1) Become a subcontractor. Noone owns your ideas but you. Downside - no job security.
2) Stand firm, and demand that the clauses you don't like are removed. Downside - they may tell you to take a hike. However, if you are what they want they'll have to take heed. If you're smart enough and have the initiative to do open-source work, you're probably more valuable to the company than someone who isn't. Unless they're employing monkeys, in which case you didn't want the job anyway.
For reference. I'm (1), and I spending 8 hours a day fixing code written by monkeys, earning 6 times what the monkeys were paid. Heed my words - "Don't be a monkey".
Professor Dan Bernstein is full of good ideas about a lot of things. He's a generous contributor of time, effort and code for the benefit of the Internet community. He's also a campaigner for common sense when it comes to modern day computer freedom related legal nonsenses -
Judge Patel rules in Bernstein case
The small ATX footprints are OK, given that the limiting factor is probably the stuff we stick into them. (CPUs are big, external busses are long, and RAM is wide).
This place seems to to have had the same idea as Siamese systems (titsup?) in sticking lots of stuff in one box:
Rendercube
However, look at the prices...
Cheap, but certainly beatable.
This grabbed my attention as I am a compulsive number-cruncher and I need CPUs by the bucketload, but only need one 'KVM'.
There is certainly more of a market for this kind of system nowadays. These guys aren't alone. After being bombarded with adverts proclaiming the glory of the rack-mount, I was persuaded to look at Penguin Computing only yesterday. To my dismay it is cheaper to buy a whole 1.2GHz Athlon system (including everything) than a 1GHz rack mount from Penguin.
The problem is perceived 'quality'. These rack mount systems are for professional commercial deployment. They aren't crash-a-day big-red-button machines. So in principle you end up in the 'IBM/Compaq' league of prices.
Billy number-cruncher doesn't buy IBM/Compaq PCs due to the price, so he sure ain't going to buy rack units at the same premium.
But not much of the world is Billy number-cruncher, so it probably don't matter too much to them.
THL. --
For example, from the interview (and this one is real, and not about young Miss Wall!)
"
Because the number of potential sites is so large (20 to 40 billion sun-like stars in our galaxy), this means the odds have to be stacked against the formation of life in a pretty big way for it not to develop elsewhere.
"
And?
Guess what - they are stacked against it.
When it comes to creating complex organic molecules by trying to recreate early atmospheric conditions, the scientists have done a fairly good job - and created dead stuff.
By focussing on creating more living stuff they've done a fairly good job of creating self-sustaining complex-molecule-building reactions, but nothing that matches even the simplest virus for complexity (Tobacco Mosaic, for example).
And that's from scientist that have had the ability to _direct_ their experiments ("let's increase the partial presure of Oxygen by 5%, and provide a transition metal surfaces for molecules to bind to catalytically." each new day. The dear suns and planets don't get that option. The planets can't slow down of they're too hot and need a farther orbit. They can't decide to melt their ice caps or condense their atmospheres to provide surface water.
I'll admit, some of the first photos you present look bogus, but they aren't the evidence I've seen, which has none of the flaws pointed out for your images. The page uses what is known as a 'straw man' argument.
Me: I've seen photographic evidence
You: Look - this photographic evidence is bogus
Me: And?
Now the second page. Tish, I'd be embarassed if I were you. That is a shambles, it has no evidence to back up either its or your point.
I'd guess that someone from the USA would change just one letter or one word to mock TLA. Personally I thought that was a bit too crude.
Anyway, I am not a troll, I'm simply someone who's _old_ enough, and _intelligent_ enough to be quite happy to say things as they are, and not keep to the mutual back-slapping script.
And I _never_ post anonymously, for reference. If I want to say something, I put my name to it. (Which admittedly trolls do too, when they are trolling.)
My age and IQ are roughly twice what you credit me with, so guess again AC...
I can't be arsed to mock TLA anymore, as there are about a dozen people who do that anyway. He/she was too easy a target. I'm looking for a new troll to pick on now.
"
If they say that, in their opinion, the Jewish Holocaust has been exaggerated, they'll be put
in jail.
"
Wrong.
