moving minerals from a rock into a bar of iron which is forged in to a wrench is just just taking technology that already existed and moving it somewhere else.
That's silly. If you find a fish that glows in the dark, a bacteria that produces less harmful byproducts, and another bacteria that can eat crude oil - and you combine the three traits into a bacteria that glows in the dark, eats crude oil, and has less toxic byproducts...you've created something new. No less so than taking wheat that someone else invented, grinding it up, and combining it with water that someone else invented to make bread.
If you create a bacteria that can eat spilled crude oil and create happiness as a byproduct, then the only protection you have is patenting the genetic makeup of that bacteria. Yes, others then abused the idea and patented genes of organisms that had been around a long time. But to dismiss the whole idea? Are we saying we don't want genetically modified foods, or genetically modified animals that are specially bred to be used in lab experiments? Do you want that weighing on your conscious?
(for those not equipped with sarcasm detectors, find a friend to read that with you - it devolves a bit)
An exception should/could be made for GE bacteria created for industrial work. It wouldn't be hard to grant such an exception. Anything higher up than that (plant, or animal), should be unpatent-able.
Did they do something stupid? Idiotic, even? Certainly. But since when did/. mods emply 4chan methods, such as intentionally creating a DDoS? I can understand if there was an actual news article people were wanting to discuss, but this was an entirely transparent DDoS. And 4chan mods can always fall back on the fact that anyone can start a thread, whereas here a very specific mod very specifically did this...just to be obnoxious.
An eye for an eye? Is that what we're going for? Is this "news for nerds"? Socially redeeming, in any way?
I'm as anti-BSA as one can be without being someone like RMS, but...just playing DA here...profit means a company stays alive longer, which means stability, which means cost-savings of not having to rework everything and retrain everyone...
now, in an ideal world one would be using open standards so that wouldn't be a problem in the first place...
yes, and in that case it more clearly defines that the cake can't be eaten and still had. Except, it's still a silly saying, and rarely makes sense or helps actually clarify a situation; calling on a short saying to describe a situation should generally add clarity to the description; why say it otherwise? They're not trying to eat (take in the material components of and, destroying them, turn them in to something else...) OOo, they're trying to change the leadership to a more community-driven model.
Why are they wanting to migrate from the parent leadership? Well, look what Oracle has done with other Open Source projects. Look at the recent things they've done that are extremely anti-open source. The fact is, there was already a growing entity that existed (go-oo) and LibreOffice is just community recognition of that. If the community is so beholden to Oracle contributions, why is Go-oo so much better than OO? They're not trying to fork the project, they're trying to ensure the project survives, versus the longlistof projectsthat oracle has killed. MySQL's time has already passed, at this point, as has Glassfish's. OpenOffice could still be (and will still be, even without Oracle's assistance) saved.
Say, for an example, you like Firefox. Then, say Mozilla was out of funds, and decided to sell off the ownership of Firefox, and it was bought by Haliburton. And, still just for example's sake, say you hate Haliburton. Say you were one of the leaders of the Firefox project, and you decide to move away from Haliburton...not because you want to compete with yourself, not because you want there to be two projects and you have a COI, but because you merely want to move away from the grandparent ownership of your project.
BTW, my use of Mozilla as an example was on purpose, as this same thing happened there. "When AOL (Netscape's parent) drastically scaled back its involvement with Mozilla Organization, the Mozilla Foundation was launched on July 15, 2003 to ensure Mozilla could survive without Netscape. AOL assisted in the initial creation of the Mozilla Foundation, transferring hardware and intellectual property to the organization and employing a three-person team for the first three months of its existence to help with the transition and donated $2 million to the foundation over two years."
That's what LibreOffice was hoping for - they made the same exact move the Mozilla Foundation made, and were hoping that Oracle would be as good-natured about it as AOL was. Guess Oracle is getting shown up by AOL, in the end...
I predict that you've never heard of git, and how easy it is to have two code bases from which you merge changes on one, to the other.
It looks to me from the conversations there that the community members were sincerely hoping Oracle would do what they were proposing; join in a foundation that facilitated the project being less restricted. I can completely sympathize with the notion that they're not intending to be competing, and that there might not be an SOI. LO hasn't seemed like a personal attack on Oracle to me.
Certainly, it's also viable to take the cynical view too, which would be that they are horrible people that are just leaving OOo because they don't like Oracle, and that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
You know...I've never really liked that saying...I mean, how do you eat cake that you don't have?
for those that would be interested in the news, they know what it means. For everyone else, a few seconds with your favourite search engine (less time than your post took, by far) would have resulted in the answer being the first few pages of hits.
and YET...that's irrelevant, because as many people have pointed out the problem is the cores that share L2 cache. There have been large systems with many, many processors for a long time, some of which run Linux. The problem that was described was 48cores on a single die, sharing the same cache. Sun's die-to-die tech isn't relevant to this problem, nor is putting more than 6 8-core CPUs in a single system.
