You are right, of course. Debian went too long between releases, and didn't provide the social means to correct the situation. That left an opening. However, one can fault the Ubuntu crowd for taking advantage of the situation instead of fixing Debian. Especially since they are doing it for profit on the backs of the remaining Debian packagers. Well, let's see what happens:-)
To say nothing of the fact that Ubuntu raided many key developers from Debian, which is now left scraping for help. Ubuntu is slightly repackaging the work of the real packagers, the Debian people, and calling it a new distro. It's basically a hostile fork, and we are the worse for it.
You are not accelerating in either case. You are following a spacetime geodesic.
However, when you lie on your back on the floor on earth, the upwards force of the floor is causing you to deviate from a geodesic, and you sense that as an acceleration, i.e. your weight. Now hold a ping pong ball above your nose and let go. It follows a zero g geodesic, but shortly will collide with your accelerating nose.
By 'postulate' Einstein means, "Assume that future experimentation will show that light travels at c wrt any inertial observer, and physics is the same for him." So the answer to "...how come the light ray [doesn't move] with 1.5 c from the resting observer" is simply that experiment shows that it doesn't. Yes, that's not what you might expect from experiments throwing rocks from trains, etc.
But in the case of light, if you can carefully observe what is going on when the moving physicist makes his measurement of c, you will find that he gets the value he does because his clocks are running slow compared to yours.
The classic thought experiment here is a 'light clock', with light bouncing between two mirrors. What is the path of the light in the moving clock as seen by the stationary observer, and what does that mean to the rate of the moving clock compared to the rate of an identical stationary clock?
I have comcast and they do provide proper rDNS. That doesn't stop sourceforge (or AOL) from blocking my direct SMTP anyway. I've been forced to set up a remotely hosted server, since I really don't want to use comcast outbound (they lose email and don't deliver bounces).
Reminds me of some software projects. First the logo, then the web site, then the coffee cups, and finally start arguing about what is to be accomplished.
"Individual contributors to the Linux kernel gain access to the full resources of the Open Source Legal Defense Fund including guidance on how to best protect and defend their own intellectual property rights. They also receive $25,000 in legal protection from OSRM if they are named in future lawsuits involving their contributions to the Linux kernel. Membership for individuals is $250 annually."
First, it seems to me that the Linux kernel developers should be getting this protection gratis from OSRM and the companies which are actually making a profit from the developer's efforts, and which would not exist except for the efforts of the developers. No, let's charge the kernel developers each $250 annually!!
Second, $25,000 isn't going to go very far if you get sued.
Third, the coverage cost seeems exorbidant. 1% per year for a risk that everyone has been saying all these months is non-existant! I have a $1 million liability umbrella which costs me not 1%, not 0.1%, but about 1/3 of 0.1%.
And if you're a company you pay only 3%! Then there's the Seminars, offered nationally, that you get to attend (at additional cost, no doubt). They don't say whether the coverage includes anything beyond the SCO issues.
Bruce and PJ have gone to the dark side.
This is right up there with the Linux Mark Institute, which is extracting a "low" $500 from everyone who wants to put out a distro which includes "Linux" in its name (even if free beer).
They don't appear to have any crypto experts on their management team.
They seem to be trying (and failing) to register Matt Blaze's long-standing crypto.com url as a
trademark. They use crypto.com in their documentation as if they owned the url. I don't see a link between Blaze and Markland, but perhaps there is one, although Markland seems to have picked up the Crypto.Com from their subsidiary ERGO Systems, which has been involved in port security for Homeland Security.
Some of the replies claim that HD lights are not a problem if properly "filtered and aimed". However, unless your car is equipped with a load-leveling suspension, adding weight in back (luggage or trailer) is going to raise the beam angle. Modern lights have a very sharp cut-off and must be aimed correctly to avoid dazzling on-coming cars. How many people go to the bother of doing this after they load up for a trip? Also, when two cars meet coming over hills, the beams are noticeably tilted upwards and rather blinding.