The recent law that was passed on this issue was a "denial" law. It is strictly forbidden to deny the existence of the holocaust. However, some facts are still unknown and there's no law against questioning the unknowns.
You seem to forget that the Nazis were remarkably good record keepers. They were quite proud of what they were doing, and we have photos and videos taken by the Nazis themselves carrying out the deeds.
SHIT - I've just been trolled. ARGH! Me of all people...
The informal name for this system is "Benevolent Dictatorship", and theoretically it is a perfectly workable system.
But you are asking "in a system where there is no democracy, what happens when a bad guy gets to power?". First ask yourself how this happens.
Firstly, there's a revolution. That is something which in theory could happen in any political system, and after it you find yourself in a different political system, so the question is not relevant in this instance.
Secondly, the old codger dies. So for the last 30 years the son has seen how content the people are and how stable the system is. What's his incentive to change? Not much. And so you've got small changes every couple of decades or so. That's pretty damn stable.
It's no more open to abuse than other systems, it's just that it's much slower moving.
Democratic vote-whoring and vote-counting innaccuracies are as much of a problem. (John Major in the UK, and Dubya in the US).
Don't dismiss it 'cos it's not what you're used to. However, it is rare to actually find a real benevolent dictator.
The democratic right and some form of freedom of speech go hand in hand. However, democracy has the property that it can be self-destroying. Dictatorships never have the cunning idea to disband themselves, but democracies have voted to accede absolute power. (Case in point - in Germany, IIRC August 1934, 'The Enabling Law' (don't know the proper German name for it, sorry) was passed by a _95%_ vote and giving absolute power to Adolf Hitler...).
So democracy does need protecting from itself, possibly.
However, there's a second point - some of the more extreme factions do not play by the same rules. If they themselves do not support the freedom of speech of opposing factions, then in some cases it is right to restrict their ability to curtail others' rights. I think I need an example:
University student body election hustings, late 80s. As soon as a mild manoured, intelligent, Liberal (UK sense of the word, no wacky policies, and no vote-whoring either) Asian candidate moves up to the microphone, a bunch of BNP (British Nationalist Party) guys right at the front stand up, start Nazi-saluting, and shouting Zieg Heil (can't spell German stuff, sorry!). Constantly. Poor guy didn't know what to do, and wasn't being given his democratic right.
These BNP guys still have their _democratic_ right, no matter how much I abhor their views. BUT, they should be denied the ability to disrupt other's democratic right.
So there's the problem. If you cut their phone lines you stop both, if you don't then you let them to continue not playing by the rules.
I'm tempted to take the arms-race view of things here. Best to let them be, else the attacks escalate.
The UK host is "Craig Charles". He started life as a 'leftie' performing poet ("We're the Charleses of Charlesville...", the one about inter-racial sex (he's from mixed race parents, you see) and stuff, but that was decades ago so it's all but lost in history...). He featured occasionally on the UK's Friday Night Live. So it was only after years on the comedy circuit that he was snapped up for Red Dwarf by the BBC.
In the UK, 'Robot Wars' was introduced with reference to some American precursor. So the UK isn't really giving the US anything the US didn't first give the UK.
However, before that, the UK did have "the great egg race", hosted by Professor Heinz Wolf, which was occasionally combative, but you only had an hour to design and build your device on that show.
In the UK, the program has become stale, and too 'televisual'. They have even asked fights to be fought again because they didn't look exciting enough.
Screw the pretty girl presenter, just give us the grease and steel, and the crunching of axes...
Assuming that the angle subtended is small (say.1 radian, not more than a few hundred km/miles at the earths surface) then the following equation not only works identically, but gives you a better insight into where the magic numbers come from.
The assumtion above permits us to make the approximation
sin(t) = tan(t) = t (+ parts per thousand)
cos(t) = 1 - t^2 (+ parts per ten thousand)
The angle subtended at the earth's surface by two locations r apart is r/R where R is the earth's radius.
Therefore the ratio of the the radius of the earth to the radius plus the tower required is cos(r/R):1.
We approximate this to (1-(r/R)^2):1
However, the radius R is the known quantity, we want to know the height of the tower (which we'd get from the right hand side of the ratio).
