I flew into Lukla once, so I can assure you it's used all the time for plane arrivals and departures. There were a few planes pushed off the end of the runway, for the times when a plane couldn't stop fast enough and crashed. It's probably too hard to retrieve the plane or fix it, since there's no driveable roads to Lukla and not much in the way of airplane facilities. The airstrip gets shut quite often due to clouds, since if you can't see the runway you can't land.
Reading Boing Boing this morning, I was flabbergasted as I read the comments of Marybeth Peters, the United States Register of Copyrights. The circular logic and specious reasoning she employed made me question if she has the intelligence required to hold such a position. She raises the ugly specter of terrorism when she says, "although the information is sketchy at best, there have been a series of rumored ties between pirating operations and terrorist organizations." This supposed link is used to bolster the claim that we need more draconian Digital Restrictions Managament (DRM) to prevent casual copying. Yet, it is well known that any DRM can be circumvented given enough time, so piracy rings will still flourish; conversely, those exercising their fair-use rights or committing casual copyright infringement spend no money to do so and obviously do not provide any funds for terrorism. In light of this, perhaps Ms. Peters can explain how extending the reach of copyright would affect any rumored terrorism funding. Ms. Peters true feelings are perhaps best understood by this statement, "While it is not realistic to expect to eliminate all piracy, I do believe that we can continue to improve the global situation, to the benefit of authors and right-holders here in the United States and throughout the world." Evidently, she does not feel any need to protect the rights of consumers to watch or listen to their media. She further insinuates that attempts to make U.S. copyright laws more balanced are making it easier for criminal piracy rings to operate abroad.
It is hard to understand how some of the recent extensions to copyright control could possibly benefit citizens. For example, retroactively extending the length of copyrights had no consumer benefit; it prevented thousands of copyrighted works from entering the public domain. While this artificial monopoly has helped the media companies profit, it has not led to the creation of any new 75-year old books, movies or music.
Meanwhile, the large media companies continue to funnel money to politicians through the RIAA and MPAA. This money buys influence. This influence has led to a continual increase in the control of copyright owners and a corresponding decrease in the rights of citizens to watch and listen to their media. When congress passes laws contrary to the publc interest, one must examine what leads to this action. It seems apparent that the corporate money congress receives from the MPAA and RIAA members has encouraged them to pass laws that benefit only those companies. To combat this, citizens that want fair copyright laws need to emulate their corporate rivals. While copyright reform is in the public interest and would probably be widely supported with more information, it is not an issue that most people care a great deal about. However, there is a community of several hundred thousand citizens that do care a great deal about these issues. If these Americans could be coordinated to raise money, several million dollars would be raised to use towards supporting congressmen who believe in copyright reform. So that is what we will do.
This is a call to arms. I pledge $100 annually for 10 years to a political action committee (PAC) that works solely to reform copyright regardless of political affiliation, provided they collect a minimum of $1,000,000 in pledges for the first year. This PAC will work solely to change laws through the legislative system, but helping to elect sympathetic lawmakers, and not through the courts. The leaders of this PAC should be respected and recognized within the copyright reform community; reformers like Mark Cuban or Cory Doctorow would immediately give the PAC credibility and visibility. If we feel that copyright reform is important, it's time to put our money where our mouth is. How much is it worth to you to keep your TiVo legal, or your iPod? Copyright is a legislative creation and requires a legislative solution, and the best way to do that is a PAC. We need a lot of people to make this work, but if it can't be done right it might not be worth doing at all. Please join us.
From a friend. This is the short call to action. The full version follows in a comment. Licensed under Creative Commons, attribution only.
This is a call to arms. I pledge $100 annually for 10 years to a political action committee (PAC) that works solely to reform copyright regardless of political affiliation, provided they collect a minimum of $1,000,000 in pledges for the first year. This PAC will work solely to change laws through the legislative system, but helping to elect sympathetic lawmakers, and not through the courts. The leaders of this PAC should be respected and recognized within the copyright reform community; reformers like Mark Cuban or Cory Doctorow would immediately give the PAC credibility and visibility. If we feel that copyright reform is important, it's time to put our money where our mouth is. How much is it worth to you to keep your TiVo legal, or your iPod? Copyright is a legislative creation and requires a legislative solution, and the best way to do that is a PAC. We need a lot of people to make this work, but if it can't be done right it might not be worth doing at all. Please join us.
Then they were bought by US Robotics. US Robotics was bought by 3Com. Then 3Com spun off the company known as Palm. And it was good.
Then Palm split the company in half, into PalmSource and PalmOne (which bought Handspring). Now, PalmOne is buying the Palm name from Palmsource. They will be known as Palm. And it was good.
That will change once the scanners are installed. The glass-topped, silver metal boxes about the size of a package of Tic-Tacs read the print on a patron's index finger and use an algorithm to convert at least 15 specific points into a unique numeric sequence.
Okay, it's unique, right. Ooh, that's good because it means that sequence will identify only me. Then the stupid/evil (I can't decide which), tells em,
The stored numeric data cannot be used to reconstruct a fingerprint, West said, nor can it be cross-referenced with other fingerprint databases such as those kept by the FBI or the Illinois State Police.
