The Swedish Royal Library, which has also stores everything published in Sweden (since 1640) has been archiving all swedish web pages. (since 1996, I think)
There was a small flap about this recently, due to new data privacy legislation. They workaround is that the material is not available on the web, but can be accessed at the library.
Which is of course, a bit silly given things like the wayback machine, which are located in foreign countries where EU privacy directives don't matter.
..the mock version has to be significantly different enough so that an average person would know that it was a parody and not confuse it with the original.
Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.
I doubt it.. Yes, it *could* be interpreted that way.. but I don't think it's intended to be interpreted that way. 'Accepting the license' is intended to mean respecting the terms of the license for that particular piece of software.
I don't think we want it to be interpreted any other way either.
Guess the powers-that-be learned something from the Al Franken affair... or maybe they just feared getting into a popularity contest with the likes of the inanimate carbon rod.
You don't think Murdoch just told them that he didn't like sueing himself?
I really don't think Murdoch cares what Fox News thinks, or that the Simpsons parodize him.. He's making money off both of them, rememnber?
I don't see what's wrong with any of the existing logos?
Those of us who are geeks don't have a problem identifying them.. Sure, if you want to make yourself identifiable to non-hackers, a common logo is a good idea. But why would hackers want that?
I saw a GNU sticker on a stoplight the other day.. for me, it was obvious "There be hackers here!"-message. Naturally it's just a wierd animal-sticker to most people.. but that's kind of the fun, isn't it?
Re:So Spencer Gifts can sell REAL fart detectors?
on
Send in the Nasal Rangers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Farts contain a significant amount of hydrogen sulfide...
Actually, they don't.. It's just that our noses are especially keen at smelling it.. we can even detect the stuff at 10 parts per billion!
I used to work in a lab where H2S was used as a reagent. Whenever they were using it, the whole place stunk, even though it was done in a separate room, under a fume hood.
Using these technologies together they can tell not only what the shape of something inside the envelope or other package is, regardless of packing material, but also what it consists of.
Your point being what? That by using sufficiently sophisticated methods and ignoring time, money, and practicality it is possible to determine the contents of a package without opening it?
So? That's not what they're doing, nor is it what they are trying to do.
I wonder how this system would work on detecting a complex biological powder, such as Anthrax spores.
I could be made to do that, but specificity would be difficult if not impossible to achive. (Discerning the spores from some other protein powder, like the stuff bodybuilders eat)
On the other hand, international shipments are required to have the contents declared for customs. So it may be of some use anyway.)
Well, what about undergarments and a host of other things I could imagine me not wanting government employees to be peeping at?
You realize that this system does not -show- in any visual manner what is inside the envelope?
You don't have a 3d-image, rather a spectrum.. which is basically a measure of the absorption of different colors of light. That spectrum is unique for different -substances-, and with a database of the spectra for different narcotics, you can identify them.
There's quite a difference in knowing what something is made of and what something is!
Now, given a pair of panties in package, the most information you could get out of that spectrum is 'there's about 30 grams of cotton in there'.. (or nylon or leather, given taste..)
Even that is stretching it, since the system isn't built for quantative (mass) analysis, nor is cotton likely to be included in the database of spectra.
The only ways of getting false positives, as I see it, are if you're sending funny stuff like the protein powder bodybuilders use. The large content of nitrogen and oxygen make it chemically similar to some explosives.
No, the MHz is only relevant when you are comparing the same processor type. Otherwise it's completely meaningless. The only thing that matters is how quickly it can process instructions and at what price.
That's usually true. But not generally. I mentioned simple comparisons.. For instance checking if a value in a register is nonzero usually takes one cycle independent of processor type. If you do a lot of those, the number of cycles per second is definetly the limiting factor.
If you're doing floating-point arithmetic, or some other complex task, THEN it's not that important. But you cannot say that the clock speed is entirely unimportant in all cases.
It all boils down to what you're doing with the machine. For some jobs, (like lots of simple comparisons) the MHz is the single most important factor..
"Mr. Skiba doesn't own shares of SCO. Deutsche Bank may seek to provide investment banking services to the company."
Well, look at that.. Deutsche Bank wants them as an investment banking customer, all while their 'analyst' gives their stock a 'target price' 3000% higher than it was at the start of the year.
Chemistry What about not just changing fields, but inventing entire new ones?
The study of membrane channel proteins -is- a new field, and these guys pioneered it.