You can't depend on even the dealers to get aiming correct. I had mine done recently, and it's pretty clear to me that now they are too high, even the low beams illuminate the trees. I must be blinding people now.
It's not true that these lights are no brighter than the older styles. Just drive a car equipped with them.
It doesn't just read like an apology, it is an apology. Lessig states he misread the court and argued poorly.
However, IMO the majority opinion was one of pragmatism (just another extension), a desire to "harmonize" with the EU's extension, and the belief that since Congress had been given the authority to set the limits, the Court should not intervene.
The dissenting opinions by
Stevens
and
Breyer
are remarkable. They actually addressed the constitutional issues.
(You can Google Eldred v. Ashcroft for html, but the pdfs are much easier to read.)
Want to run MS Flight Sim? It must be done as an administrator, even on XP. How many other games are like that?
I recently installed some financial software. Of course I had to do that as admin. It wouldn't run when I switched to my user acct. The vendor help desk's advice? It's designed to be accessed by one user. Read the EULA! Uninstall it and reinstall it from the user account. Oh, you can't do that? I guess you have a problem....
They also informed me that "we don't support firewalls", you have to disconnect that if you want help.
Focused on Windows and commercial tools. I read part of the online chapter, which I found superficial. When I got to this
"Sharing buffers is somewhat like sharing food. A restaurant (hopefully) maintains strict rules about where raw meat can be placed. A little raw juice in someone s cooked meal could lead to illness and a lawsuit. A typical program has many buffers...."
I'm afraid I exited acroread in disgust.
Microsoft Proposal is Spam Friendly, Like CANSPAM
on
Gates on Spam
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Here's what I get from the MS docs:
Four categories:
1. Zombie Windows PC attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. Latter looks up published IPs (as XML in DNS "text" field) for "responsible" sender's domain MTA, finds the sender isn't one of these, drops the session.
2. Large ISP's MTA attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. Sender IP verifies. Recipient MTA looks up *certificate* of ISP and verifies it. Email delivered.
3. Small domain MTA attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. IP verifies, but there is no certificate. Recipient MTA asks sender *MTA* (not necessarily PC of originator) to factor a medium sized prime, or some such. Good sender solves problem, spam sender disconnects.
4. Roaming laptops, mail forwarders, anonymous remailers, etc. These are more problematic, but are handled by adding headers which identify the original responsible sender.
Problem: The Independent Email Certifying Authority. These verify that the large organization is following "proper email policies". But you can bet that these policies will be something rather consistent with the CAN SPAM act. In other words, you are still going to get a lot of "legal" spam.
Finally, MS will grant anyone a reciprocal license to use, modify, distribute, etc. *except* everyone must get their own license. So it appears at some point in time MS can start charging for the license, or bundling it, or whatever. The early adopters will still have good licenses, but MS can use the code they developed, put it in Windows, and then limit new use of the patented technology to the Windows platform.
Chuck Moore is one of the two inventors. Chuck is the inventor of Forth, and has devoted the last 30 years or so to devising Forth microprocessors. He is still at it. Although unfortunately he has been surrounded by kooks most of his career, he is a visionary and a very serious guy. Most of what he has accomplished goes against the grain of both the hardware and software industries, so he never got much respect and has collected a bunch of dopey followers.
I don't know if Chuck has any residual financial interest in Patriot. I suspect not. But if he did get something out of this that would be great, because he's a real inventor and he deserves it.
This patent describes a Forth micro which incorporates a variable speed clock. The clock is implemented using a ring oscillator, and doesn't use an external frequency reference such as a crystal. The clock rate varies continuously depending on the temperature, voltage, and even the quality of the process used to fab the particular chip. Thus it gets the maximum available performance out of the CPU/Dynamic RAM combination which is implemented on that one chip. If the alleged infringers are using this technique in their embedded micros, then Patriot may have a case.
