IANAJE(ither), but it seems to me that just about all online news sources post updated articles as new information comes to light.
Often, a news site will simply (and silently) replace the old version with the updated version. To me, this is much worse that the/. practice of posting a separate, second story. With the latter system, one is at least aware that more information has become available.
Not only are KDE not obligated to provide binaries for Redhat, KDE do not provide binaries for any distribution. The distributions provide their own binaries.
Redhat chose not to provide binaries for 3.1 beta2. So who exactly is being childish here? Certainly not KDE, and probably not even Redhat. I'd say it's you.
we already can do this, just because the RIAA says we can't doesn't mean new legislation is required...
correction: we can do this [exercise fair use rights] today, but the day is coming when it will be impossible if the **AA have their way.
The RIAA isn't the only four-letter acronym that says we can't copy digital content which we own; there's also the DMCA, which has a bit more teeth to it.
First of all, this bill is not an attempt to make so-called mp3 "sharing" legal. It merely seeks to ensure that the fair use rights consumers had for analog formats are held up for digital formats as well. i.e., it is perfectly legal for me to buy your CD, then burn a backup copy, burn another copy for my car, rip it to my hard drive, etc. However, if the DMCA or CBDTPA makes these activities impossible, then I effectively don't have those fair-use rights.
Anyway, the line we always hear is that artists don't make a significant amount of money from CD sales anyway, compared to income from live shows. Is that not the case for you?
Maybe you could strive to sell CDs directly at your shows, instead of making pennies per disc through your label.
Re:the failure of Science
on
Mule Gives Birth
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Nice troll, but the existence of natural phenomena that are not understood in no way represents a "failure" of science. It would *only* be a failure if science was a system of belief that purported to explain everything about the Universe (like, say, religion). It is not such a system.
The only accurate model of climate/weather is a full-scale model which cannot be simulated electronically. The fact that they are depending on computer modeling to predict amything renders their predictions about as valuable as a random guess.
Sorry, I can't agree with you here. The only way to achieve prefect accuracy would be a "full-scale" model (if I understand your use of that phrase correctly); however, you do not need perfect accuracy to make useful scientific predictions about the behavior of complex systems. The question is: are the models accurate enough? Now, we can have a long, drawn-out argument about that, but unless either of us is a climate modeler, there isn't much point. However, I really have to take exception to the claim that a complex system must be perfectly modeled before useful predictions can be made. That is an unreasonable expectation, and is not at all how science works. All of experimental science is about taking a natural phenomenon and simplifying it in the lab or in a computer simulation until a particular behavior can be isolated and understood. That's how it's been done since Galileo.
That said, I actually agree that the Earth's climate is an extremely complex system, and that it is not obvious which current model predictions (if any) can be trusted. However, even if we restrict ourselves to things that we are reasonably sure about, I submit there is still cause for concern.
These are the facts:
1. The Earth's climate is a poorl-understood, very complex system. We both agree on this, but I think this fact should make us worry more, not less. The climate has shown extremely volatile behavior in its past. It does not appear that its present state is any kind of stable equilibrium point; indeed the stability of the climate over the last few thousand years is quite an anomaly if you compare it to earlier epochs.
2. We are just becoming aware that ocean currents play a critical role in determining the climate, especially for the mid-latiudes. The ocean is basically a global thermal conveyor belt. If its route is shifted, extreme changes in climate are likely.
3. The polar caps are receding. This is well-correlated with the spike in global average temperatures since the industrial revolution. Set aside the argument about the cause of this increase in global temperature, and the subsequent receding of the polar ice; the existence of both is verified by repeatable, empirical evidence.
4. Computer models show that a little more melting of polar ice will likely result in significant shifts in global ocean currents. Because the system is complex, they cannot of course be certain how the currents will shift, or exactly what the consequences are; however, by exploring parameter space it is possible to get an idea how likely certain outcomes are. The outcome of a mini-ice age has a significant probability in the models. You can hope that there's some systematic error or missing piece in the models, and perhaps there is. But to dismiss the model predictions altogether based on this assumption of error seems, well, ill-advised.