Chemistry != protein studies.
If you mean that the subject of chemistry as a whole is not limited to the study of proteins, you are correct. If you mean the the study of enzyme mechanisms and structure is not part of chemistry, you need to get a clue.
It's Mother Nature's own nanotech. The proteins are like Maxwell's Demon but for water. Anything else is kept out and only H2O is passed in.
Well.. not really.. since they don't violate the second law of thermodynamics.
We can now model, construct and manipulate structures on the atomic level.
Take it easy.. we're not there yet by a far cry.. If you want to model on the atomic level with any kind of accuracy.. you need to do quantum mechanics. The current methods (Nobel prize 1998 BTW) are reasonable for about 100 atoms. (I'm currenty running a single energy calculation of 73 atoms. It'll be done in 36 hours)
Contruct and manipulate? Well.. we can somewhat predict what a protein will fold like, but even given that, it's still quite a leap to create enzymes from 'scratch'.
Actually, the 'mass production scale' is the easiest part! Once you do have a protein/enzyme that works, you can stick that DNA into some bacteria and grow them on the industrial scale, and then extract the protein. (Tricky, but methods have already been developed. It's how most pharmaceuticals are made.)
There are actually an increasing number of membrane protein structures available, some of them quite large. However, ion channels are apparently especially difficult to study, and none were solved before MacKinnon started.
I'm not sure, if you consider cytochrome c oxidase as an ion channel protein, it's in a membrane.. it conducts hydrogen ions from one side to the other.. add that it 'pumps' them actively though.
The CoX structure was determined back in 1994 (Iwata, et al, Nature, vol 376, 660), which I belive was before MacKinnon.. At least before the potassium channel.
However, I concur that MacKinnon is a worthy winner and a great lecturer. (I had the privelige to attend one of his lectures earlier this year)
what? what the hell are you talking about? whats a multispan transmembrane protein structure?
Ok, a protein is.. well a protein.. little things that do simple tasks in the body. Kind of like computer programs.
The problem with proteins, is that even though we have the 'source code', (the sequence of amino acids forming the protein) we don't know what the things look like, since the chain can fold in a near-infinite number of ways. So it's important to figure out what the 3D-structure (positions of the amino acids) are. That way, we can get clues as to how the thing works.
Now.. think of our cell.. it's like a computer, in the meaning that it contains lots of important data we want to keep safe. To stop anyone from getting in, we have a 'firewall'.. a cell membrane which stops intruders from getting in. Of course, a computer which is completly firewalled is not very useful, nor is a cell. It needs stuff from the outside. That's why we have these transmembrane proteins, which work as 'packet filters' and let molecules which are OK (like water, which is what Agre works with) in and out, but not suspicious, unwanted molecules.
The potassium-ion channels are even cooler, because the 'operating system' (intracellular signalling) can turn them on and off when needed.
Now a protein is a chain, right? So 'multispan' just means that the chain goes back and forth perpendicular to the membrane multiple times.
SGI first reviewed its open source contributions earlier this summer,....
Then in September SGI carried out its more comprehensive comparison. "SGI continued our investigation to determine whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably implicated," Altmaier states in the letter.
A little problem might be if the people "reasonably copying" the code to Linux haven't given credits to SCO or whoever.
I'm sorry.. I distincty remember using the phrase "code to Linux" in an essay I wrote, and own the copyright for. I don't see you giving me any credit.
Get the point? There's nothing in copyright law that says you must give credit for quotations.
However, if you don't, a court will probably be less likely to see it as a fair use quotation, and more inclined to see it as plagiarism.
Still, in this case (200 lines out of millions, and 200 trivial lines at that, not to mention they might not even belong to SCO) it seems VERY, VERY unlikey that SCO could claim any kind of damages for it.
In the same way that using a sentence or a phrase from a book is not plagiarism.
Slashdot Mirror
The Swedish Royal Library, which has also stores everything published in Sweden (since 1640) has been archiving all swedish web pages. (since 1996, I think)
There was a small flap about this recently, due to new data privacy legislation. They workaround is that the material is not available on the web, but can be accessed at the library.
Which is of course, a bit silly given things like the wayback machine, which are located in foreign countries where EU privacy directives don't matter.
..the mock version has to be significantly different enough so that an average person would know that it was a parody and not confuse it with the original.
Well, to begin with, it was animated.