Are we really so stupid that we believe that? Why doesn't the journalist ask if other fingerprints can also be turned into a unique numerical sequence? Let me see, how hard would it be to convert the fingerprint database into the same unique numerical sequence. Whether that sequence can be used to reconstruct the fingerprint is largely academic; they are using a unique biometric identifier that the FBI can secretly request and compare to their database.
Honestly, going to a biometric system like this for computer access at a library is completely over the top. If I were in the area, I'd picket the damn library. I won't be surprised to see the biometric scanners stolen or destroyed within days of their installation.
The library's motto should be: Read at your own risk.
It seems that with every iTunes release, Apple quietly removes some useful feature to placate the RIAA. They eliminated internet streaming, disabled some plug-ins, restricted you to sharing songs with 5 computers a day, and so on. Any word yet about whether has removed any features this time?
A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a pyroelectric crystal, a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals. When heated, such a crystal produces a large electric charge on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one side touches a copper disc. A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter. This field gradient is so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 neutrons per second was observed. This is 400 times the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used for things like microthrusters. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site. Reader richmlpdx adds a link to coverage at MSNBC.
According to this, Steve Jobs owns 10.1 million shares (that figure may be pre-split) of Apple, or 1.2% of those outstanding. 10 million of those are restricted shares granted to him by Apple. Mr. Jobs had sold off all but one of his shares he received from the Next merger soon after it happened.
So he's nowhere near a "majority" owner, and is only the second largest individual shareholder; at least 10 institutions control a bigger stake than Leader, aka Steve Jobs.
Number 1, they are not "his" stores. As CEO of Apple, he has a fiduciary responsible to Apple's owners (i.e., the shareholders). Pulling Wiley's books does not uphold this in any way; Steve Jobs is not Apple.
Before anyone gets on their high horse... Maybe what you meant was before anyone else gets on their high horse? Consider this. Ten Speed Press has published a book called, "How Wal*Mart is Destroying the World." Ten Speed press has published other books such as "Better than Chocolate: 50 Proven Ways to Feel Happier." Guess what--- Wal*Mart happens to sell that book. Even the Most Evil Corporation on the Planet (TM) hasn't stooped down to Apple's level.
So root for your Apple if that makes you feel good; they have every right to pull those books. But ask yourself this: what good has ever come from governments or corporations bullying the press? Are their citizens or customers somehoe better served? Will I have a better experience at The Apple Store because Apple has decided to pull some Mac books not because of their content but in retalitiation?
I say all this a long-time Mac user, Apple shareholder and overall fan of the company. But Apple is doing no good by this act, and it only serves to make Apple a certified bully. Think Different, indeed.
The crack is the width of a human hair, and it is on the side of the tank opposite the orbiter. The article doesn't specify how high up the crack is, but if it's low enough, it poses zero threat to the orbiter.
The shuttle is now being processed for flight. Rolling it onto the pad is not the same thing as launching it. NASA would hold up processing if they believed the defect was so serious they would likely have to replace the tank. NASA has decided to continue processing, but if the engineers later analyze the problem and decide it does pose a threat, NASA still has plenty of oppurtunites to change their course.
The article makes very clear the scope of the problem, and NASA's response to it. Someone probably noticed a discrepancy report identifying the crack in the SOFI. The responsible engineer likely responded by halting processing to get an assessment from engineering. Someone took a quick look at it (or the report already written about it), decided it would be low risk, and made the decision to continue processing. I bet they also asked the engineers to take a closer look at the issue in the very short term future.
What would you do differently? The more I study the real problem, the more hysterical the submission seems.
Wow, I've just spent the past hour re-reading your old posts (here & at Kuro5hin) for some strange reason. Please just answer one question for me:
Do you really believe in all these alternative theories (who shot JFK, who killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, did aliens crash in Roswell, did an energy beam knock down the shuttle- y'know, b/c foam at 22-23 mph couldn't do it-, etc.), or do you just post them for fun to see the reaction of the community?
I think the submitter needs to study the Columbia report and understand the Aerospace industry a lot more before trying to (and apparently succeeding at) alarming the/. crowd (which, quite frankly, isn't that hard to do).
First, while it was "pieces of foam" that caused the problem, it was decided that it was most likely a single suitcase-sized piece of foam hitting the leading-edge carbon/carbon that led to the eventual destruction of Columbia. The SOFI (spray-on foam insulation) process has been improved to reduce the number & size of voids in the SOFI. The maximum size of foam expected to fall off now is on the order of 1% of the size of the piece that doomed Columbia. Further, the bipod ramp foam has been eliminated in the redesign. Further, they've developed new techniques to inspect the SOFI so they can detect any anomalies. If they found something, which apparently they have, engineers can assess it and determine its severity. I'm not familiar with the specific issue, but depending on its sign & location, it was apparently deemed to not be a problem. Essentially, NASA is probably inspecting better now, so they are seeing more lumps. It doesn't mean that this isn't the best external tank ever built (it doesn't mean it is, either).
And in general, the whole SOFI system has extremely high visibility at NASA (I don't work there) and beyond (I do work there), and if any engineer thought it could be a safety issue, the launch would be delayed.
