet (v3) AKA the whole mass brought in positional proximity to a star, and placed in rotation (v4). Only after this (in v5) is a time period given a name "day" and the dark "night". At no time does it say "and the day was 24 hours".
Think logically folks: if mankind had a huge enough supply of sufficiently large mass drivers, a gazillion tons of the same type of stuff that makes up planet earth -- according to our current knowledge only -- and most importantly a long enough time period to work out the kinks and then do it, couldn't we create a planet (say, on the far side of the sun -- or even two more planets or whatever) -- in the same orbit as Earth? So the importance of those five verses isn't about a foolish interpretation of what one "day" means -- it is that there is a much more powerful, intelligent being that could place a planet with the correct attributes in the exact right place in a solar system so that "life" as we know it could begin and then flourish -- and that everything else comes after.
Consider the question "is there an Almighty being or not?", and if there is, "why would that being chose to create a planet like earth?" Then things start to make sense -- and none of what makes sense about the creation story requires me to accept bad philosophy and call it good religion.
I like your quote "Reality will continue to be what it is regardless of what I want to believe." Because it also means that your believing that there is NOT an Almighty architect of this earth will not change the reality if-- and I grant you that it is a big IF for most people-- the short narrative of creation is just that -- a brief summary of how this world came to be, how life was brought into existence on the planet, and for what purpose it was designed and currently exists.
My advice? Skip the museum and both its pseudoscience and its pseudo-doctrine.
Thing is, the whole IPv6 standard is IMHO fairly well done. But implementation hiding details is what MS does best.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the hope that OSS solutions would gain strength from the IPv6 problems, for much of the business world, M$ is the dominant force -- so like you said -- a bad implementation is a body blow to IPv6's adoption. Too bad Redmond will never learn the Open Source lesson that more eyes find more problems in the early adoption v.9 releases, instead of after-market bad press. Nor will they likely learn that trying to corrupt or co-opt a standard is less profitable in the long run than taking the time to open up the code and more likely insure engineering success right off the bat
Early attempts by M$ to implement networking foundered badly until they cozied up to Novell for a short stint -- a deal an insider told me was scuttled when Novell code was found on M$ machines without a signed agreement.
It may just be my long memory seeing repetitive mistakes by the software giant, but it seems like ALL of M$ network implementations seem to suffer in the early going until they manage to buy cheat or steal for good code to solve their own implementation messes...
If I were wounded, in 99% of all situations I would rather have the current extraction system in play: AKA:
Another member of my squad, preferably with another very dangerous gunning and grenade armed teammmate near by, a medic if I need it and a quick foot-powered retreat to a safer area, followed by a quick evac via helo etc. to the nearest mobile medical unit. Why? because something tells me that if I were wounded and being transported, the very first thing an enemy combatant would want to plop a grenade on, etc. is the loaded up RoboTeddybear. Oh yes, that would be me oing kerblooey a few seconds later...
In that last 1% I either wouldn't want my mates in harms way because I am probably either just about dead or in the process of being captured anyway, or I'm safer staying put until the action calms down and the first setup can be used.
That is not to say I don't think that there is a place for other OS licenses. But like most of the laws (whether administrative, statutory, or case) here in the United States, there is still an overriding set of rights written into the Constitution, and in many ways I consider the GPL including amendments like the "constitution" which supports Open Source.
As an "open source" developer for some time now, I disagree. In fact, once I am ready to release I doubt it will be under any version but the GPL v3. Why? Consider one question: Does the FSF and EFF back most or indeed any of the other versions of an OS license?
Because only the GPL has the full faith and backing of the FSF and the EFF. In the era of expensive patent and "anti patent" litigation, I want those organizations on my side for the same reason that --though I consider myself quite conservative in most political positions --, I don't automatically dismiss the ACLU as a leftist liberal organization. They have a good track record of protecting the important parts of our "electronic civil rights."
True. I guess the better question would have been "how much of the statistics are derived from M$ server software and/or M$ client software -- because a server can always collect information at an extreme level.
I'm out of line of sight from Utah. Using a CRT based device. Transmits electrons using Wifi. Can do pictures. Even tunable video streams at set frequencies...
