The second problem with this FTA, it that fertiliser does not cost $1200 a tonne.
I think 1200 $/tonne is not a bad estimate, see recent quotes. Shipping is expensive so you have to take that into account. Note that the 1200 could be per unit of nutrient, not product. NH3 is 82% N so you must divide by.82 to convert product price into nutrient price. Lots of people were paying $0.60 per lb-N this spring. That's 1323 $/(tonne N).
I don't know which part of Canada you farm in but we probably spend more than that figure. It comes out to 52 $/acre. Using some spring 2009 prices: 60 lbs/acre of N, 25 lbs of P2O5, and 9 lbs of K comes to about 59 $/acre.
If that exhaust system worked it would be nice. Unfortunately there are no studies that show that it does. Probably the manufacturers are making out okay at $40,000 per system. Hmm.
Synthesizing nitrogen is very expensive (in energy and in monetary price). If this exhaust idea worked you can be sure farmers would snatch it up. Unfortunately it is snake oil. AFAIK, there is no serious study showing any effect.
Using legumes to fixate nitrogen is something that *does* work and farmers are happy to do so if there is a market for the crop (we grow yellow peas as much as reasonably possible). Because organic farmers can get a premium for their other crops, they sometimes grow legumes purely for the residual nitrogen and plow them down instead of harvesting. Unfortunately organic farms requires quite a bit more fossil fuel than modern conventional farming (something most shoppers are probably unaware of).
Yes, the amount of NOx is much too small to affect plant growth (even assuming 100% of it stays in the ground and converts into a plant available form). After people pointed this fact out, the snakeoil salesman dreamed up the idea of the CO2 (or something) in the exhaust stimulating microbes in the soil.
Yup, and it's so obvious when you think about it. Transitioning would be much easier if the IPv6 address space was simply an extension to the IPv4 space.
A lot of people don't like DJB. Personally, I enjoy his work. He's opinionated, blunt, and almost always right. Unfortunately that's not a good combination for making friends. I think it's that last part that really pisses people off.:-)
See my web log for an idea for an ISP level filter. The basic idea is to temporarily reject messages that look like spam. Spammers cannot deal with that delay. I'm testing it right now and the results look good.
MEMS stands for Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems.
It's a general technology for building small
mechanical and electrical devices on wafers (usually
silicon but other materials can be used). There's
some introductory information at here .
People may have patents on certain MEMS applications
or even processes but no one has a patent on the
technology. It's too broad.
Maybe you are refering to TI's DLP (Digital Light
Projector). They probably have a patent on that
device. They probably deserve it though since
AFAIK, they spent millions developing it. That
patent doesn't stop other people from developing
other display devices using MEMS technology. A
patent only covers a single embodiment of a design.
My munchy proxy will do something similar (available on my website). The version on my website is bit old though. I should really put together another release.
There are discussions going on amongst the Python developers right now. Coroutines, generators and microthreads will probably make it into CPython based on Christian Tismer's ideas. Guido is pretty cool on continuations however.
You want something like the Compaq iPAQ, the Agenda VR4 or the Samsung Yopy. The iPAQ is a little more expensive but has a 206 Mhz ARM processor with 32 MB of RAM, a nice color screen and it runs Linux. The Agenda should be as cheap or cheaper than the Palm and runs Linux too. I'm not sure how much Yopy is going to be but it looks like the hardware is similar to the iPAQ. Go to http://www.handhelds.org/ or http://www.pocketlinux.com/ for more info.
I'm no expert but this article sounds pretty stupid to me. First of all, a stock split does not change anything. It is an accounting change. All other effects are purely in the heads of the investors. Secondly, AFAIK, Sony is a large company with many different products. They are not going to live or die on the success of the playstation2.
I believe that the Microsoft lawyers will drag this case out as long as possible. By the time it is over it will no longer relevant.
The IBM case went on for 10 years before the government called it off. By that time IBM's mainframe monopoly was irrelevant. Microsoft has the cash to do this. What do they care how long it takes?
I think someone needs some basic lessons on cryptography. If the key to the DVD is encrypted then how can the player use it? Does it have a key to decrypt this key? Is that key encrypted? Maybe you can see the problem here.
The player must be able to decode the DVD. If people have access to the player then they can reverse engineer it and find out how it works.