The assumption that the earth's climate is unstable enough to be thrown out of whack by the activities of such tiny bugs as we humans is the ultimate ego trip. You talk about scale, but you clearly have no idea of how insignificant we are.
Nor do you. Anyway, everything I've said in this post stands, even if we hypothetically accept that current climatological changes have nothing to do with human activity.
These scientists always seem to oversimplify the complex system that is the earths weather pattern.
Well, no. They don't "oversimplify", at least not to each other. Climate is understood through computer modeling. The models are as complex as modern technology and programming technique will allow. Now, if they are attempting to distill their model results into a form that people unfamiliar with the years of research behind them can understand, then they do by necessity skip a lot of details. Is this "oversimplifying"?
The models show that the Earth may be on the verge of a rapid climatological shift to colder temperatures, as a result of greenhouse gases and their warming effect on the atmosphere. This may be counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it false. Does it mean there's a guarantee that this is going to happen? No. Does that mean they're just guessing? Absolutely not. There is a danger. The consequences are too great to ignore it.
They talk as if its fact, but the best anyone can do is an educated guess. We don't understand the earth. If we could you wouldn't hear "60% chance of rain" on the nightly weather report.
You forgot to consider the fact that the spatial scales involved in rainfall are much smaller than the spatial coverage of a local news broadcast. So, if a weather system is moving through that is going to dump rain on 60% of your station's broadcast area, you say: "chance of rain 60%". Note, I have "oversimplified" things (darn scientists!!), but you get the idea.
Oh, I guess people are less likely to contribute to the "Everything is A-OK" foundation.
Do you seriously believe that they're just making up the results to acquire federal funding? Furthermore, do you seriously believe the government is more likely to fund research that indicates we cannot continue our current economic activity without grave consequences to the environment? Would we not expect the opposite, if we were to cynically (and ignorantly) guess that science funding was based on the answers, and not on the questions?
Eevn more ironic is the fact that the default KDE behavior is to single-click on desktop icons...so this is a feature they've changed to be more like Windows, yet it gets cited as a difference:)
IIRC, there was some talk about making modular space probes with interchangeable parts. This seems to me the ideal way to go from an economy of scale perspective. You have a single generic probe platform into which you can plug different modules for different missions. Or even a few different base platforms (lander, flyby, atmospheric probe, etc.)
Don't know if anything ever came of it, but it sure sounded good on paper.
We don't seem to have much luck with surface probes on the red planet
Are you seriously attaching this statement to a story on Mars Pathfinder?
You can't just go to Mars, it's orders of magnitude more difficult than going to the Moon. We have to send the robots first, they are laying the groundwork: mapping the surface, setting up communication satellites, determining whether there is easily-accessible surface water ice (required for fuel for the trip back). It isn't "about time" to go back, not yet...but we're getting there.
You should consider the source of such statements as "these stories are simply fabricated to get more funding for deep space research" before putting them on par with peer-review articles or NASA statements.
Anyway, there is certainly water on Mars (in the form of its polar ice caps). There is also extremely strong evidence that liquid water has flowed on its surface at some time in its past.
What is not yet known is if water existed on the Martian surface for long periods of time, or if these flows were akin to lava flows on Earth: transitory upwellings of liquid from underground that last only a short time. With Mars's current thin atmosphere, any liquid water at its surface would quickly sublimate into the atmosphere. However, if its atmosphere used to be thicker...
I've never heard a credible person characterize the probability for life on Mars as "very high". As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
That "rare combination of luck" comment was completely inappropriate and misleading. Of course the lander was supposed to bounce and roll around, that was its design, and it was brilliant.
Problem: How do you safely and cheaply deliver a somewhat fragile payload to the surface of Mars?
+ Rockets? Really expensive, both in terms of cash and (perhaps most importantly) payload mass.
+ Parachute? Martian atmosphere's too thin to slow the payload sufficiently.
+ Deployable glider wings? Really complicated, therefore prone to failure. Also see Rockets entry.