The ratio becomes R:R/(1-(r/R)^2)
Now 1/(1-x) for small x is 1+x, and we've agreed that (r/R)^2 is small. Therefore the ratio becomes
R:R*(1+(r/R)^2)
So, the contribution of the tower to the RHS is
R*(r/R)^2 = r^2 / R
So h= r^2 / R
Or hR = r^2
The assumtion here is that h, R and r are measured in the same units. As some deal with values in 'human sized units' (the height), and the rest are far larger (particularly the planetary radius), you can either start throwing conversion factors in, or use metric values where the conversion factors are no more than powers of 10. I'll chose the latter.
I'll assume the mean earth's radius is 6370km. Adjust to taste as you move towards the poles, or vary angles at the equator.
h*6.37e6 = r^2 (h, r both in meters.)
So one way round gives
h = r^2 * 1.57e-7 if r is meters
= r'^2 * 0.157 if r' is in km
(h here is in meters)
The other way round
r = sqrt(h * 6.37e6) gives r in meters
r'= sqrt(h * 6.37) gives r' in kilometers
The guy's equation had already combined foot to mile conversions with the earth's radius in miles, and then applied the square root. That's why the 1.224 (or whatever) may have appeared a bit mysterious. However, the h~r formulations are more transparent as they show the physical constant in the equation rather than some mysterious magic number.
For those worried about the approximations, you don't need to really, because the parts in a thousand and parts in ten thousand were for a 637km range. At a 63.7km range, where r/R is 0.01 the part in a thousand term becomes a part in a million! (and hundred million for the 10000 one).
I have a good mate whose hand built (himself) speakers using hand built (a mate of his) drivers, and home made crossovers, and all that shit when combined cost him ~$1500. That's parts. Commercial speakers normally have a parts:price ratio of about 1:10 or worse. They're unique of course so price is an abstract issue, and they sound better than anything that does cost $15000 from the dealers.
Anyway, he _can't stop_ ranting about how shit vinyl is.
And he's right.
(Oh, for reference, these speakers won best of show in Frankfurt Audio Expo last year. Next year he may paint them to make them look good too...)
Modern production techniques can take advantage of the resolution CDs provide, and vinyl cannot match that, with its wow, flutter, nonlinearity (different on every pickup), cross-talk, and dynamic range.
Old stuff, stuff that's _not_ produced with modern technology does sound quite pleasing to the ears on vinyl I will admit. But it just ain't a patch on _good procuction_ and a decent CD system.
Indeed. Which is why my reply is more a 'show me' than anything else. I'm a 'full disclosure' kind of guy, and I like details. Details which were lacking in the report.
I've posted to this thread regarding the fact that there are linux viruses already elsewhere. If you hunt that post down, you'll see how knee-jerk my reaction is from my own follow up to myself!
"
I have yet to see a virus which infects.c files.
"
It doesn't need to - not if your C compiler is 0wn3d!
It can happen - it was the first hypothetical virus if I remember correctly. It was probably Kernighan or Ritchie that 'invented' the idea. Refs anyone? (was posted here only a couple of weeks ago).
Last time I looked there were 5 known Linux viruses (including variants). None of them had t0rn as a payload, so they didn't actually do much harm, and none of them managed to propogate out of control like the recent bubble-boy onwards Windows stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
A) Woo woo it sounds great, and they've kindly published the interface so controlable from linux, etc...
B) Oh no! They've patented the design. Selfish commercial bastards.
What's flavor of the month on Slashdot this month? Do we like or hate companies like this?
THL.
--
1) Become a subcontractor. Noone owns your ideas but you. Downside - no job security.
2) Stand firm, and demand that the clauses you don't like are removed. Downside - they may tell you to take a hike. However, if you are what they want they'll have to take heed. If you're smart enough and have the initiative to do open-source work, you're probably more valuable to the company than someone who isn't. Unless they're employing monkeys, in which case you didn't want the job anyway.
For reference. I'm (1), and I spending 8 hours a day fixing code written by monkeys, earning 6 times what the monkeys were paid. Heed my words - "Don't be a monkey".
THL.