IMHO, any copy protection scheme like this is doomed to fail. If you can play something then you can copy it. It really is as simple as that.
It sounds like a big conspiracy but it is true. Check out the small print at the bottom of the original articles. You can also look a the URL for a clue. I saw this on LT.
>Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me, >modify me, and turn me into whatever you want" > >Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct >results from the code, in commercial and non commercial >aspects. >
So far so good.
>GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't >be used in a commercial package.
Nope. Who controls the source code? Exactly who do you think "GPL" is? Is it an organization, a person, the FSF? You seem to be confused. GPLing your code gives control to no one.
Furthermore, commercial software can be GPLed. You can charge for GPLed software.
>Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or >the FSF is gonna get your money.
FSF != GPL. Now how exactly is the FSF going to "get your money"?
>Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it >mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought >progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what >it was about.
Open source means allows free from restrictions (except the restriction that it always be free from retrictions). You can sell it or whatever, you just can't prevent other people from doing the same.
>I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked >up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the >compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a >fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of >an OS glitch.
I'm sure that "Solaris" is a trademark. How exactly would someone sell their modified version of Solaris as Solaris(TM)? That fortune 500 company would be none bright to fall for this. If someone did do this, Sun would have grounds to sue them.
What the GPL allows is that someone could sell their own improved version of Solaris. The customer would know that this was not Sun's version. If this new version is better than Sun's version then there is pressure on Sun to take improvements from this version and merge them with their version.
You really need to spend some time to figure out what the GPL means. I don't thing you have the idea yet.
>This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well >call this slashcensord.org
Given the amount of disinformation you spewed out you should be moderated down.
Well, they can use whatever license they like. However, the choice of license determines how useful the code will be. In the case of Sun's license, I don't see to many people spending effort to improve Solaris. Their effort is much better spend contributing to Linux or *BSD.
Getting the benefits of open source (free) software does not come by just letting people look at your source code. It is about giving up some control over your code. Big companies like Sun and Microsoft will have a hard time with this idea.
I am happy to see Linus pointing out how free these new licenses really are. The general public could be mislead into believing that if Sun releases the code to Solaris then there is no difference between Linux and Solaris, freedom wise.
Yes, they would have. They probably would have prevented jfs from getting root. If he did manage to get root then he would have uncovered a new security hole. Unfortunately, due to ZD incompetence, we have learned absolutely nothing from this little exercise (except possibly the magnitude of ZD's stupidity).
If this is true it would be a huge breakthrough for the computing field. Why does the story give so few details. I'm going to wait to see what Bruce Schneier says about it in his newsletter (if he even says anything).
While I'm at it, people, please learn the difference between symmetric and public key systems and bits and bytes. You look quite silly if you don't. Bruce's site (or book) is a good place to start looking for a clue.
I didn't find junkbuster too effective so I wrote my own. It actually looks at the HTML and edits it on the fly. I find this is much more powerful than just looking at URLs. It is not finished yet but you can try the current version at:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nascheme/python/proxy.tg z
Editing the HTML was an original idea of my, search for proxy3 to find my inspiration.
They can't change the existing license but they can offer to license the software under a new one. You can keep continue using the software under the old license if you wish. In this case you don't lose anything by using the new license. IANAL though.
Slashdot Mirror
The second problem with this FTA, it that fertiliser does not cost $1200 a tonne.
I think 1200 $/tonne is not a bad estimate, see recent quotes. Shipping is expensive so you have to take that into account. Note that the 1200 could be per unit of nutrient, not product. NH3 is 82% N so you must divide by .82 to convert product price into nutrient price. Lots of people were paying $0.60 per lb-N this spring. That's 1323 $/(tonne N).
I don't know which part of Canada you farm in but we probably spend more than that figure. It comes out to 52 $/acre. Using some spring 2009 prices: 60 lbs/acre of N, 25 lbs of P2O5, and 9 lbs of K comes to about 59 $/acre.
If that exhaust system worked it would be nice. Unfortunately there are no studies that show that it does. Probably the manufacturers are making out okay at $40,000 per system. Hmm.
Synthesizing nitrogen is very expensive (in energy and in monetary price). If this exhaust idea worked you can be sure farmers would snatch it up. Unfortunately it is snake oil. AFAIK, there is no serious study showing any effect.