Their solution: do the best you can with a 'chute, then deploy a cocoon of bouncy airbags to cushion the impact. Let the lander bounce, safely shedding mv**2 each time, until it comes to a rest.
If it happened to land upside-down, it had a mechanism to right itself. However, it landed "jelly-side-up", which I assume is what the article poster meant by "rare combination of luck". Since this made no difference anyway, I fail to see the relevance.
Anyway, you can see cool images and animations regarding the entry, landing and deployment of Pathfinder here: http://mars.sgi.com/mpf/edl/edl1.html
I think the thing you are missing is that UC aren't the bad guys in this story. They are the messenger.
UC didn't say "we don't want you to link to that.org from our computers because we find its content distasteful". They said "as we interpret the USA Patriot act, the act of linking to that.org is a federal offense, so you must stop".
The implication is that it would be illegal even if it was done from your own private webserver. Hence the stifling of free speech, at least hypothetically. BTW, IANAL (FWIW).
If you follow the article's links you'll notice that RH actually asked him to leave since they didn't want an employee saying the RH KDE was crippled. So it wasn't as if he had a bruised ego and stomped out in a huff. He probably did ask if he could make "pure" KDE RPMs; if so, that probably didn't fly too well at RH.
First of all, let me say that Redhat is free to do whatever they like with KDE, since it is GPL'd.
However, what they're doing is not very nice, and it isn't at all about themes and icons...if that's all it was, there would be no issue.
First there was the issue of the removal of the "About KDE" item in all KDE app help menus. From Redhat's point of view, they're trying to make a Redhat-branded desktop, so seeing "About KDE" in some of the apps might be confusing to the user. From KDE's point of view, if Redhat "de-brands" the desktop, then the about box is really their only chance to let the user know about the app's authorship. It *really* makes it seem like Redhat is, if not trying to take credit for the apps themselves, then at least trying remove credit from where it's due (the KDE devs). I don't know for sure, but I think Redhat may have decided to replace the "About KDE" items. Time (or beta testers:) will tell.
Second, and more importantly, they have replaced KDE apps with equivalent apps, either from GNOME or independent projects. For example, they replaced konqueror with Mozilla, Koffice with OpenOffice, KMail with Evolution.
Some people say these alternatives are better anyway, so who cares? Is KDE just whining because they can't keep up? I don't think so. For one thing, even if you change the widget style, these apps aren't going to be very well-integrated into the rest of the desktop, both in terms of look-and-feel and interoperability with other apps. This tight integration is one of KDE's great strengths; without it, KDE is, well, crippled. Plus, since these apps depend on libraries that are not preloaded when KDE starts up, they will appear to be sluggish to the user, who might incorrectly conclude that KDE is slow and clunky.
In summary, it isn't about themes or icons. It's that Redhat removed all trace of KDE from the apps, and replaced core KDE components with alternatives that are likely to confuse and frustrate users.
No one knows (i.e. the general public or pointy haired bosses) what 'GNU' means anyway and I think its just going to become more of problem as people get confused thinking it's another distro or something.
Don't you see, that's exactly Bruce's point?! If people don't understand that GNU/Linux is not just some product that you don't have to pay for, then it will continue to be eroded in the ways Bruce mentioned (NDAs, license violations, what's next: out-and-out code theft?)
If people understand that we're talking about a Free, community-developed operating system that is owned by everyone (and by no one), then maybe, just maybe, these kind of shenanigans can be avoided. By calling it simply "Linux", you obscure the Free Software underpinnings of the OS, and tip the scales toward the ridiculous view that "GPL == public domain"! (which we saw recently coming from so-called linux companies involved with UnitedLinux...unbelievable!)
[OT]: bizarre sig for someone named ChristianFreak:p WWJD?
Slashdot Mirror
IANAJE(ither), but it seems to me that just about all online news sources post updated articles as new information comes to light.
/. practice of posting a separate, second story. With the latter system, one is at least aware that more information has become available.
Often, a news site will simply (and silently) replace the old version with the updated version. To me, this is much worse that the
Not only are KDE not obligated to provide binaries for Redhat, KDE do not provide binaries for any distribution. The distributions provide their own binaries.