The patent is a division of one filed in 1989 and appears to be a decent patent. The problem with the guys at Patriot is that they are claiming far more than what is actually granted. The patent does not claim the ablility to run a CPU at various clock speeds, or to run the CPU at some multiple of the main memory.
He got a tip from a shoeshine boy and figured that the last players were in the game and the market could only go down. He got out and preserved his fortune through the crash of 29.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right, of course. Debian went too long between releases, and didn't provide the social means to correct the situation. That left an opening. However, one can fault the Ubuntu crowd for taking advantage of the situation instead of fixing Debian. Especially since they are doing it for profit on the backs of the remaining Debian packagers. Well, let's see what happens :-)
http://www.wesselenyi.com/speech.htm
To say nothing of the fact that Ubuntu raided many key developers from Debian, which is now left scraping for help. Ubuntu is slightly repackaging the work of the real packagers, the Debian people, and calling it a new distro. It's basically a hostile fork, and we are the worse for it.
However, when you lie on your back on the floor on earth, the upwards force of the floor is causing you to deviate from a geodesic, and you sense that as an acceleration, i.e. your weight. Now hold a ping pong ball above your nose and let go. It follows a zero g geodesic, but shortly will collide with your accelerating nose.
But in the case of light, if you can carefully observe what is going on when the moving physicist makes his measurement of c, you will find that he gets the value he does because his clocks are running slow compared to yours.
The classic thought experiment here is a 'light clock', with light bouncing between two mirrors. What is the path of the light in the moving clock as seen by the stationary observer, and what does that mean to the rate of the moving clock compared to the rate of an identical stationary clock?
Sure, but Souter turned out not to be what he seemed.
The Astro segment on limb darkening is great! Especially the part about gravitational lensing by a binary star.
How about this for $248, or $168 without HD/CD. Brand new.
I have comcast and they do provide proper rDNS. That doesn't stop sourceforge (or AOL) from blocking my direct SMTP anyway. I've been forced to set up a remotely hosted server, since I really don't want to use comcast outbound (they lose email and don't deliver bounces).
Reminds me of some software projects. First the logo, then the web site, then the coffee cups, and finally start arguing about what is to be accomplished.
First, it seems to me that the Linux kernel developers should be getting this protection gratis from OSRM and the companies which are actually making a profit from the developer's efforts, and which would not exist except for the efforts of the developers. No, let's charge the kernel developers each $250 annually!!
Second, $25,000 isn't going to go very far if you get sued.
Third, the coverage cost seeems exorbidant. 1% per year for a risk that everyone has been saying all these months is non-existant! I have a $1 million liability umbrella which costs me not 1%, not 0.1%, but about 1/3 of 0.1%.
And if you're a company you pay only 3%! Then there's the Seminars, offered nationally, that you get to attend (at additional cost, no doubt). They don't say whether the coverage includes anything beyond the SCO issues.
Bruce and PJ have gone to the dark side.
This is right up there with the Linux Mark Institute, which is extracting a "low" $500 from everyone who wants to put out a distro which includes "Linux" in its name (even if free beer).
Ladies and gents, the good old days are gone.
They don't appear to have any crypto experts on their management team.
They seem to be trying (and failing) to register Matt Blaze's long-standing crypto.com url as a trademark. They use crypto.com in their documentation as if they owned the url. I don't see a link between Blaze and Markland, but perhaps there is one, although Markland seems to have picked up the Crypto.Com from their subsidiary ERGO Systems, which has been involved in port security for Homeland Security.
They
You can't depend on even the dealers to get aiming correct. I had mine done recently, and it's pretty clear to me that now they are too high, even the low beams illuminate the trees. I must be blinding people now. It's not true that these lights are no brighter than the older styles. Just drive a car equipped with them.
(You can Google Eldred v. Ashcroft for html, but the pdfs are much easier to read.)
Want to run MS Flight Sim? It must be done as an administrator, even on XP. How many other games are like that?