--
Professor Dan Bernstein is full of good ideas about a lot of things. He's a generous contributor of time, effort and code for the benefit of the Internet community. He's also a campaigner for common sense when it comes to modern day computer freedom related legal nonsenses -
Judge Patel rules in Bernstein case
THL.
--
Seconded.
My nomination for "pure mathematics most ahead of its time for coming up with practical applications" would be
Pierre Fermat (C18.) w.r.t. Crypto
He'd have a supporting cast of many dozens, maybe hundreds of people though. His "little theorem", however, is an absolute gem.
THL.
--
This place seems to to have had the same idea as Siamese systems (titsup?) in sticking lots of stuff in one box:
Rendercube
However, look at the prices... Cheap, but certainly beatable.
THL.
--
This grabbed my attention as I am a compulsive number-cruncher and I need CPUs by the bucketload, but only need one 'KVM'.
There is certainly more of a market for this kind of system nowadays. These guys aren't alone. After being bombarded with adverts proclaiming the glory of the rack-mount, I was persuaded to look at Penguin Computing only yesterday. To my dismay it is cheaper to buy a whole 1.2GHz Athlon system (including everything) than a 1GHz rack mount from Penguin.
The problem is perceived 'quality'. These rack mount systems are for professional commercial deployment. They aren't crash-a-day big-red-button machines. So in principle you end up in the 'IBM/Compaq' league of prices.
Billy number-cruncher doesn't buy IBM/Compaq PCs due to the price, so he sure ain't going to buy rack units at the same premium.
But not much of the world is Billy number-cruncher, so it probably don't matter too much to them.
THL.
--
For example, from the interview (and this one is real, and not about young Miss Wall!)
"
Because the number of potential sites is so large (20 to 40 billion sun-like stars in our galaxy), this means the odds have to be stacked against the formation of life in a pretty big way for it not to develop elsewhere.
"
And?
Guess what - they are stacked against it.
When it comes to creating complex organic molecules by trying to recreate early atmospheric conditions, the scientists have done a fairly good job - and created dead stuff.
By focussing on creating more living stuff they've done a fairly good job of creating self-sustaining complex-molecule-building reactions, but nothing that matches even the simplest virus for complexity (Tobacco Mosaic, for example).
And that's from scientist that have had the ability to _direct_ their experiments ("let's increase the partial presure of Oxygen by 5%, and provide a transition metal surfaces for molecules to bind to catalytically." each new day. The dear suns and planets don't get that option. The planets can't slow down of they're too hot and need a farther orbit. They can't decide to melt their ice caps or condense their atmospheres to provide surface water.
Sheesh - where has the _science_ gone?
THL.
--
Start looking for terrestrial intelligence first...
The original:
http://totl.net/STI/
An immiator (wizzier graphics!):
http://www.wymsey.co.uk/sti/sti.htm
THL.
--
Ermächtigungsgesetz - 23rd March 1933.
(I'll still never remember the name, but I'll remember the date longer this time!)
"I don't quite get the philosphy of neo-nazis, after all, the "Sieg" was not "Heil" but rather crappy...
"
Can't add anything. Just wanted to repeat it!
THL.
--
Thank you, a very good example.
--
'like these or these'?
No, the evidence I've seen is nothing like those.
I'll admit, some of the first photos you present look bogus, but they aren't the evidence I've seen, which has none of the flaws pointed out for your images. The page uses what is known as a 'straw man' argument.
Me: I've seen photographic evidence
You: Look - this photographic evidence is bogus
Me: And?
Now the second page. Tish, I'd be embarassed if I were you. That is a shambles, it has no evidence to back up either its or your point.
Try harder next time.
THL.
--
I'd guess that someone from the USA would change just one letter or one word to mock TLA. Personally I thought that was a bit too crude.
Anyway, I am not a troll, I'm simply someone who's _old_ enough, and _intelligent_ enough to be quite happy to say things as they are, and not keep to the mutual back-slapping script.
And I _never_ post anonymously, for reference. If I want to say something, I put my name to it. (Which admittedly trolls do too, when they are trolling.)
My age and IQ are roughly twice what you credit me with, so guess again AC...
I can't be arsed to mock TLA anymore, as there are about a dozen people who do that anyway. He/she was too easy a target. I'm looking for a new troll to pick on now.