Not to mention, the tank wasn't "supposedly" redesigned; it was redesigned. Unless the submitter is suggesting that there was a massive conspiracy to deceive the public into pretending the shuttle tank was redesigned when it wasn't (but apparently not large enough to squelch any whistle-blowers), he should refrain from making those sorts of allegations.
The rest of his comment barely qualifies as idle speculation; the rescue crew is a last-resort, and NASA is not anticipating any problems. The idea of preparing a "rescue" craft was in direct response to Columbia when it was asked what NASA could do if they knew shuttle was doomed. If they detect a problem, NASA will assess and decide to either a) land at Kennedy/ Edwards as planned if there's nominal risk (I'd rate that at 95%), b) land in White Sands with a full crew if there's low to (I'm guessing) medium risk (let's call that 4.9%); c) launch a rescue mission and either ditch shuttle if they're sure it's doomed, or land at White Sands with a minimal crew if the think it might be doomed (I'd say 0.1%).
No, I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm a rocket engineer. And I find it sad that Slashdot chose to post this story when I bet there were other, fact-based submissions written by people more knowledgeable about the subject at hand.
I know, Microsoft is evil and Linux rules, but I can see their point of biew for reasons other than trying to strangle Linux. Microsoft probably does not want their software licensed in a GPL-like format. If these protocols can be implemented in Linux without forcing MS's software to be opened under the GPL, they should be forced to do that. If there's no way to integrate Microsoft's software with Linux without it being licensed under the GPL, then I think Linux is out of luck. It could still be used with a BSD-style license. But forcing MS to license any of their software under the GPL seems grossly anti-capitalistic.
Of course, MS is evil, so this whole thing might just be because they see Linux as a threat and want to hurt it any way they can. It could go either way.
Microsoft starts offering limited HDTV content on a subscription basis, and the/. community responds by complaining about it. Sony announces plans to sell/rent hundreds of movies online, and we all complain about it. C'mon!
These things are cool, a few years late and a few dollars short. But we're nerds, we're supposed to be cutting edge & like geeky things. 500 movies available to download-- seems like a good start. Let's hope Sony improves it, or this jump-starts the whole thing.
And keep on with the cracks about getting your movies on Bit Torrent without DRM. I remember when the/. crowd used to say studios should go after users who committed copyright infringement and leave the tool makers alone. Now? We were just kidding.
Hey, Bit Torrent, Kazaa, etc. are great tools and a great way to find old or obscure content. But c'mon, if you want to watch a mainstream, rent the DVD or buy a movie ticket.
So if you'd like to steer clear of copyright infringement, and would like to download & watch movies at home, this is a good start. I'd like to see it DRM-free, and maybe someday the movie & record studios will realize it's to their benefit to sell DRM-free stuff. But it's not realistic to ever expect the major studios to rent movies or music without DRM.
That number is way off today. Since Challenger, the whole Solid Rocket Motor industry has improved their practices to greatly increase safety. For example, since Challenger, there have been about 90 succesful shuttle flights with 2 solids each. The GEM-40s used on Delta IIs have been flown succesful on 99 flights (unsuccesfully on 1). There are typically 9 GEM-40s on a Delta II, and there have been close to 800 flown succesfully and one failure. That's a LOT better than 1/25 or 1/100. There were some problems with other programs, but the point is that a well-designed solid rocket motor can achieve a success of nearly 99.9%.
Seems appropriate that it's from the "they're-never-going-to-get-it dept." The editor should get a +1 Unintentionally Funny for his so-sad-it's-funny quip.
I've now RTFA. There were only 35 days between the last 2 surveys, and 42 days between the previous 2 surveys. This works out to a growth in market share of 0.63% (February) or 0.64% (January) for every 30 days. Since Firefox is at 5.69% now and they need another 4.31% to reach 10%, it will take about 6.8 months to achieve that goal. That works out to the end of September. If Firefox simply maintains its (phenomenal) growth rate, it will easily reach 10% by the end of 2005. They can even slow down a little and still reach 10%. Awesome.
It's no surprise that the percentage growth of Firefox in terms of marketshare is slowing down, this is the a natural part of the growth curve for any new poduct. 15% monthly growth is phenonemal, and it is literally an unsustainable growth rate. I'd be more interested to know the growth in raw numbers of new Firefox users; that number is likely almost exactly the same in January than December.
Here's my math. 0.15*(1.22)=.19, so 19% vs. 22% growth in market share from the December base, but the market is probably 1% larger. The way I see it, the number of new Firefox users is down probably 10% from January to February. Then remember that there were 3 fewer days in February than in January, which would account for the 10% difference. In other words, the number of new Firefox users per day stayed almost exactly the same from January to February. Maybe someone who RTFA can tell us what that number of new uses/day is and how it compares to earlier months.
The growth is remarkably fast, and may also be remarkably stable. How many more months would Firefox need to reach 10% market share?
Damn, some of my best friends are got Ph.D.s in Bioengineering, and let me tell you, they are real engineers. When you're taking continuum mechanics classes, elasticity classes, conducting tensile testing on cartilage and doing that sort of thing, you're an engineer.