Ever hear of television? Invented in Utah -- see Philo Farnsworth in Wikipedia if you don't believe me.
So your statement about Mormon anything is nothing more than a bit of religious flamebait...
AFAICT the "power" production is related to the fact that they have created a way to get vibration from a temperature rise at a given "resonant" frequency in a tube. Cool but there still has to be a heat rise -- and the power out is limited by the Carnot law to 1-(Temp Low/Temp High) in absolute temp units. So with a 90 degree fahrenheit heat rise, for example, the maximum efficiency (using room temp as t low) of about 14% -- the actual output is probably lower. Or about the same as current generation not-very-expensive thin film PhotoVoltaic cells.
So as a solar source these devices are most likely a bust -- I just don't see a tube + device + piezo type of setup beating the think film. Leaving a question for the researchers -- how many devices over what area would be required to utilize these as a bottoming cycle for a small power plant?
They detailed how much of the information they gather is from using MS related software such as Internet Explorer, etc.
Which is to say, how much info can be gathered using a non Ms browser such as Firefox with a Non MS operating system such as Apple or Linux, and avoiding non MS- dominated web sites?
The more important questions are a)what extent is this important to free societies and breaking the grip of totalitarian regimes on their societies?, and b) to what extent do we as memebers in free societies need to revolt against "corporate society" and their accelerating tendency to glom together data about private individuals??
Re: compiling under gcc? vs. the Intel compiler
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Forgive my ignorance on this issue, and stipulating that once a person links to any library in GCC, etc., it is unlikely to be able to avoid GPL'd code -- but my understanding is that as long as a person doesn't include actually include GPL'd stuff (even copied) into an application, or if the resulting app is never "distributed", then the GPL doesn't apply (?)
Forgive me for wading in without my jumbo hip waders, but it seems like with all of the/. usrs there ought to be an easy way to figure this out. Are there any users out there with a copy of the EULA that we could all look at and analyze
Because on the one hand if the developer is actually violating something he agreed to (barring the discussion about how much of the fine print in a click through EULA can actually be enforced in court...) then there's not a lot of wiggle romm. If ton the other hand this is just M$ being jerks -- like it looks like they are being -- then maybe the EFF ought to take a look at protecting this developer from big-time bullying.
Oops and apology. Saw that you were responding to something else-- right after I posted my reply. Gotta set that threshold down again so I see them zero point suckers--
Or not. Just glad that/. is a good place to discuss things, myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Add the ability to use this theoretical phone on ANY network, forcing Verizon, ATT, Sprint/Nextel, etc. into a world where if I get screwed by a vendor, I take my phone with me to another network, and it still works....just like radio does if it can reach the appropriate EM spectrum. (Checked the per-unit cost of an FM radio or walkie talkie lately?)
Suddenly the phone becomes a commodity, not a gatekeeper -- the proverbial razor handle -- so the various telcos have to be more competitive and the hand set developers that were previously beholden to produce phones for specific networks and technologies now have to compete and have the incentive to cross license their technologies to the nth degree -- like has already happened in the commoditization of hardware in the Win/DOS/Linux worlds.
But as long as there is a tie between which phones work on which networks, and extended service contracts are allowed and the norm, I just don't see things changing, meaning that patent wars are an inevitable but viable part of a company's strategies.
How many publishing companies of other more serious works would LIKE to be so lucky?
Are world class optics -- used by Hasselblad, Rollei, Yashica and now Sony .and unless things have changed radically since I last checked, have been the top lenses along with Nikon for years and years. I think Leica used Zeiss lenses also and Leica cameras WERE top notch back when. Not sure how far Canon, Minolta, etc. have made up the distance since about 1996, by the way.
In printing technologies, at least in the early '90s they were using a technique called either "GCR" (gray color removal) or "UCR" (under color removal) which basically transfer almost all of the "light density" information from the cyan-magenta-yellow films of a color separation to the "K" film (black) -- because black ink is quite a bit cheaper than the alternatives. I have seen images printed with up to 90% of the density in the black that are virtually indistinguishable from images printed from a "normal" color separation by the naked eye, and sometimes if a high enough line screen value is used (+200 LPI) it is hard to tell that a print is a GCR'd image even with a magnifying glass.
