Did anyone ever see the sparrow with a Harley engine? The thing only got 35 miles to the gallon, less then a Toyota Echo. Rather then putting an 'engeneered to be loud' harley engine in their frame they could have worked on a real hybrid car. Talk about a lost opportunity.
This company was lame, and their products were ugly. They should have just made simple electric bikes, rather then putting a cheap shell around a trike:P
not just that.. i BET that with this technology.. MAYBE... JUST MAYBE they'll find a way to prove the unified force theory... if they can shift an EM feild enough so that it behaves like gravity, or vica-versa (assuming the theory is true) that would truly be staggering... It could change everything...
Most. Idiotic. Comment. Ever. This tech couldn't change gravity into EM anymore then it could convert sound waves, or people doing the 'wave' in a stadium into EM.
Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 1
One of them is a cloaking devices, efficient power sources, phase weapons...
Um, what? Do you know anything about physics?
Well, tough luck fucktard
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Oh, he has to forge headers. If I wanted kill this guy by hitting them with my car, I would have to drive off or I might get arrested. So driving off after running over someone should be legal.
Hrm, now that I think about it, I would kind of like to run over this guy.
Because the argument they are trying to counter is bunk anyway. Caldera never meant to give away the rights to their source code. The GPL is not a law. Worst case senario here is that they can no longer distribute Linux themselves (becuase they don't have the legal right too). But they've already stopped and are trying to get everyone else to do the same.
Anyway, we're not going to know for a long time. SCO is going to play this out as long as they can, while getting secret payments from Microsoft.
If I hack into IBM's servers, steal the code for AIX (or whatever), and then shove most of it into my own OS under the GPL, it would not free the OS/2 code, even if IBM put it up on an FTP server somewhere. Because they didn't know.
The GPL is not a law, it's a grant of rights by the owner of the copyright. You can't give up rights unintentionaly.
I say, "Sorry man, I don't really want to kill you, but I won't be liable for it and there's less paperwork that way."
There would be a lot more paperwork, actualy.
Re:If you NEED that bandwidth...
on
802.11g Slows Down
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
But I need that bandwidth... and I need it MOBILE!!! It'd be really nice to be able get in my car and drive between work, school and home, and have constant access to the internet, but it would be practically useless if I couldn't actually do anything with it more than check email and read/. I want to be able to hear a song on the radio, then, before I forget it, download and have it!
I'm sure lots of companies will provide old-standard hardware. Call it 'super-g' or something, just like with the non-standard 56k modems way back when. Perhaps with a warning that it'll interfere with other standards.
If it reall is incompatable and interfering, then you probably won't want to use it.
What I wonder, is wether or not older hardware that works with the draft standard will still work.
Well, it depends on what you mean by hacking. Breaking into secure systems? No. Writing a program? No. Simply exploring an existing program/OS/whatever? Maybe, but I don't know if I would really call that hacking.
Any company that size would have some 'churn', if 1/1000 people quit a month, then SGI would perpetualy have 4 openings. The layoffs would probably reduce that for a while, but a good company would probably always have it's doors open for relly talented people.
Uh, sorry. My mind was wondering when I wrote the subject.
Oh yeah, I was going to say. This company is still around? Let me guess. About 400 employes still left?
Well, what does he mean exactly?
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
Well, I suppose you have a point when it comes to underlying tech, like an OS. Obviously an OS that supports SMP, lots of threading, protected mem, NUMA, transparent clustering, and all sorts of crazy goodness is going to take longer to write then DOS. But at the same time, that's really more of an issue of supporting hardware *features* then it is a result of hardware speed. You could have all of that with a 386 if it supported those things. Now of course, having those features requires transistors, the number of which also goes up with Moore's law. But I don't really think the feature set is doubling every 18 months:P
He also seems to be claming that the open source model is the only one that works. Microsoft, SUN and other small companies seem to have been able to keep up.
It was not said that you need to code twice as much; rather, that complexity doubles. This is demonstrably true.
Well, there are two kinds of complexity. Strictly speaking, we are talking about O(n) running time. In that case O(2n) = O(n) anyway, so if you 'double' the complexity, it stays the same.
If you're talking about 'conceptual' complexity, like how many conditionals, etc, then that would in fact be related to code length. And like I said, faster computers let you write less code, not more.
We are not talking about test scores, or any other continuous data, but rather we are trying to determine the composition of the set. There is no reason to assume that it will fall into any kind of normal Gaussian distribution pattern.
If we determine the makeup by testing every element rather then by taking a sample, there is no margin of error. The only thing ESR could have meant by his 'statistical noise' comment is that SCO's market share was equivalent to zero. But this is clearly false. It also doesn't take price into account.