This is nothing more than a colossally stupid, complex idea which will only serve to benefit drivers of environmentally unfriendly (due to high gas consumption), needlessly dangerous (to drivers of other vehicles) expensive cars. Oh, and the trucking companies who do most of the damage to our roads, it will benefit them too. It will certainly benefit those who are paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year to run the complex systems, not to mention those who will charge about $5 Billion just to install the tracking devices. And the guys who install other supporting hardware. It may also benefit the politician who angles to name it after himself. And SUV dealers
Who won't it benefit? Drivers of fuel efficient cars. The state, which could spend $5 billion on much more effective things-- like fixing the roads, or installing real-time electricity meters on every home, or paying off our debt, or funding the UC system. It won't benefit motorcycle drivers. It won't benefit our state's clean air as more hydrocarbons are burned.
Put it into perspecrtive. The chart shows that a typical car owner pays $100/ year in gas taxes. And the article states the technology costs $100/car (I bet it won't be that cheap installed, but I'll let that one go). My guess is that the average car is in California for about 5 years, so that means 20% of the revenue goes to tracking the revenue! And that doesn't take into account the software, administrative or infrastructure part of the equation.
We have a great system now for taxing road usage; vehicles pay by the mile and heavier vehicles, which cause more road damage, pay more per vehicle mile. I don't know this, but I would bet that SUVs tend to be involved in more accidents than cars due to their decreased manueverability.
I'll say it again: it's a colossally stupid idea which will waste billions in unneeded administrative, infrastructure & software costs that will lead to more pollution, less healthy air and decreased state revenue. I'll lay down on the tracks to stop this one.
But here's the brilliant part-- they tell you to email them (call them in fact, based on their response to my email) for permission to post a link. So it's like putting up a website & asking for a DDOS attack. Now, imagine 100,000 emails asking the same thing, or 100,000 phone calls taking 10 minutes each. That's 160,000 hours * $8/hr = $1,280,000. Y'know, just in case anyone wants to post a link.
Idiotic apologists for Apple do not seem to understand that Apple is simply trying to intimidate reporters & others from investigating & reporting about Apple. Just because Apple hasn't put out a press release doesn't mean it's not news, doesn't mean it can't be reported. A description of a soon-to-be released product is in no way a trade secret, and I hope Apple gets their hats handed to them in this case.
For far too long small web publishers have been intimidated by mega-corps lawyers. For far too long websites have removed perfectly allowable content in the face of a simple notice. For far too long information has been made inaccesible by gun-shy ISPs. For far too long documents have been deleted for fear of a meritless lawsuit. For far too long innovative manufacturers like Replay TV have been sued into bankruptcy for making legal devices but didn't secure the blessings of the megacorps.
When Apple's lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, hopefully it will cause other megacorps to compete on merits instead of pounding the little guy with legal fees. I think Apple is a great company, I own their stock and I buy just about every Apple product out there. But they are wrong about this lawsuit, they are attempting to stifle the freedom of the press, and that's why I hope they lose.
The Apple apologists here seem to be of two minds on the issue of the 1st Amendment & the alleged illegal actions by Nick. The 1st Amendment protects our freedom of speech from government intrusion. It reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The important words are "no law." The California Trade Secrets statute clearly abridges the "freedom of speech, or of the press." The guy who leaked the trade secret is subject to contract law and any agreement he made with Apple; Nick made no such agreement with Apple. They have no basis to sue him for a violation of contract law. They can only sue him under this Trade Secrets statute, which is possibly unconstitutional. Even if the statute stands, Apple will likely need to prove probable cause that Nick encouraged the leaker to break his contract. Unless he paid him or blackmailed him and Nick knew the source was under NDA, I just don't see how that could be the case. For those of you certain of Nick's guilt because of his "Got Dirt?" link, I think you need to understand that requesting information is a long way from asking someone to break an NDA.
If Apple wins this case, expect many other companies to start suing journalists, bloggers and message board posters anytime a bad word is uttered about them. The bar will have been lowered, and our freedom of speech will be imperiled by all of corporate America. If Apple wins this case, we all lose
OK, I like this part, "(a) you give Orbitz prior written notice of such link by contacting Orbitz Customer Service, to request Orbitz's permission to establish the link." Now, I think the rest of it takes care of itself. How about starting an email campaign asking permission to link to Orbitz. Sure, they could handle a couple hundred requests, but what if 10,000/.'ers asked permission? What if this got on Boing Boing and 100,000 people wrote it? What if the EFF put out an action alert and 1,000,000 people asked permission to post a link to Orbitz? Now THAT would get their attention.
Here's a link to the rules, and the email address is customerservice@orbitz.com. I've just written them. Who's on board?
Slashdot Mirror
I flew into Lukla once, so I can assure you it's used all the time for plane arrivals and departures. There were a few planes pushed off the end of the runway, for the times when a plane couldn't stop fast enough and crashed. It's probably too hard to retrieve the plane or fix it, since there's no driveable roads to Lukla and not much in the way of airplane facilities. The airstrip gets shut quite often due to clouds, since if you can't see the runway you can't land.
Enough.