I guess sports is where the problem doesn't exist for me; I'll occasionally watch a sport game on TV, but if I do it will always be at a larger social gathering. I never would sit at home watching a football game alone or with just a few people; that sort of activity is dying off, btw. There's a real world out there that is much more interesting than watching a bunch of men run around in tight pants wrestling with each other. To me, at least;)
fark you. I know this is just a troll response, but that was some of the most anti-OSS crap I've ever seen you editorialize. Is it because they want a token controversial-subject person, because they think it improves readership? Is that why they let you stay on while constantly bashing the same community this site used to be defined by?
This is completely stupid. Whether the Earth is moving, or whether it is immobile and the rest of the universe is moving in relation to the Earth, is 100% arbitrary, with what you want as the reference point, becoming the reference point. Whether you frame the universe as moving in relation to a presumed Big Bang, or the Earth, does it really matter? I'll give you a hint: the answer is no. It doesn't change a single bit of astrophysics in the slightest (beyond the obvious bit of changing the reference point for the movement).
have you all forgotten high school phyics? A man is standing still, and a boy runs past him, going west, at 5mph. Only, the man and boy are on a tram, moving east at 15mph. The tram is on a large ship going west at 10mph..is the man the point of reference again? No, because they're all on the earth, spinning east at 900mph. Fark, you people want to laugh at someone for picking a different reference point than you? Seriously? One needs to pick a reference point to do anything meaningful in physics; theirs is just different than yours.
trust versus untrust. A person with explosives in a backpack is easier to deal with than a car full of explosives. The military vehicles were, so to speak, inside the trust zone. A minivan driven by some random person? not so much. it's why larger vehicles aren't allowed on the Hoover dam, for instance.
I gave up cars several years ago. I do have a motorcycle, but I either walk, ride a bicycle, ride my motorcycle, or do public transportation. A motorcycle can go crazy places. I do all my shopping with it; and on the rare occasions I need something that won't fit in my large hiking backpack, I rent a truck.
Point is, we're not all members of the planet-destroying hippy generation that dramatically increased our meat consumption (the beef industry is more destructive to the planet than all the transportation industries combined). I had to help solve a software bug this morning when a customer had an order go through for an overnight delivery of a handtowel from California to Hawaii, and the shipping wasn't computed correctly. The customer's site specializes in eco-friendly products. So, somewhere there's a person in Hawaii that thinks overnight shipping an empty box (just forget the damn contents) is somehow more environmentally friendly than ANY handtowel they could have bought at their walkin stores. $80 shipping for a $7 item. That shit right there, with environmentalists driving SUVs and doing whatever they want because they buy carbon neutral credits is the problem. But fortunately, that generation is getting old and will die off soon enough, and we'll have a healthier planet because of it.
There are PLENTY of people who would love to get in a high-speed train from LA to Phoenix, LA to SF, that sort of thing. They might not be children of the 60s, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile consumers.
ps, I said "learn and explore" not just learn. Also, with the extremely massive cost of actually colonizing space, reasons for doing it should be analyzed. We don't become invulnerable to asteroids in space, and instead become extremely vulnerable to teeny tiny rocks. Rocks that burn up in the first second of entering our atmosphere would take out the ISS. We don't quite have energy shields working yet, after all.
We got to the moon with a very short list of public reasons for going; people had personal reasons they wanted to see us there, but it wasn't a long list that got mass acceptance.
you missed the point. He wants off because we're doing unsustainable things and our species is doomed to kill itself off. I'm saying that the problem should be solved, not duct-taped; moving to another planet isn't going to suddenly make us start living more sustainably.
how is that a pure motive? we should become an invasive species on an entirely different planet? Like I said, it's our mess - we should fix it. We shouldn't leave because we broke this place and want another place to break, we should leave because exploration and learning is fun and cool. His ideal of preservation of the species is silly, because the problem isn't going away just because we go to another place; we need to learn to have more sustainable activities. This is *phenominally* more true if living in space. If this planet goes belly-up, what the hell would it really matter that our species ended? Why...does that matter at all? Why on Earth (err...off Earth?) would you care?
It's our mess, we need to live with it. The planet is still *exceptionally* salvageable, in the lifetime of genX even. No matter how cool we make the spacecraft, they'll still need raw materials from time to time, which would still mean strip-mining another planet somewhere.
Also, and I'm a cold-hearted bastard for saying this (obviously), but I think Hawkings underestimates the value of going hiking, climbing a mountain, going surfing, rolling around on the beach under a blanket just after watching a sunset, etc. Would there be new activities avail in space? Sure, but if we can't "sustain" our environment when it has massive automated systems for cleaning our air, producing food, breaking down waste, cleaning water, etc...then what makes us think we'd do better in a metal can where we have to recreate all those systems ourselves? The Earth should never be left because it's not sustainable. If it should ever be left, it should be because we want to learn and explore. G-d, why can't we have pure motives.
ps - I'd really like Canonical to answer some day why removing/etc/postfix means I can no longer install postfix. It's not even enough to just create the directory.