I grabbed a screenshot, here.
Now, would -ANYONE- confuse this with the real Fox News?
What I'd like to see right now, is all the kernel hackers to use their DMCA rights to serve SCO with a huge bunch of subpoenas.
Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.
I doubt it.. Yes, it *could* be interpreted that way.. but I don't think it's intended to be interpreted that way.
'Accepting the license' is intended to mean respecting the terms of the license for that particular piece of software.
I don't think we want it to be interpreted any other way either.
Guess the powers-that-be learned something from the Al Franken affair... or maybe they just feared getting into a popularity contest with the likes of the inanimate carbon rod.
You don't think Murdoch just told them that he didn't like sueing himself?
I really don't think Murdoch cares what Fox News thinks, or that the Simpsons parodize him..
He's making money off both of them, rememnber?
I don't see what's wrong with any of the existing logos?
Those of us who are geeks don't have a problem identifying them.. Sure, if you want to make yourself identifiable to non-hackers, a common logo is a good idea. But why would hackers want that?
I saw a GNU sticker on a stoplight the other day.. for me, it was obvious "There be hackers here!"-message. Naturally it's just a wierd animal-sticker to most people.. but that's kind of the fun, isn't it?
Farts contain a significant amount of hydrogen sulfide...
Actually, they don't.. It's just that our noses are especially keen at smelling it.. we can even detect the stuff at 10 parts per billion!
I used to work in a lab where H2S was used as a reagent. Whenever they were using it, the whole place stunk, even though it was done in a separate room, under a fume hood.
Using these technologies together they can tell not only what the shape of something inside the envelope or other package is, regardless of packing material, but also what it consists of.
Your point being what? That by using sufficiently sophisticated methods and ignoring time, money, and practicality it is possible to determine the contents of a package without opening it?
So? That's not what they're doing, nor is it what they are trying to do.
I wonder how this system would work on detecting a complex biological powder, such as Anthrax spores.
I could be made to do that, but specificity would be difficult if not impossible to achive.
(Discerning the spores from some other protein powder, like the stuff bodybuilders eat)
On the other hand, international shipments are required to have the contents declared for customs. So it may be of some use anyway.)
Well, what about undergarments and a host of other things I could imagine me not wanting government employees to be peeping at?
You realize that this system does not -show- in any visual manner what is inside the envelope?
You don't have a 3d-image, rather a spectrum.. which is basically a measure of the absorption of different colors of light. That spectrum is unique for different -substances-, and with a database of the spectra for different narcotics, you can identify them.
There's quite a difference in knowing what something is made of and what something is!
Now, given a pair of panties in package, the most information you could get out of that spectrum is 'there's about 30 grams of cotton in there'.. (or nylon or leather, given taste..)
Even that is stretching it, since the system isn't built for quantative (mass) analysis, nor is cotton likely to be included in the database of spectra.
The only ways of getting false positives, as I see it, are if you're sending funny stuff like the protein powder bodybuilders use. The large content of nitrogen and oxygen make it chemically similar to some explosives.
Has been a management-level decision at every business I've worked at.
I'm for open-source migration and all.. but the EU?!
Who the heck wants management advice from the European Union??
That's like asking Microsoft for tips on anti-trust legislation!
How could they forget the Schnorkel?
Just the name alone should qualify it as a winner..
No, the MHz is only relevant when you are comparing the same processor type. Otherwise it's completely meaningless. The only thing that matters is how quickly it can process instructions and at what price.
That's usually true. But not generally. I mentioned simple comparisons..
For instance checking if a value in a register is nonzero usually takes one cycle independent of processor type. If you do a lot of those, the number of cycles per second is definetly the limiting factor.
If you're doing floating-point arithmetic, or some other complex task, THEN it's not that important.
But you cannot say that the clock speed is entirely unimportant in all cases.
It all boils down to what you're doing with the machine.
For some jobs, (like lots of simple comparisons) the MHz is the single most important factor..
According to this report on the matter:
"Mr. Skiba doesn't own shares of SCO. Deutsche Bank may seek to provide investment banking services to the company."
Well, look at that.. Deutsche Bank wants them as an investment banking customer, all while their 'analyst' gives their stock a 'target price' 3000% higher than it was at the start of the year.
To rekindle an ancient flame-war..
:-)
Come on.. Upgrade to an Atari Falcon with Cubase instead!
Chemistry What about not just changing fields, but inventing entire new ones?