THL.
--
I am prepared to not be anonymous and agree with your stance.
THL.
--
"
If they say that, in their opinion, the Jewish Holocaust has been exaggerated, they'll be put
in jail.
"
Wrong.
The recent law that was passed on this issue was a "denial" law. It is strictly forbidden to deny the existence of the holocaust. However, some facts are still unknown and there's no law against questioning the unknowns.
You seem to forget that the Nazis were remarkably good record keepers. They were quite proud of what they were doing, and we have photos and videos taken by the Nazis themselves carrying out the deeds.
SHIT - I've just been trolled. ARGH! Me of all people...
THL.
--
The informal name for this system is "Benevolent Dictatorship", and theoretically it is a perfectly workable system.
But you are asking "in a system where there is no democracy, what happens when a bad guy gets to power?". First ask yourself how this happens.
Firstly, there's a revolution. That is something which in theory could happen in any political system, and after it you find yourself in a different political system, so the question is not relevant in this instance.
Secondly, the old codger dies. So for the last 30 years the son has seen how content the people are and how stable the system is. What's his incentive to change? Not much. And so you've got small changes every couple of decades or so. That's pretty damn stable.
It's no more open to abuse than other systems, it's just that it's much slower moving.
Democratic vote-whoring and vote-counting innaccuracies are as much of a problem. (John Major in the UK, and Dubya in the US).
Don't dismiss it 'cos it's not what you're used to. However, it is rare to actually find a real benevolent dictator.
THL.
--
Agreed.
The democratic right and some form of freedom of speech go hand in hand. However, democracy has the property that it can be self-destroying. Dictatorships never have the cunning idea to disband themselves, but democracies have voted to accede absolute power. (Case in point - in Germany, IIRC August 1934, 'The Enabling Law' (don't know the proper German name for it, sorry) was passed by a _95%_ vote and giving absolute power to Adolf Hitler...).
So democracy does need protecting from itself, possibly.
However, there's a second point - some of the more extreme factions do not play by the same rules. If they themselves do not support the freedom of speech of opposing factions, then in some cases it is right to restrict their ability to curtail others' rights. I think I need an example:
University student body election hustings, late 80s. As soon as a mild manoured, intelligent, Liberal (UK sense of the word, no wacky policies, and no vote-whoring either) Asian candidate moves up to the microphone, a bunch of BNP (British Nationalist Party) guys right at the front stand up, start Nazi-saluting, and shouting Zieg Heil (can't spell German stuff, sorry!). Constantly. Poor guy didn't know what to do, and wasn't being given his democratic right.
These BNP guys still have their _democratic_ right, no matter how much I abhor their views. BUT, they should be denied the ability to disrupt other's democratic right.
So there's the problem. If you cut their phone lines you stop both, if you don't then you let them to continue not playing by the rules.
I'm tempted to take the arms-race view of things here. Best to let them be, else the attacks escalate.
THL.
--
The UK host is "Craig Charles". He started life as a 'leftie' performing poet ("We're the Charleses of Charlesville...", the one about inter-racial sex (he's from mixed race parents, you see) and stuff, but that was decades ago so it's all but lost in history...). He featured occasionally on the UK's Friday Night Live. So it was only after years on the comedy circuit that he was snapped up for Red Dwarf by the BBC.
In the UK, 'Robot Wars' was introduced with reference to some American precursor. So the UK isn't really giving the US anything the US didn't first give the UK.
However, before that, the UK did have "the great egg race", hosted by Professor Heinz Wolf, which was occasionally combative, but you only had an hour to design and build your device on that show.
In the UK, the program has become stale, and too 'televisual'. They have even asked fights to be fought again because they didn't look exciting enough.
Screw the pretty girl presenter, just give us the grease and steel, and the crunching of axes...
THL.
--
Assuming that the angle subtended is small (say .1 radian, not more than a few hundred km/miles at the earths surface) then the following equation not only works identically, but gives you a better insight into where the magic numbers come from.
The assumtion above permits us to make the approximation
sin(t) = tan(t) = t (+ parts per thousand)
cos(t) = 1 - t^2 (+ parts per ten thousand)
The angle subtended at the earth's surface by two locations r apart is r/R where R is the earth's radius.