Using legumes to fixate nitrogen is something that *does* work and farmers are happy to do so if there is a market for the crop (we grow yellow peas as much as reasonably possible). Because organic farmers can get a premium for their other crops, they sometimes grow legumes purely for the residual nitrogen and plow them down instead of harvesting. Unfortunately organic farms requires quite a bit more fossil fuel than modern conventional farming (something most shoppers are probably unaware of).
Yes, the amount of NOx is much too small to affect plant growth (even assuming 100% of it stays in the ground and converts into a plant available form). After people pointed this fact out, the snakeoil salesman dreamed up the idea of the CO2 (or something) in the exhaust stimulating microbes in the soil.
A lot of people don't like DJB. Personally, I enjoy his work. He's opinionated, blunt, and almost always right. Unfortunately that's not a good combination for making friends. I think it's that last part that really pisses people off. :-)
fork() works fine (assuming your using a real OS). ;-)
See my web log for an idea for an ISP level filter. The basic idea is to temporarily reject messages that look like spam. Spammers cannot deal with that delay. I'm testing it right now and the results look good.
People may have patents on certain MEMS applications or even processes but no one has a patent on the technology. It's too broad.
Maybe you are refering to TI's DLP (Digital Light Projector). They probably have a patent on that device. They probably deserve it though since AFAIK, they spent millions developing it. That patent doesn't stop other people from developing other display devices using MEMS technology. A patent only covers a single embodiment of a design.
My munchy proxy will do something similar (available on my website). The version on my website is bit old though. I should really put together another release.
There are discussions going on amongst the Python developers right now. Coroutines, generators and microthreads will probably make it into CPython based on Christian Tismer's ideas. Guido is pretty cool on continuations however.
You want something like the Compaq iPAQ, the Agenda VR4 or the Samsung Yopy. The iPAQ is a little more expensive but has a 206 Mhz ARM processor with 32 MB of RAM, a nice color screen and it runs Linux. The Agenda should be as cheap or cheaper than the Palm and runs Linux too. I'm not sure how much Yopy is going to be but it looks like the hardware is similar to the iPAQ. Go to http://www.handhelds.org/ or http://www.pocketlinux.com/ for more info.
http://www.enme.ucalgary.ca/~nascheme/qmail-filter .py
I can't remember where I found this but it is an interesting read.
I'm no expert but this article sounds pretty stupid to me. First of all, a stock split does not change anything. It is an accounting change. All other effects are purely in the heads of the investors. Secondly, AFAIK, Sony is a large company with many different products. They are not going to live or die on the success of the playstation2.
Just my 1.3 Canadian cents.
I believe that the Microsoft lawyers will drag this case out as long as possible. By the time it is over it will no longer relevant.
The IBM case went on for 10 years before the government called it off. By that time IBM's mainframe monopoly was irrelevant. Microsoft has the cash to do this. What do they care how long it takes?
I think someone needs some basic lessons on cryptography. If the
key to the DVD is encrypted then how can the player use it? Does
it have a key to decrypt this key? Is that key encrypted? Maybe
you can see the problem here.
The player must be able to decode the DVD. If people have access
to the player then they can reverse engineer it and find out how it works.
IMHO, any copy protection scheme like this is doomed to fail. If
you can play something then you can copy it. It really is as
simple as that.
Hacks from http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os.html:
_ _ 08/1999
_ _ Win-NT - 106 - 35.93%
_ _ Solaris - 77 - 26.10%
_ _ Linux - 68 - 23.05%
_ _ 09/1999
_ _ Win-NT - 82 - 32.54%
_ _ Linux - 72 - 28.57%
_ _ Solaris - 62 - 24.60%
Installations from http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.www.txt:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _04/99_ _%recog
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-------_ -------
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Linux_ 295003_ _ _28.7
_ _ Windows 95/98/NT_ 253520_ _ _24.6
_ _ _ _Solaris/SunOS_ 194281_ _ _18.9
By putting the 08/1999 hacking numbers with the 04/1999
server os numbers we get the following hacks per host:
_ _ Win_ _ _0.042%
_ _ Solaris 0.040%
_ _ Linux_ _0.023%
Not very scientific but interesting. Of course OpenBSD
kicks everyone's ass. Linux really should have someone
doing source code audits.
Sorry for the screwed up underscores. Slashdot made me do
it. Set your brower to a fixed width font for best results.