Reading Boing Boing this morning, I was flabbergasted as I read the comments of Marybeth Peters, the United States Register of Copyrights. The circular logic and specious reasoning she employed made me question if she has the intelligence required to hold such a position. She raises the ugly specter of terrorism when she says, "although the information is sketchy at best, there have been a series of rumored ties between pirating operations and terrorist organizations." This supposed link is used to bolster the claim that we need more draconian Digital Restrictions Managament (DRM) to prevent casual copying. Yet, it is well known that any DRM can be circumvented given enough time, so piracy rings will still flourish; conversely, those exercising their fair-use rights or committing casual copyright infringement spend no money to do so and obviously do not provide any funds for terrorism. In light of this, perhaps Ms. Peters can explain how extending the reach of copyright would affect any rumored terrorism funding. Ms. Peters true feelings are perhaps best understood by this statement, "While it is not realistic to expect to eliminate all piracy, I do believe that we can continue to improve the global situation, to the benefit of authors and right-holders here in the United States and throughout the world." Evidently, she does not feel any need to protect the rights of consumers to watch or listen to their media. She further insinuates that attempts to make U.S. copyright laws more balanced are making it easier for criminal piracy rings to operate abroad.
It is hard to understand how some of the recent extensions to copyright control could possibly benefit citizens. For example, retroactively extending the length of copyrights had no consumer benefit; it prevented thousands of copyrighted works from entering the public domain. While this artificial monopoly has helped the media companies profit, it has not led to the creation of any new 75-year old books, movies or music.
Meanwhile, the large media companies continue to funnel money to politicians through the RIAA and MPAA. This money buys influence. This influence has led to a continual increase in the control of copyright owners and a corresponding decrease in the rights of citizens to watch and listen to their media. When congress passes laws contrary to the publc interest, one must examine what leads to this action. It seems apparent that the corporate money congress receives from the MPAA and RIAA members has encouraged them to pass laws that benefit only those companies. To combat this, citizens that want fair copyright laws need to emulate their corporate rivals. While copyright reform is in the public interest and would probably be widely supported with more information, it is not an issue that most people care a great deal about. However, there is a community of several hundred thousand citizens that do care a great deal about these issues. If these Americans could be coordinated to raise money, several million dollars would be raised to use towards supporting congressmen who believe in copyright reform. So that is what we will do.
This is a call to arms. I pledge $100 annually for 10 years to a political action committee (PAC) that works solely to reform copyright regardless of political affiliation, provided they collect a minimum of $1,000,000 in pledges for the first year. This PAC will work solely to change laws through the legislative system, but helping to elect sympathetic lawmakers, and not through the courts. The leaders of this PAC should be respected and recognized within the copyright reform community; reformers like Mark Cuban or Cory Doctorow would immediately give the PAC credibility and visibility. If we feel that copyright reform is important, it's time to put our money where our mouth is. How much is it worth to you to keep your TiVo legal, or your iPod? Copyright is a legislative creation and requires a legislative solution, and the best way to do that is a PAC. We need a lot of people to make this work, but if it can't be done right it might not be worth doing at all. Please join us.
From a friend. This is the short call to action. The full version follows in a comment. Licensed under Creative Commons, attribution only.
This is a call to arms. I pledge $100 annually for 10 years to a political action committee (PAC) that works solely to reform copyright regardless of political affiliation, provided they collect a minimum of $1,000,000 in pledges for the first year. This PAC will work solely to change laws through the legislative system, but helping to elect sympathetic lawmakers, and not through the courts. The leaders of this PAC should be respected and recognized within the copyright reform community; reformers like Mark Cuban or Cory Doctorow would immediately give the PAC credibility and visibility. If we feel that copyright reform is important, it's time to put our money where our mouth is. How much is it worth to you to keep your TiVo legal, or your iPod? Copyright is a legislative creation and requires a legislative solution, and the best way to do that is a PAC. We need a lot of people to make this work, but if it can't be done right it might not be worth doing at all. Please join us.
First there was Palm. And it was good.
Then they were bought by US Robotics. US Robotics was bought by 3Com. Then 3Com spun off the company known as Palm. And it was good.
Then Palm split the company in half, into PalmSource and PalmOne (which bought Handspring). Now, PalmOne is buying the Palm name from Palmsource. They will be known as Palm. And it was good.
Okay, it's unique, right. Ooh, that's good because it means that sequence will identify only me. Then the stupid/evil (I can't decide which), tells em,
Are we really so stupid that we believe that? Why doesn't the journalist ask if other fingerprints can also be turned into a unique numerical sequence? Let me see, how hard would it be to convert the fingerprint database into the same unique numerical sequence. Whether that sequence can be used to reconstruct the fingerprint is largely academic; they are using a unique biometric identifier that the FBI can secretly request and compare to their database.
Honestly, going to a biometric system like this for computer access at a library is completely over the top. If I were in the area, I'd picket the damn library. I won't be surprised to see the biometric scanners stolen or destroyed within days of their installation.
The library's motto should be: Read at your own risk.
It seems that with every iTunes release, Apple quietly removes some useful feature to placate the RIAA. They eliminated internet streaming, disabled some plug-ins, restricted you to sharing songs with 5 computers a day, and so on. Any word yet about whether has removed any features this time?