I recently installed some financial software. Of course I had to do that as admin. It wouldn't run when I switched to my user acct. The vendor help desk's advice? It's designed to be accessed by one user. Read the EULA! Uninstall it and reinstall it from the user account. Oh, you can't do that? I guess you have a problem....
They also informed me that "we don't support firewalls", you have to disconnect that if you want help.
I'm afraid I exited acroread in disgust.
Here's what I get from the MS docs:
Four categories:
1. Zombie Windows PC attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. Latter looks up published IPs (as XML in DNS "text" field) for "responsible" sender's domain MTA, finds the sender isn't one of these, drops the session.
2. Large ISP's MTA attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. Sender IP verifies. Recipient MTA looks up *certificate* of ISP and verifies it. Email delivered.
3. Small domain MTA attempts SMTP with recipient MTA. IP verifies, but there is no certificate. Recipient MTA asks sender *MTA* (not necessarily PC of originator) to factor a medium sized prime, or some such. Good sender solves problem, spam sender disconnects.
4. Roaming laptops, mail forwarders, anonymous remailers, etc. These are more problematic, but are handled by adding headers which identify the original responsible sender.
Problem: The Independent Email Certifying Authority. These verify that the large organization is following "proper email policies". But you can bet that these policies will be something rather consistent with the CAN SPAM act. In other words, you are still going to get a lot of "legal" spam.
Finally, MS will grant anyone a reciprocal license to use, modify, distribute, etc. *except* everyone must get their own license. So it appears at some point in time MS can start charging for the license, or bundling it, or whatever. The early adopters will still have good licenses, but MS can use the code they developed, put it in Windows, and then limit new use of the patented technology to the Windows platform.
For those who did RTFA, did I get it right?
If you don't control the server, try this:
.procmailrc:
.
append to your
0:
*
! dominic@fastmail.fm
Then turn on fastmail's virus scanning and set the spamfilter to delete anything scoring over 8.0, label everything over 2.0.
You can still grab your whitelist first on the server you're using. Set up your mail client to also access fastmail IMAP and you're all set.
Chuck Moore is one of the two inventors. Chuck is the inventor of Forth, and has devoted the last 30 years or so to devising Forth microprocessors. He is still at it. Although unfortunately he has been surrounded by kooks most of his career, he is a visionary and a very serious guy. Most of what he has accomplished goes against the grain of both the hardware and software industries, so he never got much respect and has collected a bunch of dopey followers.
I don't know if Chuck has any residual financial interest in Patriot. I suspect not. But if he did get something out of this that would be great, because he's a real inventor and he deserves it.
This patent describes a Forth micro which incorporates a variable speed clock. The clock is implemented using a ring oscillator, and doesn't use an external frequency reference such as a crystal. The clock rate varies continuously depending on the temperature, voltage, and even the quality of the process used to fab the particular chip. Thus it gets the maximum available performance out of the CPU/Dynamic RAM combination which is implemented on that one chip. If the alleged infringers are using this technique in their embedded micros, then Patriot may have a case.
The patent is a division of one filed in 1989 and appears to be a decent patent. The problem with the guys at Patriot is that they are claiming far more than what is actually granted. The patent does not claim the ablility to run a CPU at various clock speeds, or to run the CPU at some multiple of the main memory.
And this ain't that.
Look, we recently approved 87 billion dollars for Iraq with hardly a peep. Six times as much.
We seem to be losing our sense of perspective.
Great!! No, I had not read S 877. Just what was reported in the media. It sounded to me like total pre-emption.
The CAN Spam Law gave an unintended meaning to the word "CAN". Kilgore may have to find something else to do.
AOL assimilated by the Microsoft Borg
So one of the things Microsoft has to offer vs Linux is AOL.
AOL
He got a tip from a shoeshine boy and figured that the last players were in the game and the market could only go down. He got out and preserved his fortune through the crash of 29.