Redhat chose not to provide binaries for 3.1 beta2. So who exactly is being childish here? Certainly not KDE, and probably not even Redhat. I'd say it's you.
we already can do this, just because the RIAA says we can't doesn't mean new legislation is required...
correction: we can do this [exercise fair use rights] today, but the day is coming when it will be impossible if the **AA have their way.
The RIAA isn't the only four-letter acronym that says we can't copy digital content which we own; there's also the DMCA, which has a bit more teeth to it.
preview is your friend.
;)
So is <p>
First of all, this bill is not an attempt to make so-called mp3 "sharing" legal. It merely seeks to ensure that the fair use rights consumers had for analog formats are held up for digital formats as well. i.e., it is perfectly legal for me to buy your CD, then burn a backup copy, burn another copy for my car, rip it to my hard drive, etc. However, if the DMCA or CBDTPA makes these activities impossible, then I effectively don't have those fair-use rights.
Anyway, the line we always hear is that artists don't make a significant amount of money from CD sales anyway, compared to income from live shows. Is that not the case for you?
Maybe you could strive to sell CDs directly at your shows, instead of making pennies per disc through your label.
Nice troll, but the existence of natural phenomena that are not understood in no way represents a "failure" of science. It would *only* be a failure if science was a system of belief that purported to explain everything about the Universe (like, say, religion). It is not such a system.
Amen and halleluleah! They can have AOL. As for me, I'll take Linux. 100% pure and undiluted, since 1991.
MOV == Quicktime
:)
you're welcome
The only accurate model of climate/weather is a full-scale model which cannot be simulated electronically. The fact that they are depending on computer modeling to predict amything renders their predictions about as valuable as a random guess.
Sorry, I can't agree with you here. The only way to achieve prefect accuracy would be a "full-scale" model (if I understand your use of that phrase correctly); however, you do not need perfect accuracy to make useful scientific predictions about the behavior of complex systems. The question is: are the models accurate enough? Now, we can have a long, drawn-out argument about that, but unless either of us is a climate modeler, there isn't much point. However, I really have to take exception to the claim that a complex system must be perfectly modeled before useful predictions can be made. That is an unreasonable expectation, and is not at all how science works. All of experimental science is about taking a natural phenomenon and simplifying it in the lab or in a computer simulation until a particular behavior can be isolated and understood. That's how it's been done since Galileo.
That said, I actually agree that the Earth's climate is an extremely complex system, and that it is not obvious which current model predictions (if any) can be trusted. However, even if we restrict ourselves to things that we are reasonably sure about, I submit there is still cause for concern.
These are the facts:
1. The Earth's climate is a poorl-understood, very complex system. We both agree on this, but I think this fact should make us worry more, not less. The climate has shown extremely volatile behavior in its past. It does not appear that its present state is any kind of stable equilibrium point; indeed the stability of the climate over the last few thousand years is quite an anomaly if you compare it to earlier epochs.
2. We are just becoming aware that ocean currents play a critical role in determining the climate, especially for the mid-latiudes. The ocean is basically a global thermal conveyor belt. If its route is shifted, extreme changes in climate are likely.
3. The polar caps are receding. This is well-correlated with the spike in global average temperatures since the industrial revolution. Set aside the argument about the cause of this increase in global temperature, and the subsequent receding of the polar ice; the existence of both is verified by repeatable, empirical evidence.
4. Computer models show that a little more melting of polar ice will likely result in significant shifts in global ocean currents. Because the system is complex, they cannot of course be certain how the currents will shift, or exactly what the consequences are; however, by exploring parameter space it is possible to get an idea how likely certain outcomes are. The outcome of a mini-ice age has a significant probability in the models. You can hope that there's some systematic error or missing piece in the models, and perhaps there is. But to dismiss the model predictions altogether based on this assumption of error seems, well, ill-advised.
The assumption that the earth's climate is unstable enough to be thrown out of whack by the activities of such tiny bugs as we humans is the ultimate ego trip. You talk about scale, but you clearly have no idea of how insignificant we are.