So it stands to reason for me at least that if I devote more attention to capturing the "amount" of light with "one CCD eye" completely open, and the "quality" (hue and tint) of the light with my "other three CCD eyes" that are filtering for spectra, I should be able to do the same thing digitally that they have been doing optically in printing for yearsand still yield a superior result.
I'd love to hear a discussion about the best way to use the digital bits in a 32 bit "GCR" digital world by the way. For example, using 10 bits (1024 levels) for luma, 8 bits (256 hues and tints) for green, and 7 bits (128 hues and tints each) for red and blue, or whatever the optimal case could be
Thoughts?
It takes the same amount of silicon substrate and a whole lot of really cutting edge technology to make a super-efficient solar sell --like they use in the ISS-- that are literally worth their weight in gold-- which then outputs power at about a 3:1 factor over the cheap "thin film" chips. The cost of a thin film solar array to fully power one house is only about double the cost of buying electricity from the power company for 10 years.
So it isn't economically viable especially considering that same level of technology can be used to make the latest Pentium/AMD/micro chips -- that sell for a whole lot more and where there is and always will be a demand for the latest greatest silicon chips...
The true breakthrough in solar power will be a system that converts a large of the low-grade heat which gets to a house to useful power without requiring the risk of exposure to toxic or exotic chemicals or a huge investemnt by the homeowner in order to be profitable.
That does not constitute FCC permission to govern what is and is not recorded live and transmitted to/from an event. For example, if I am talking on a cell phone doing "play by play" to a friend outside, does the NCAA have the right to confiscate my cell phone?
But if the card isn't secure enough to insure that no-one else can pick up the WIFI transmission and basically pirate my digital work right out of the air, then heck no.
Like many things Slashdot... more info required to judge the goodness or badness of any technology....
One really amazing "thought" along these lines that I read some twenty years ago related to the question of "would a "good" God like being limit knowledge of certain principles in order to restrain evil?" -- which if answered affirmatively, would mean that knowledge of or technology using part of the supervisory set would be off limits -- though how that limitation would be imposed I don't know.
Interesting stuff, yes?
Hmmm...paraphrasing badly: a fairly well known recent astrophysicist came to an interesting conclusion which he published in a book not too terribly long ago -- which is that "the universe has always existed". Or an earlier physicist who stated his thought that "God does not play dice with the universe". I do believe that the names of Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein come to mind...
Thing is, if you define a "God" as a being with certain capabilities that go beyond our current level of scientific comprehension to what we would call supernatural (planetary creation, historical intervention and some form of the preservation of individual human consciousness outside the physical body being the "powers" that most religions are concerned with...) then the "Almighty" for this planet becomes "the being or beings with the power to affect and control all physics properties in this physical domain of the universe", not some incomprehensible being that has to predate and supercede even the universe itself.
Clarifying two of my arguments a bit more...
Item 1: about the Immutable laws of physics... Assume that there is a set of "principles of physics" that we humans consider to be "immutable", i.e. that can't change. Assume secondarily that there is another set of physics that "God" uses whenever he wants to super-cede the first set. Would it make sense for the "God set" to be incompatible with the "known set"? Or is it one set with two basic divisions, i.e. 1) physics principles currently theorized and either confirmed or considered confirmable by known science and 2) the "supervisory set" -- the stuff not covered by the known set that is in reality the "rest of the story". I would argue that the knowledge and ability to use the principles in this supervisory set is what a "God being" uses to do what we consider to be miraculous/supernatural, etc.
Item 2: Under our current understanding of both the Hebrew source docs and science, our "24 hour" marker for a day, doesn't make sense. But if the idea of a day is "one revolution of the planet" consisting of one lit period and one night period makes sense -- Genesis 1:1-4 still isn't bound by that period -- because the time period named a "day" doesn't take place until v5 -- and it still doesn't state the time period as being our currently astronomically determined roughly "23 hour 56 minute" day.
Overall what I am saying is that a literal constructionist version of our planet history represented by the creation museum has as much chance as getting it right as a "no-God, all-science" version if in fact there is a supremely powerful being behind the organization of this planet. Which is to say, zero.