A UCLA collaboration (Seth Putterman, Brian Naranjo and Jim Gimzewski) appear to have developed a fusion device powered by a pyroelectric crystal, a type of crystal used in cell phones to filter signals. When heated, such a crystal produces a large electric charge on its surface. The UCLA researchers placed a lithium tantalate (LiTaO3) pyroelectric crystal so that one side touches a copper disc. A tiny tungsten probe is then placed at the center of the copper disc. When the crystal is subsequently heated, a very large large electric field is produced at the end of the tugsten tip, ~25 billion volts per meter. This field gradient is so high that it strips the electrons from nearby deuterium atoms. The ionized deuterium atoms then accelerated by this field towards a solid target of erbium deuteride (ErD2). They collide with it at such high energies that some fuse with the target. A measurement of almost 900 neutrons per second was observed. This is 400 times the background! Although the amount of energy produced in this initial experiment was miniscule (~1E-8 jules), this technology could be used for things like microthrusters. There are pictures and movies on the UCLA's physics site. Reader richmlpdx adds a link to coverage at MSNBC.
Wait a second, you can't concede the point. This is Slashdot, dammit. If people start conceding points the whole system could come crashing down!
Flames! Trolls! Unspported facts! That's what Slashdot is about, not mature responses like conceding points; the system isn't set up to handle that!
According to this, Steve Jobs owns 10.1 million shares (that figure may be pre-split) of Apple, or 1.2% of those outstanding. 10 million of those are restricted shares granted to him by Apple. Mr. Jobs had sold off all but one of his shares he received from the Next merger soon after it happened.
So he's nowhere near a "majority" owner, and is only the second largest individual shareholder; at least 10 institutions control a bigger stake than Leader, aka Steve Jobs.
Number 1, they are not "his" stores. As CEO of Apple, he has a fiduciary responsible to Apple's owners (i.e., the shareholders). Pulling Wiley's books does not uphold this in any way; Steve Jobs is not Apple.
Before anyone gets on their high horse... Maybe what you meant was before anyone else gets on their high horse? Consider this. Ten Speed Press has published a book called, "How Wal*Mart is Destroying the World." Ten Speed press has published other books such as "Better than Chocolate: 50 Proven Ways to Feel Happier." Guess what--- Wal*Mart happens to sell that book. Even the Most Evil Corporation on the Planet (TM) hasn't stooped down to Apple's level.
So root for your Apple if that makes you feel good; they have every right to pull those books. But ask yourself this: what good has ever come from governments or corporations bullying the press? Are their citizens or customers somehoe better served? Will I have a better experience at The Apple Store because Apple has decided to pull some Mac books not because of their content but in retalitiation?
I say all this a long-time Mac user, Apple shareholder and overall fan of the company. But Apple is doing no good by this act, and it only serves to make Apple a certified bully. Think Different, indeed.
Here's a link to the PDF version of the bill. Happy printing!
OK, I've now RTFA.
The crack is the width of a human hair, and it is on the side of the tank opposite the orbiter. The article doesn't specify how high up the crack is, but if it's low enough, it poses zero threat to the orbiter.
The shuttle is now being processed for flight. Rolling it onto the pad is not the same thing as launching it. NASA would hold up processing if they believed the defect was so serious they would likely have to replace the tank. NASA has decided to continue processing, but if the engineers later analyze the problem and decide it does pose a threat, NASA still has plenty of oppurtunites to change their course.
The article makes very clear the scope of the problem, and NASA's response to it. Someone probably noticed a discrepancy report identifying the crack in the SOFI. The responsible engineer likely responded by halting processing to get an assessment from engineering. Someone took a quick look at it (or the report already written about it), decided it would be low risk, and made the decision to continue processing. I bet they also asked the engineers to take a closer look at the issue in the very short term future.
What would you do differently? The more I study the real problem, the more hysterical the submission seems.
Wow, I've just spent the past hour re-reading your old posts (here & at Kuro5hin) for some strange reason. Please just answer one question for me:
Do you really believe in all these alternative theories (who shot JFK, who killed 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, did aliens crash in Roswell, did an energy beam knock down the shuttle- y'know, b/c foam at 22-23 mph couldn't do it-, etc.), or do you just post them for fun to see the reaction of the community?
Either way, I think it's brilliant.
I think the submitter needs to study the Columbia report and understand the Aerospace industry a lot more before trying to (and apparently succeeding at) alarming the /. crowd (which, quite frankly, isn't that hard to do).
First, while it was "pieces of foam" that caused the problem, it was decided that it was most likely a single suitcase-sized piece of foam hitting the leading-edge carbon/carbon that led to the eventual destruction of Columbia. The SOFI (spray-on foam insulation) process has been improved to reduce the number & size of voids in the SOFI. The maximum size of foam expected to fall off now is on the order of 1% of the size of the piece that doomed Columbia. Further, the bipod ramp foam has been eliminated in the redesign. Further, they've developed new techniques to inspect the SOFI so they can detect any anomalies. If they found something, which apparently they have, engineers can assess it and determine its severity. I'm not familiar with the specific issue, but depending on its sign & location, it was apparently deemed to not be a problem. Essentially, NASA is probably inspecting better now, so they are seeing more lumps. It doesn't mean that this isn't the best external tank ever built (it doesn't mean it is, either).