Nor do you. Anyway, everything I've said in this post stands, even if we hypothetically accept that current climatological changes have nothing to do with human activity.
These scientists always seem to oversimplify the complex system that is the earths weather pattern.
Well, no. They don't "oversimplify", at least not to each other. Climate is understood through computer modeling. The models are as complex as modern technology and programming technique will allow. Now, if they are attempting to distill their model results into a form that people unfamiliar with the years of research behind them can understand, then they do by necessity skip a lot of details. Is this "oversimplifying"?
The models show that the Earth may be on the verge of a rapid climatological shift to colder temperatures, as a result of greenhouse gases and their warming effect on the atmosphere. This may be counter-intuitive, but that doesn't make it false. Does it mean there's a guarantee that this is going to happen? No. Does that mean they're just guessing? Absolutely not. There is a danger. The consequences are too great to ignore it.
They talk as if its fact, but the best anyone can do is an educated guess. We don't understand the earth. If we could you wouldn't hear "60% chance of rain" on the nightly weather report.
You forgot to consider the fact that the spatial scales involved in rainfall are much smaller than the spatial coverage of a local news broadcast. So, if a weather system is moving through that is going to dump rain on 60% of your station's broadcast area, you say: "chance of rain 60%". Note, I have "oversimplified" things (darn scientists!!), but you get the idea.
Oh, I guess people are less likely to contribute to the "Everything is A-OK" foundation.
Do you seriously believe that they're just making up the results to acquire federal funding? Furthermore, do you seriously believe the government is more likely to fund research that indicates we cannot continue our current economic activity without grave consequences to the environment? Would we not expect the opposite, if we were to cynically (and ignorantly) guess that science funding was based on the answers, and not on the questions?
> You have to remember who was at the helm of NASA for 10 years, Goldin did whatever was necessary to make him look good.
Yep. And he was a complete failure at that, too.
Damn, you guys are harsh...Goldin did a pretty good job, IMO.
What's his thoughts on MS?
.sig :)
see my
Eevn more ironic is the fact that the default KDE behavior is to single-click on desktop icons...so this is a feature they've changed to be more like Windows, yet it gets cited as a difference :)
IIRC, there was some talk about making modular space probes with interchangeable parts. This seems to me the ideal way to go from an economy of scale perspective. You have a single generic probe platform into which you can plug different modules for different missions. Or even a few different base platforms (lander, flyby, atmospheric probe, etc.)
Don't know if anything ever came of it, but it sure sounded good on paper.
We don't seem to have much luck with surface probes on the red planet
Are you seriously attaching this statement to a story on Mars Pathfinder?
You can't just go to Mars, it's orders of magnitude more difficult than going to the Moon. We have to send the robots first, they are laying the groundwork: mapping the surface, setting up communication satellites, determining whether there is easily-accessible surface water ice (required for fuel for the trip back). It isn't "about time" to go back, not yet...but we're getting there.
NASA did this, except thet called it "better, faster, cheaper" instead of shit happens. Same idea, though.
there already is an IMAX movie of the ISS, in 3-D no less :)
You should consider the source of such statements as "these stories are simply fabricated to get more funding for deep space research" before putting them on par with peer-review articles or NASA statements.
Anyway, there is certainly water on Mars (in the form of its polar ice caps). There is also extremely strong evidence that liquid water has flowed on its surface at some time in its past.
What is not yet known is if water existed on the Martian surface for long periods of time, or if these flows were akin to lava flows on Earth: transitory upwellings of liquid from underground that last only a short time. With Mars's current thin atmosphere, any liquid water at its surface would quickly sublimate into the atmosphere. However, if its atmosphere used to be thicker...
I've never heard a credible person characterize the probability for life on Mars as "very high". As the late Dr. Carl Sagan once said: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
That "rare combination of luck" comment was completely inappropriate and misleading. Of course the lander was supposed to bounce and roll around, that was its design, and it was brilliant.
Problem: How do you safely and cheaply deliver a somewhat fragile payload to the surface of Mars?
+ Rockets? Really expensive, both in terms of cash and (perhaps most importantly) payload mass.