My take on that is that the trouble with most Creation theory is that it requires that God has powers that are not comprehensible that do NOT obey the laws of physics. The trouble with science is that we don't understand physics [or chemistry , botany, etc. -- or even human nature for that matter] as well as God does, so we assume that what science has documented as knowledge is "the rest of the story" and "all the news that is news" AKA everything important has been discovered.
What if, for example, one of the "God" level powers governs the ability to change the gravitational exerted by matter at a molecular level in a cohesive organized manner (i.e. like the theoretical Star Trek transporter technology here -- convert the matter to a beamable energy matrix, beam it to the destination, and convert it back to the matter stream). Makes all sorts of stuff (planetary creation, parting of oceans, healing the sick, ascensions, heavenly messengers (the greek word is Angels) "flying" in the midst of heaven (AKA unbound by earth's gravitational field)) and other things possible, ya think?
Would some of those who seem to have a brain built for more than just Pro Linux or pro Linux or anti- whatever rants PLEASE comment on whether they think this will be a good thing or a bad thing and why? because I don't know a thing about this person.
At the time I was installing networks and a few months after the conversation I am mentioning, , M$ networking stabilized at the same data layer under Windows NT in a way that was exactly compatible at the data layer level with the Novell implementation. Hmmmmm....
You should be -- because most of the arguments I've read aren't about creation theory at all -- they are about insisting that a very narrow interpretation and English language translation of an even narrower set of ancient documents has to be understood "their way". And before anyone gets their dander up, let me announce something: I am both a Christian believer AND a rational scientifically oriented person -- who wouldn't spend a nickel let alone five minutes at that museum which might as well be about Star Wars in terms of "doctrinal" accuracy.
Let me use a fairly simple example: the six "days" of creation. Literal? not possible -- the physics involved (mass + energy in the form of movement) bringing together the sheer amount of matter contained in the earth's crust and core in a 24 hour period would not result in a planet but a rather spectacular explosion that wouldn't result in a land mass and an atmosphere -- which is really what Genesis 1:1 says -- that this planet (earth) began when the Almighty (the Hebrew is plural here) organized the land mass and the "heavens" AKA the atmosphere. Then there's a verse about God checking up on how the first task was accomplished but that the "deep" was still dark (v2), and light being brought to the planet (v3) AKA the whole mass brought in positional proximity to a star, and placed in rotation (v4). Only after this (in v5) is a time period given a name "day" and the dark "night". At no time does it say "and the day was 24 hours".
Think logically folks: if mankind had a huge enough supply of sufficiently large mass drivers, a gazillion tons of the same type of stuff that makes up planet earth -- according to our current knowledge only -- and most importantly a long enough time period to work out the kinks and then do it, couldn't we create a planet (say, on the far side of the sun -- or even two more planets or whatever) -- in the same orbit as Earth? So the importance of those five verses isn't about a foolish interpretation of what one "day" means -- it is that there is a much more powerful, intelligent being that could place a planet with the correct attributes in the exact right place in a solar system so that "life" as we know it could begin and then flourish -- and that everything else comes after.
Consider the question "is there an Almighty being or not?", and if there is, "why would that being chose to create a planet like earth?" Then things start to make sense -- and none of what makes sense about the creation story requires me to accept bad philosophy and call it good religion.
I like your quote "Reality will continue to be what it is regardless of what I want to believe." Because it also means that your believing that there is NOT an Almighty architect of this earth will not change the reality if-- and I grant you that it is a big IF for most people-- the short narrative of creation is just that -- a brief summary of how this world came to be, how life was brought into existence on the planet, and for what purpose it was designed and currently exists.
My advice? Skip the museum and both its pseudoscience and its pseudo-doctrine.
Thing is, the whole IPv6 standard is IMHO fairly well done. But implementation hiding details is what MS does best.