Only the most amateur hackers would be stopped by using Linux rather then M$ software. Sure it's theoreticaly possible to connect a machine 'naked' to the internet, it will probably be insecure. Linux, Windows, or whatever. The proper way to setup a 'secure' network is to use whatever you want and put it behind a good firewall proxy (of course, you'll need to make sure any web-based systems are secure as well)
ESR, as always, is full of shit
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
SCO's complaint cannot be understood without reference to a seismic shift now occurring in the software industry. The root of the shift lies in the approximate doubling of hardware capacity every eighteen months which has been the trend since the mid-1970s. This means that the typical complexity of software designed to fully utilize state-of-the-art hardware also doubles every eighteen months, escalating the difficulties of software engineering to previously unimagined levels.
This is so much bullshit, you don't need to write twice as much code to do twice as much work. If anything, it makes programming easier because you can use a lot more pre-made code in libraries without worrying about performance. I think it's hilarious that he goes on and on about his own philosophy and theories and states them as pure facts while also talking about the specifics of the SCO case. It weakens his whole argument, really.
and look at this: Examination of SCO's 10Ks reveals that, even were we to assume that every dime of their revenue came from the enterprise market, their 2002 share could not have exceeded 3.1% [5] This is at the level of statistical noise.
Statistical noise? Yeah, if you were taking a survey with a standard sample size (~1200 samples), but not if you're looking at all the data (such as comparing revenue). ESR is simply showing is poor education here.
I see a lot of people in the open source world discussing this theory, but really it seems idiotic to me.
The law is not like a computer program with mindless automatons reading the letter of the law and acting accordingly. Nor should it be. Real people look at these things.
What SCO did was take freely available code and distributed it. They "discovered" after the fact that that code was based on their own proprietary code, and stopped distributing it. But SCO at no point ever intended to have their proprietary work GPLd, which I think should count for a lot. If you could prove you signed a contract accidentally it wouldn't be valid. In SCOs case it's quite clear that they never intended to release their super powerful source code as GPL.
All of this is moot, however since all SCO has is bullshit, and they are going to lose on the merits.
Slashdot Mirror
Did anyone ever see the sparrow with a Harley engine? The thing only got 35 miles to the gallon, less then a Toyota Echo. Rather then putting an 'engeneered to be loud' harley engine in their frame they could have worked on a real hybrid car. Talk about a lost opportunity.
:P
This company was lame, and their products were ugly. They should have just made simple electric bikes, rather then putting a cheap shell around a trike
Myabe they never should have purchaced 3dfx :P
Seriously though, I do have faith in nVidia, I'm sure they'll be able to engineer their way out of this. Eventualy.
Read it for yourself if you want. The server linked is down, but you can find the text at http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cokere/index2.htm
I have no idea why black surfaces radiate more heat, surely someone will explain it to me someday. Or soon.
They don't. Black surfaces absorb more heat through radiation, and are therefore hotter to the touch.
not just that.. i BET that with this technology.. MAYBE ... JUST MAYBE they'll find a way to prove the unified force theory... if they can shift an EM feild enough so that it behaves like gravity, or vica-versa (assuming the theory is true)
that would truly be staggering... It could change everything...
Most. Idiotic. Comment. Ever. This tech couldn't change gravity into EM anymore then it could convert sound waves, or people doing the 'wave' in a stadium into EM.
One of them is a cloaking devices, efficient power sources, phase weapons...
Um, what? Do you know anything about physics?
Oh, he has to forge headers. If I wanted kill this guy by hitting them with my car, I would have to drive off or I might get arrested. So driving off after running over someone should be legal.
Hrm, now that I think about it, I would kind of like to run over this guy.
How is having fewer hot chicks, and more D&D playing nerds a 'bright side'?
Because the argument they are trying to counter is bunk anyway. Caldera never meant to give away the rights to their source code. The GPL is not a law. Worst case senario here is that they can no longer distribute Linux themselves (becuase they don't have the legal right too). But they've already stopped and are trying to get everyone else to do the same.
Anyway, we're not going to know for a long time. SCO is going to play this out as long as they can, while getting secret payments from Microsoft.
If I hack into IBM's servers, steal the code for AIX (or whatever), and then shove most of it into my own OS under the GPL, it would not free the OS/2 code, even if IBM put it up on an FTP server somewhere. Because they didn't know.
The GPL is not a law, it's a grant of rights by the owner of the copyright. You can't give up rights unintentionaly.
(not that SCO isn't totaly full of shit)
Raelians: crazy sex orgies.
SCO: run by mormons.
Definetly have to go with the Raelians this time.
I say, "Sorry man, I don't really want to kill you, but I won't be liable for it and there's less paperwork that way."
There would be a lot more paperwork, actualy.