And in general, the whole SOFI system has extremely high visibility at NASA (I don't work there) and beyond (I do work there), and if any engineer thought it could be a safety issue, the launch would be delayed.
Not to mention, the tank wasn't "supposedly" redesigned; it was redesigned. Unless the submitter is suggesting that there was a massive conspiracy to deceive the public into pretending the shuttle tank was redesigned when it wasn't (but apparently not large enough to squelch any whistle-blowers), he should refrain from making those sorts of allegations.
The rest of his comment barely qualifies as idle speculation; the rescue crew is a last-resort, and NASA is not anticipating any problems. The idea of preparing a "rescue" craft was in direct response to Columbia when it was asked what NASA could do if they knew shuttle was doomed. If they detect a problem, NASA will assess and decide to either a) land at Kennedy/ Edwards as planned if there's nominal risk (I'd rate that at 95%), b) land in White Sands with a full crew if there's low to (I'm guessing) medium risk (let's call that 4.9%); c) launch a rescue mission and either ditch shuttle if they're sure it's doomed, or land at White Sands with a minimal crew if the think it might be doomed (I'd say 0.1%).
No, I'm not a rocket scientist. I'm a rocket engineer. And I find it sad that Slashdot chose to post this story when I bet there were other, fact-based submissions written by people more knowledgeable about the subject at hand.
I know, Microsoft is evil and Linux rules, but I can see their point of biew for reasons other than trying to strangle Linux. Microsoft probably does not want their software licensed in a GPL-like format. If these protocols can be implemented in Linux without forcing MS's software to be opened under the GPL, they should be forced to do that. If there's no way to integrate Microsoft's software with Linux without it being licensed under the GPL, then I think Linux is out of luck. It could still be used with a BSD-style license. But forcing MS to license any of their software under the GPL seems grossly anti-capitalistic.
Of course, MS is evil, so this whole thing might just be because they see Linux as a threat and want to hurt it any way they can. It could go either way.
Microsoft starts offering limited HDTV content on a subscription basis, and the /. community responds by complaining about it. Sony announces plans to sell/rent hundreds of movies online, and we all complain about it. C'mon!
/. crowd used to say studios should go after users who committed copyright infringement and leave the tool makers alone. Now? We were just kidding.
These things are cool, a few years late and a few dollars short. But we're nerds, we're supposed to be cutting edge & like geeky things. 500 movies available to download-- seems like a good start. Let's hope Sony improves it, or this jump-starts the whole thing.
And keep on with the cracks about getting your movies on Bit Torrent without DRM. I remember when the
Hey, Bit Torrent, Kazaa, etc. are great tools and a great way to find old or obscure content. But c'mon, if you want to watch a mainstream, rent the DVD or buy a movie ticket.
So if you'd like to steer clear of copyright infringement, and would like to download & watch movies at home, this is a good start. I'd like to see it DRM-free, and maybe someday the movie & record studios will realize it's to their benefit to sell DRM-free stuff. But it's not realistic to ever expect the major studios to rent movies or music without DRM.
That number is way off today. Since Challenger, the whole Solid Rocket Motor industry has improved their practices to greatly increase safety. For example, since Challenger, there have been about 90 succesful shuttle flights with 2 solids each. The GEM-40s used on Delta IIs have been flown succesful on 99 flights (unsuccesfully on 1). There are typically 9 GEM-40s on a Delta II, and there have been close to 800 flown succesfully and one failure. That's a LOT better than 1/25 or 1/100. There were some problems with other programs, but the point is that a well-designed solid rocket motor can achieve a success of nearly 99.9%.
Seems appropriate that it's from the "they're-never-going-to-get-it dept." The editor should get a +1 Unintentionally Funny for his so-sad-it's-funny quip.
I've now RTFA. There were only 35 days between the last 2 surveys, and 42 days between the previous 2 surveys. This works out to a growth in market share of 0.63% (February) or 0.64% (January) for every 30 days. Since Firefox is at 5.69% now and they need another 4.31% to reach 10%, it will take about 6.8 months to achieve that goal. That works out to the end of September. If Firefox simply maintains its (phenomenal) growth rate, it will easily reach 10% by the end of 2005. They can even slow down a little and still reach 10%. Awesome.
It's no surprise that the percentage growth of Firefox in terms of marketshare is slowing down, this is the a natural part of the growth curve for any new poduct. 15% monthly growth is phenonemal, and it is literally an unsustainable growth rate. I'd be more interested to know the growth in raw numbers of new Firefox users; that number is likely almost exactly the same in January than December.
Here's my math. 0.15*(1.22)=.19, so 19% vs. 22% growth in market share from the December base, but the market is probably 1% larger. The way I see it, the number of new Firefox users is down probably 10% from January to February. Then remember that there were 3 fewer days in February than in January, which would account for the 10% difference. In other words, the number of new Firefox users per day stayed almost exactly the same from January to February. Maybe someone who RTFA can tell us what that number of new uses/day is and how it compares to earlier months.