While I agree wholeheartedly with the hope that OSS solutions would gain strength from the IPv6 problems, for much of the business world, M$ is the dominant force -- so like you said -- a bad implementation is a body blow to IPv6's adoption. Too bad Redmond will never learn the Open Source lesson that more eyes find more problems in the early adoption v.9 releases, instead of after-market bad press. Nor will they likely learn that trying to corrupt or co-opt a standard is less profitable in the long run than taking the time to open up the code and more likely insure engineering success right off the bat
It may just be my long memory seeing repetitive mistakes by the software giant, but it seems like ALL of M$ network implementations seem to suffer in the early going until they manage to buy cheat or steal for good code to solve their own implementation messes...
Thoughts anyone?
Another member of my squad, preferably with another very dangerous gunning and grenade armed teammmate near by, a medic if I need it and a quick foot-powered retreat to a safer area, followed by a quick evac via helo etc. to the nearest mobile medical unit. Why? because something tells me that if I were wounded and being transported, the very first thing an enemy combatant would want to plop a grenade on, etc. is the loaded up RoboTeddybear. Oh yes, that would be me oing kerblooey a few seconds later...
In that last 1% I either wouldn't want my mates in harms way because I am probably either just about dead or in the process of being captured anyway, or I'm safer staying put until the action calms down and the first setup can be used.
As an "open source" developer for some time now, I disagree. In fact, once I am ready to release I doubt it will be under any version but the GPL v3. Why? Consider one question: Does the FSF and EFF back most or indeed any of the other versions of an OS license?
Because only the GPL has the full faith and backing of the FSF and the EFF. In the era of expensive patent and "anti patent" litigation, I want those organizations on my side for the same reason that --though I consider myself quite conservative in most political positions --, I don't automatically dismiss the ACLU as a leftist liberal organization. They have a good track record of protecting the important parts of our "electronic civil rights."
True. I guess the better question would have been "how much of the statistics are derived from M$ server software and/or M$ client software -- because a server can always collect information at an extreme level.
Yabut...
I'm out of line of sight from Utah. Using a CRT based device. Transmits electrons using Wifi. Can do pictures. Even tunable video streams at set frequencies...
Ever hear of television? Invented in Utah -- see Philo Farnsworth in Wikipedia if you don't believe me.
So your statement about Mormon anything is nothing more than a bit of religious flamebait...
AFAICT the "power" production is related to the fact that they have created a way to get vibration from a temperature rise at a given "resonant" frequency in a tube. Cool but there still has to be a heat rise -- and the power out is limited by the Carnot law to 1-(Temp Low/Temp High) in absolute temp units. So with a 90 degree fahrenheit heat rise, for example, the maximum efficiency (using room temp as t low) of about 14% -- the actual output is probably lower. Or about the same as current generation not-very-expensive thin film PhotoVoltaic cells.
So as a solar source these devices are most likely a bust -- I just don't see a tube + device + piezo type of setup beating the think film. Leaving a question for the researchers -- how many devices over what area would be required to utilize these as a bottoming cycle for a small power plant?
They detailed how much of the information they gather is from using MS related software such as Internet Explorer, etc.
Which is to say, how much info can be gathered using a non Ms browser such as Firefox with a Non MS operating system such as Apple or Linux, and avoiding non MS- dominated web sites?
The more important questions are a)what extent is this important to free societies and breaking the grip of totalitarian regimes on their societies?, and b) to what extent do we as memebers in free societies need to revolt against "corporate society" and their accelerating tendency to glom together data about private individuals??
Forgive my ignorance on this issue, and stipulating that once a person links to any library in GCC, etc., it is unlikely to be able to avoid GPL'd code -- but my understanding is that as long as a person doesn't include actually include GPL'd stuff (even copied) into an application, or if the resulting app is never "distributed", then the GPL doesn't apply (?)
Am I missing something here?
Because on the one hand if the developer is actually violating something he agreed to (barring the discussion about how much of the fine print in a click through EULA can actually be enforced in court...) then there's not a lot of wiggle romm. If ton the other hand this is just M$ being jerks -- like it looks like they are being -- then maybe the EFF ought to take a look at protecting this developer from big-time bullying.
Oops and apology. Saw that you were responding to something else-- right after I posted my reply. Gotta set that threshold down again so I see them zero point suckers--
/. is a good place to discuss things, myself.
Or not. Just glad that