But I need that bandwidth... and I need it MOBILE!!! It'd be really nice to be able get in my car and drive between work, school and home, and have constant access to the internet, but it would be practically useless if I couldn't actually do anything with it more than check email and read /. I want to be able to hear a song on the radio, then, before I forget it, download and have it!
I think you have confused 'need' with 'want'.
Shouldn't an old card with an old hub be able to work at 54mps?
I'm sure lots of companies will provide old-standard hardware. Call it 'super-g' or something, just like with the non-standard 56k modems way back when. Perhaps with a warning that it'll interfere with other standards.
If it reall is incompatable and interfering, then you probably won't want to use it.
What I wonder, is wether or not older hardware that works with the draft standard will still work.
Well, it depends on what you mean by hacking. Breaking into secure systems? No. Writing a program? No. Simply exploring an existing program/OS/whatever? Maybe, but I don't know if I would really call that hacking.
Any company that size would have some 'churn', if 1/1000 people quit a month, then SGI would perpetualy have 4 openings. The layoffs would probably reduce that for a while, but a good company would probably always have it's doors open for relly talented people.
Uh, sorry. My mind was wondering when I wrote the subject.
Oh yeah, I was going to say. This company is still around? Let me guess. About 400 employes still left?
Well, I suppose you have a point when it comes to underlying tech, like an OS. Obviously an OS that supports SMP, lots of threading, protected mem, NUMA, transparent clustering, and all sorts of crazy goodness is going to take longer to write then DOS. But at the same time, that's really more of an issue of supporting hardware *features* then it is a result of hardware speed. You could have all of that with a 386 if it supported those things. Now of course, having those features requires transistors, the number of which also goes up with Moore's law. But I don't really think the feature set is doubling every 18 months :P
He also seems to be claming that the open source model is the only one that works. Microsoft, SUN and other small companies seem to have been able to keep up.
It was not said that you need to code twice as much; rather, that complexity doubles. This is demonstrably true.
Well, there are two kinds of complexity. Strictly speaking, we are talking about O(n) running time. In that case O(2n) = O(n) anyway, so if you 'double' the complexity, it stays the same.
If you're talking about 'conceptual' complexity, like how many conditionals, etc, then that would in fact be related to code length. And like I said, faster computers let you write less code, not more.
We are not talking about test scores, or any other continuous data, but rather we are trying to determine the composition of the set. There is no reason to assume that it will fall into any kind of normal Gaussian distribution pattern.
If we determine the makeup by testing every element rather then by taking a sample, there is no margin of error. The only thing ESR could have meant by his 'statistical noise' comment is that SCO's market share was equivalent to zero. But this is clearly false. It also doesn't take price into account.
Only the most amateur hackers would be stopped by using Linux rather then M$ software. Sure it's theoreticaly possible to connect a machine 'naked' to the internet, it will probably be insecure. Linux, Windows, or whatever. The proper way to setup a 'secure' network is to use whatever you want and put it behind a good firewall proxy (of course, you'll need to make sure any web-based systems are secure as well)
SCO's complaint cannot be understood without reference to a seismic shift now occurring in the software industry. The root of the shift lies in the approximate doubling of hardware capacity every eighteen months which has been the trend since the mid-1970s. This means that the typical complexity of software designed to fully utilize state-of-the-art hardware also doubles every eighteen months, escalating the difficulties of software engineering to previously unimagined levels.
This is so much bullshit, you don't need to write twice as much code to do twice as much work. If anything, it makes programming easier because you can use a lot more pre-made code in libraries without worrying about performance. I think it's hilarious that he goes on and on about his own philosophy and theories and states them as pure facts while also talking about the specifics of the SCO case. It weakens his whole argument, really.
and look at this:
Examination of SCO's 10Ks reveals that, even were we to assume that every dime of their revenue came from the enterprise market, their 2002 share could not have exceeded 3.1% [5] This is at the level of statistical noise.
Statistical noise? Yeah, if you were taking a survey with a standard sample size (~1200 samples), but not if you're looking at all the data (such as comparing revenue). ESR is simply showing is poor education here.
I see a lot of people in the open source world discussing this theory, but really it seems idiotic to me.
The law is not like a computer program with mindless automatons reading the letter of the law and acting accordingly. Nor should it be. Real people look at these things.
What SCO did was take freely available code and distributed it. They "discovered" after the fact that that code was based on their own proprietary code, and stopped distributing it. But SCO at no point ever intended to have their proprietary work GPLd, which I think should count for a lot. If you could prove you signed a contract accidentally it wouldn't be valid. In SCOs case it's quite clear that they never intended to release their super powerful source code as GPL.
All of this is moot, however since all SCO has is bullshit, and they are going to lose on the merits.
That memmo was written in 1999