It sounds like a big conspiracy but it is true. Check out the small print at the bottom of the original articles. You can also look a the URL for a clue. I saw this on LT.
c le3/article3.html http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/article 5/article5.html http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/article 6/article6.html
http://www.gartner.com/webletter/microsoft/arti
Here is part of it:
"Microsoft Web Letter is published by Microsoft. Additional editorial material supplied by Gartner Group, Inc. © 1999. Editorial supplied by Microsoft is independent of GartnerGroup analysis and in no way should this information be construed as a GartnerGroup endorsement of Microsoft's products and services."
Microsoft is definately warming up the FUD cannons.
Oh, my. Where should I start?
>Open Source = "My source code is open, you can browse me,
>modify me, and turn me into whatever you want"
>
>Suns license maintains ownership of the code and direct
>results from the code, in commercial and non commercial
>aspects.
>
So far so good.
>GPL controls the source code in the same fashion, just can't
>be used in a commercial package.
Nope. Who controls the source code? Exactly who do you
think "GPL" is? Is it an organization, a person, the FSF?
You seem to be confused. GPLing your code gives control to
no one.
Furthermore, commercial software can be GPLed. You can
charge for GPLed software.
>Whats the difference? Either sun is gonna get your money, or
>the FSF is gonna get your money.
FSF != GPL. Now how exactly is the FSF going to "get your
money"?
>Open Source doesn't mean free from restrictions, nor does it
>mean strings attatched. Sun is progressing.. i thought
>progression, technology, and freedom of your choice was what
>it was about.
Open source means allows free from restrictions (except the
restriction that it always be free from retrictions). You
can sell it or whatever, you just can't prevent other people
from doing the same.
>I don't think sun would be happy if some joe schmoe hacked
>up solaris, sold it as original and it breaks the
>compatibility and ultimately sun becomes responsibale for a
>fortune 500 company loosing 100,000,000 dollars because of
>an OS glitch.
I'm sure that "Solaris" is a trademark. How exactly would
someone sell their modified version of Solaris as
Solaris(TM)? That fortune 500 company would be none bright
to fall for this. If someone did do this, Sun would have
grounds to sue them.
What the GPL allows is that someone could sell their own
improved version of Solaris. The customer would know that
this was not Sun's version. If this new version is better
than Sun's version then there is pressure on Sun to take
improvements from this version and merge them with their
version.
You really need to spend some time to figure out what the
GPL means. I don't thing you have the idea yet.
>This is my opinion, moderate me down and you may was well
>call this slashcensord.org
Given the amount of disinformation you spewed out you should be
moderated down.
Well, they can use whatever license they like. However, the choice of license determines how useful the code will be. In the case of Sun's license, I don't see to many people spending effort to improve Solaris. Their effort is much better spend contributing to Linux or *BSD.
Getting the benefits of open source (free) software does not come by just letting people look at your source code. It is about giving up some control over your code. Big companies like Sun and Microsoft will have a hard time with this idea.
I am happy to see Linus pointing out how free these new licenses really are. The general public could be mislead into believing that if Sun releases the code to Solaris then there is no difference between Linux and Solaris, freedom wise.
I'm sure Red Hat (or Debian or Bugtraq) would be happy to hear this information. Talk is cheap.
Yes, they would have. They probably would have prevented jfs from getting root. If he did manage to get root then he would have uncovered a new security hole. Unfortunately, due to ZD incompetence, we have learned absolutely nothing from this little exercise (except possibly the magnitude of ZD's stupidity).
If this is true it would be a huge breakthrough for the computing field. Why does the story give so few details. I'm going to wait to see what Bruce Schneier says about it in his newsletter (if he even says anything).
While I'm at it, people, please learn the difference between symmetric and public key systems and bits and bytes. You look quite silly if you don't. Bruce's site (or book) is a good place to start looking for a clue.
I didn't find junkbuster too effective so I wrote my own. It actually looks at the HTML and edits it on the fly. I find this is much more powerful than just looking at URLs. It is not finished yet but you can try the current version at:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nascheme/python/proxy.t
Editing the HTML was an original idea of my, search for proxy3 to find my inspiration.
They can't change the existing license but they can offer to license the software under a new one. You can keep continue using the software under the old license if you wish. In this case you don't lose anything by using the new license. IANAL though.