Therefore the ratio of the the radius of the earth to the radius plus the tower required is cos(r/R):1.
We approximate this to (1-(r/R)^2):1
However, the radius R is the known quantity, we want to know the height of the tower (which we'd get from the right hand side of the ratio).
The ratio becomes R:R/(1-(r/R)^2)
Now 1/(1-x) for small x is 1+x, and we've agreed that (r/R)^2 is small. Therefore the ratio becomes
R:R*(1+(r/R)^2)
So, the contribution of the tower to the RHS is
R*(r/R)^2 = r^2 / R
So h= r^2 / R
Or hR = r^2
The assumtion here is that h, R and r are measured in the same units. As some deal with values in 'human sized units' (the height), and the rest are far larger (particularly the planetary radius), you can either start throwing conversion factors in, or use metric values where the conversion factors are no more than powers of 10. I'll chose the latter.
I'll assume the mean earth's radius is 6370km. Adjust to taste as you move towards the poles, or vary angles at the equator.
h*6.37e6 = r^2 (h, r both in meters.)
So one way round gives
h = r^2 * 1.57e-7 if r is meters
= r'^2 * 0.157 if r' is in km
(h here is in meters)
The other way round
r = sqrt(h * 6.37e6) gives r in meters
r'= sqrt(h * 6.37) gives r' in kilometers
The guy's equation had already combined foot to mile conversions with the earth's radius in miles, and then applied the square root. That's why the 1.224 (or whatever) may have appeared a bit mysterious. However, the h~r formulations are more transparent as they show the physical constant in the equation rather than some mysterious magic number.
For those worried about the approximations, you don't need to really, because the parts in a thousand and parts in ten thousand were for a 637km range. At a 63.7km range, where r/R is 0.01 the part in a thousand term becomes a part in a million! (and hundred million for the 10000 one).
Enjoy.
THL.
--
That's an unfounded myth.
I have a good mate whose hand built (himself) speakers using hand built (a mate of his) drivers, and home made crossovers, and all that shit when combined cost him ~$1500. That's parts. Commercial speakers normally have a parts:price ratio of about 1:10 or worse. They're unique of course so price is an abstract issue, and they sound better than anything that does cost $15000 from the dealers.
Anyway, he _can't stop_ ranting about how shit vinyl is.
And he's right.
(Oh, for reference, these speakers won best of show in Frankfurt Audio Expo last year. Next year he may paint them to make them look good too...)
Modern production techniques can take advantage of the resolution CDs provide, and vinyl cannot match that, with its wow, flutter, nonlinearity (different on every pickup), cross-talk, and dynamic range.
Old stuff, stuff that's _not_ produced with modern technology does sound quite pleasing to the ears on vinyl I will admit. But it just ain't a patch on _good procuction_ and a decent CD system.
THL.
--
Indeed. Which is why my reply is more a 'show me' than anything else. I'm a 'full disclosure' kind of guy, and I like details. Details which were lacking in the report.
I've posted to this thread regarding the fact that there are linux viruses already elsewhere. If you hunt that post down, you'll see how knee-jerk my reaction is from my own follow up to myself!
THL.
--
Thank you.
I shall give that a peruse over coffee later...
THL.
--
" .c files.
I have yet to see a virus which infects
"
It doesn't need to - not if your C compiler is 0wn3d!
It can happen - it was the first hypothetical virus if I remember correctly. It was probably Kernighan or Ritchie that 'invented' the idea. Refs anyone? (was posted here only a couple of weeks ago).
THL.
--
ARGH! How could I fall for a troll like that!
The first line didn't look like a troll, and I didn't read the rest.
Linux has never been considered a 'secure' OS. It's just not as shot through with holes as some others.
THL.
--
Last time I looked there were 5 known Linux viruses (including variants). None of them had t0rn as a payload, so they didn't actually do much harm, and none of them managed to propogate out of control like the recent bubble-boy onwards Windows stuff.
THL.
--
To be "proof of concept" there needs to be proof.
I have yet to see proof, only rumour.
Yes, I am a cynic, do you have a problem with that?
THL.
--