+ Parachute? Martian atmosphere's too thin to slow the payload sufficiently.
+ Deployable glider wings? Really complicated, therefore prone to failure. Also see Rockets entry.
Their solution: do the best you can with a 'chute, then deploy a cocoon of bouncy airbags to cushion the impact. Let the lander bounce, safely shedding mv**2 each time, until it comes to a rest.
If it happened to land upside-down, it had a mechanism to right itself. However, it landed "jelly-side-up", which I assume is what the article poster meant by "rare combination of luck". Since this made no difference anyway, I fail to see the relevance.
Anyway, you can see cool images and animations regarding the entry, landing and deployment of Pathfinder here: http://mars.sgi.com/mpf/edl/edl1.html
I think the thing you are missing is that UC aren't the bad guys in this story. They are the messenger.
.org from our computers because we find its content distasteful". They said "as we interpret the USA Patriot act, the act of linking to that .org is a federal offense, so you must stop".
UC didn't say "we don't want you to link to that
The implication is that it would be illegal even if it was done from your own private webserver. Hence the stifling of free speech, at least hypothetically. BTW, IANAL (FWIW).
If you follow the article's links you'll notice that RH actually asked him to leave since they didn't want an employee saying the RH KDE was crippled. So it wasn't as if he had a bruised ego and stomped out in a huff. He probably did ask if he could make "pure" KDE RPMs; if so, that probably didn't fly too well at RH.
See my post "Re: Please explain crippleware". Hope it helps.
First of all, let me say that Redhat is free to do whatever they like with KDE, since it is GPL'd.
:) will tell.
However, what they're doing is not very nice, and it isn't at all about themes and icons...if that's all it was, there would be no issue.
First there was the issue of the removal of the "About KDE" item in all KDE app help menus. From Redhat's point of view, they're trying to make a Redhat-branded desktop, so seeing "About KDE" in some of the apps might be confusing to the user. From KDE's point of view, if Redhat "de-brands" the desktop, then the about box is really their only chance to let the user know about the app's authorship. It *really* makes it seem like Redhat is, if not trying to take credit for the apps themselves, then at least trying remove credit from where it's due (the KDE devs).
I don't know for sure, but I think Redhat may have decided to replace the "About KDE" items. Time (or beta testers
Second, and more importantly, they have replaced KDE apps with equivalent apps, either from GNOME or independent projects. For example, they replaced konqueror with Mozilla, Koffice with OpenOffice, KMail with Evolution.
Some people say these alternatives are better anyway, so who cares? Is KDE just whining because they can't keep up? I don't think so. For one thing, even if you change the widget style, these apps aren't going to be very well-integrated into the rest of the desktop, both in terms of look-and-feel and interoperability with other apps. This tight integration is one of KDE's great strengths; without it, KDE is, well, crippled. Plus, since these apps depend on libraries that are not preloaded when KDE starts up, they will appear to be sluggish to the user, who might incorrectly conclude that KDE is slow and clunky.
In summary, it isn't about themes or icons. It's that Redhat removed all trace of KDE from the apps, and replaced core KDE components with alternatives that are likely to confuse and frustrate users.
Oh cool, I'll check it out :)
No one knows (i.e. the general public or pointy haired bosses) what 'GNU' means anyway and I think its just going to become more of problem as people get confused thinking it's another distro or something.
:p WWJD?
Don't you see, that's exactly Bruce's point?! If people don't understand that GNU/Linux is not just some product that you don't have to pay for, then it will continue to be eroded in the ways Bruce mentioned (NDAs, license violations, what's next: out-and-out code theft?)
If people understand that we're talking about a Free, community-developed operating system that is owned by everyone (and by no one), then maybe, just maybe, these kind of shenanigans can be avoided. By calling it simply "Linux", you obscure the Free Software underpinnings of the OS, and tip the scales toward the ridiculous view that "GPL == public domain"! (which we saw recently coming from so-called linux companies involved with UnitedLinux...unbelievable!)
[OT]: bizarre sig for someone named ChristianFreak