The study of membrane channel proteins -is- a new field, and these guys pioneered it.
Chemistry != protein studies.
If you mean that the subject of chemistry as a whole is not limited to the study of proteins, you are correct. If you mean the the study of enzyme mechanisms and structure is not part of chemistry, you need to get a clue.
It's Mother Nature's own nanotech. The proteins are like Maxwell's Demon but for water. Anything else is kept out and only H2O is passed in.
Well.. not really.. since they don't violate the second law of thermodynamics.
We can now model, construct and manipulate structures on the atomic level.
Take it easy.. we're not there yet by a far cry..
If you want to model on the atomic level with any kind of accuracy.. you need to do quantum mechanics. The current methods (Nobel prize 1998 BTW) are reasonable for about 100 atoms.
(I'm currenty running a single energy calculation of 73 atoms. It'll be done in 36 hours)
Contruct and manipulate? Well.. we can somewhat predict what a protein will fold like, but even given that, it's still quite a leap to create enzymes from 'scratch'.
Actually, the 'mass production scale' is the easiest part!
Once you do have a protein/enzyme that works, you can stick that DNA into some bacteria and grow them on the industrial scale, and then extract the protein. (Tricky, but methods have already been developed. It's how most pharmaceuticals are made.)
There are actually an increasing number of membrane protein structures available, some of them quite large. However, ion channels are apparently especially difficult to study, and none were solved before MacKinnon started.
I'm not sure, if you consider cytochrome c oxidase as an ion channel protein, it's in a membrane.. it conducts hydrogen ions from one side to the other.. add that it 'pumps' them actively though.
The CoX structure was determined back in 1994 (Iwata, et al, Nature, vol 376, 660), which I belive was before MacKinnon.. At least before the potassium channel.
However, I concur that MacKinnon is a worthy winner and a great lecturer.
(I had the privelige to attend one of his lectures earlier this year)
what? what the hell are you talking about? whats a multispan transmembrane protein structure?
Ok, a protein is.. well a protein.. little things that do simple tasks in the body. Kind of like computer programs.
The problem with proteins, is that even though we have the 'source code', (the sequence of amino acids forming the protein) we don't know what the things look like, since the chain can fold in a near-infinite number of ways. So it's important to figure out what the 3D-structure (positions of the amino acids) are.
That way, we can get clues as to how the thing works.
Now.. think of our cell.. it's like a computer, in the meaning that it contains lots of important data we want to keep safe. To stop anyone from getting in, we have a 'firewall'.. a cell membrane which stops intruders from getting in.
Of course, a computer which is completly firewalled is not very useful, nor is a cell. It needs stuff from the outside.
That's why we have these transmembrane proteins, which work as 'packet filters' and let molecules which are OK (like water, which is what Agre works with) in and out, but not suspicious, unwanted molecules.
The potassium-ion channels are even cooler, because the 'operating system' (intracellular signalling) can turn them on and off when needed.
Now a protein is a chain, right? So 'multispan' just means that the chain goes back and forth perpendicular to the membrane multiple times.
SGI first reviewed its open source contributions earlier this summer, ....
Then in September SGI carried out its more comprehensive comparison. "SGI continued our investigation to determine whether any other code in the Linux kernel was even conceivably implicated," Altmaier states in the letter.
A little problem might be if the people "reasonably copying" the code to Linux haven't given credits to SCO or whoever.
I'm sorry.. I distincty remember using the phrase "code to Linux" in an essay I wrote, and own the copyright for. I don't see you giving me any credit.
Get the point? There's nothing in copyright law that says you must give credit for quotations.
However, if you don't, a court will probably be less likely to see it as a fair use quotation, and more inclined to see it as plagiarism.
Still, in this case (200 lines out of millions, and 200 trivial lines at that, not to mention they might not even belong to SCO) it seems VERY, VERY unlikey that SCO could claim any kind of damages for it.
In the same way that using a sentence or a phrase from a book is not plagiarism.
Nope.. only trademarks can be lost in that manner.
But: The court will definetly take into account lax copyright defense in a copyright suit, and it will most likely reduce the penalty.
(Simple reasoning: If this infringment was hurting you so much, why didn't you act sooner?)
Here is the list of all withdrawn patents since 1790:
That list seems far too short..
Also it says "withdrawn patent numbers" which is not necessarily the same thing as "numbers of withdrawn patents".