The growth is remarkably fast, and may also be remarkably stable. How many more months would Firefox need to reach 10% market share?
Damn, some of my best friends are got Ph.D.s in Bioengineering, and let me tell you, they are real engineers. When you're taking continuum mechanics classes, elasticity classes, conducting tensile testing on cartilage and doing that sort of thing, you're an engineer.
Software engineers? Do they even take calculus?
This is nothing more than a colossally stupid, complex idea which will only serve to benefit drivers of environmentally unfriendly (due to high gas consumption), needlessly dangerous (to drivers of other vehicles) expensive cars. Oh, and the trucking companies who do most of the damage to our roads, it will benefit them too. It will certainly benefit those who are paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year to run the complex systems, not to mention those who will charge about $5 Billion just to install the tracking devices. And the guys who install other supporting hardware. It may also benefit the politician who angles to name it after himself. And SUV dealers
Who won't it benefit? Drivers of fuel efficient cars. The state, which could spend $5 billion on much more effective things-- like fixing the roads, or installing real-time electricity meters on every home, or paying off our debt, or funding the UC system. It won't benefit motorcycle drivers. It won't benefit our state's clean air as more hydrocarbons are burned.
Put it into perspecrtive. The chart shows that a typical car owner pays $100/ year in gas taxes. And the article states the technology costs $100/car (I bet it won't be that cheap installed, but I'll let that one go). My guess is that the average car is in California for about 5 years, so that means 20% of the revenue goes to tracking the revenue! And that doesn't take into account the software, administrative or infrastructure part of the equation.
We have a great system now for taxing road usage; vehicles pay by the mile and heavier vehicles, which cause more road damage, pay more per vehicle mile. I don't know this, but I would bet that SUVs tend to be involved in more accidents than cars due to their decreased manueverability.
I'll say it again: it's a colossally stupid idea which will waste billions in unneeded administrative, infrastructure & software costs that will lead to more pollution, less healthy air and decreased state revenue. I'll lay down on the tracks to stop this one.
But here's the brilliant part-- they tell you to email them (call them in fact, based on their response to my email) for permission to post a link. So it's like putting up a website & asking for a DDOS attack. Now, imagine 100,000 emails asking the same thing, or 100,000 phone calls taking 10 minutes each. That's 160,000 hours * $8/hr = $1,280,000. Y'know, just in case anyone wants to post a link.
Idiotic apologists for Apple do not seem to understand that Apple is simply trying to intimidate reporters & others from investigating & reporting about Apple. Just because Apple hasn't put out a press release doesn't mean it's not news, doesn't mean it can't be reported. A description of a soon-to-be released product is in no way a trade secret, and I hope Apple gets their hats handed to them in this case.
For far too long small web publishers have been intimidated by mega-corps lawyers. For far too long websites have removed perfectly allowable content in the face of a simple notice. For far too long information has been made inaccesible by gun-shy ISPs. For far too long documents have been deleted for fear of a meritless lawsuit. For far too long innovative manufacturers like Replay TV have been sued into bankruptcy for making legal devices but didn't secure the blessings of the megacorps.
When Apple's lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, hopefully it will cause other megacorps to compete on merits instead of pounding the little guy with legal fees. I think Apple is a great company, I own their stock and I buy just about every Apple product out there. But they are wrong about this lawsuit, they are attempting to stifle the freedom of the press, and that's why I hope they lose.
The Apple apologists here seem to be of two minds on the issue of the 1st Amendment & the alleged illegal actions by Nick. The 1st Amendment protects our freedom of speech from government intrusion. It reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The important words are "no law." The California Trade Secrets statute clearly abridges the "freedom of speech, or of the press." The guy who leaked the trade secret is subject to contract law and any agreement he made with Apple; Nick made no such agreement with Apple. They have no basis to sue him for a violation of contract law. They can only sue him under this Trade Secrets statute, which is possibly unconstitutional. Even if the statute stands, Apple will likely need to prove probable cause that Nick encouraged the leaker to break his contract. Unless he paid him or blackmailed him and Nick knew the source was under NDA, I just don't see how that could be the case. For those of you certain of Nick's guilt because of his "Got Dirt?" link, I think you need to understand that requesting information is a long way from asking someone to break an NDA.
If Apple wins this case, expect many other companies to start suing journalists, bloggers and message board posters anytime a bad word is uttered about them. The bar will have been lowered, and our freedom of speech will be imperiled by all of corporate America. If Apple wins this case, we all lose
OK, I like this part, "(a) you give Orbitz prior written notice of such link by contacting Orbitz Customer Service, to request Orbitz's permission to establish the link." Now, I think the rest of it takes care of itself. How about starting an email campaign asking permission to link to Orbitz. Sure, they could handle a couple hundred requests, but what if 10,000 /.'ers asked permission? What if this got on Boing Boing and 100,000 people wrote it? What if the EFF put out an action alert and 1,000,000 people asked permission to post a link to Orbitz? Now THAT would get their attention.
Here's a link to the rules, and the email address is customerservice@orbitz.com. I've just written them. Who's on board?