If i *remove* an app, I want it gone. If I'm *installing* an app, do everything necessary to install it. I see no other distribution with this problem...especially ones that use that icky rpm which is supposedly so inferior.
Slashdot Mirror
moving minerals from a rock into a bar of iron which is forged in to a wrench is just just taking technology that already existed and moving it somewhere else.
That's silly. If you find a fish that glows in the dark, a bacteria that produces less harmful byproducts, and another bacteria that can eat crude oil - and you combine the three traits into a bacteria that glows in the dark, eats crude oil, and has less toxic byproducts...you've created something new. No less so than taking wheat that someone else invented, grinding it up, and combining it with water that someone else invented to make bread.
If you create a bacteria that can eat spilled crude oil and create happiness as a byproduct, then the only protection you have is patenting the genetic makeup of that bacteria. Yes, others then abused the idea and patented genes of organisms that had been around a long time. But to dismiss the whole idea? Are we saying we don't want genetically modified foods, or genetically modified animals that are specially bred to be used in lab experiments? Do you want that weighing on your conscious?
(for those not equipped with sarcasm detectors, find a friend to read that with you - it devolves a bit)
An exception should/could be made for GE bacteria created for industrial work. It wouldn't be hard to grant such an exception. Anything higher up than that (plant, or animal), should be unpatent-able.
Did they do something stupid? Idiotic, even? Certainly. But since when did /. mods emply 4chan methods, such as intentionally creating a DDoS? I can understand if there was an actual news article people were wanting to discuss, but this was an entirely transparent DDoS. And 4chan mods can always fall back on the fact that anyone can start a thread, whereas here a very specific mod very specifically did this...just to be obnoxious.
An eye for an eye? Is that what we're going for? Is this "news for nerds"? Socially redeeming, in any way?
Seldom do profit and "best for country" align.
I'm as anti-BSA as one can be without being someone like RMS, but...just playing DA here...profit means a company stays alive longer, which means stability, which means cost-savings of not having to rework everything and retrain everyone...
now, in an ideal world one would be using open standards so that wouldn't be a problem in the first place...
yes, and in that case it more clearly defines that the cake can't be eaten and still had. Except, it's still a silly saying, and rarely makes sense or helps actually clarify a situation; calling on a short saying to describe a situation should generally add clarity to the description; why say it otherwise? They're not trying to eat (take in the material components of and, destroying them, turn them in to something else...) OOo, they're trying to change the leadership to a more community-driven model.
Why are they wanting to migrate from the parent leadership? Well, look what Oracle has done with other Open Source projects. Look at the recent things they've done that are extremely anti-open source. The fact is, there was already a growing entity that existed (go-oo) and LibreOffice is just community recognition of that. If the community is so beholden to Oracle contributions, why is Go-oo so much better than OO? They're not trying to fork the project, they're trying to ensure the project survives, versus the long list of projects that oracle has killed. MySQL's time has already passed, at this point, as has Glassfish's. OpenOffice could still be (and will still be, even without Oracle's assistance) saved.
Say, for an example, you like Firefox. Then, say Mozilla was out of funds, and decided to sell off the ownership of Firefox, and it was bought by Haliburton. And, still just for example's sake, say you hate Haliburton. Say you were one of the leaders of the Firefox project, and you decide to move away from Haliburton...not because you want to compete with yourself, not because you want there to be two projects and you have a COI, but because you merely want to move away from the grandparent ownership of your project.
BTW, my use of Mozilla as an example was on purpose, as this same thing happened there. "When AOL (Netscape's parent) drastically scaled back its involvement with Mozilla Organization, the Mozilla Foundation was launched on July 15, 2003 to ensure Mozilla could survive without Netscape. AOL assisted in the initial creation of the Mozilla Foundation, transferring hardware and intellectual property to the organization and employing a three-person team for the first three months of its existence to help with the transition and donated $2 million to the foundation over two years."
That's what LibreOffice was hoping for - they made the same exact move the Mozilla Foundation made, and were hoping that Oracle would be as good-natured about it as AOL was. Guess Oracle is getting shown up by AOL, in the end...
That sound you just heard? It wasn't a plane going over your head...
Ok, I'll bite. The saying is not "You can't have a cake you've already eaten."
I predict that you've never heard of git, and how easy it is to have two code bases from which you merge changes on one, to the other.
It looks to me from the conversations there that the community members were sincerely hoping Oracle would do what they were proposing; join in a foundation that facilitated the project being less restricted. I can completely sympathize with the notion that they're not intending to be competing, and that there might not be an SOI. LO hasn't seemed like a personal attack on Oracle to me.
Certainly, it's also viable to take the cynical view too, which would be that they are horrible people that are just leaving OOo because they don't like Oracle, and that they're trying to have their cake and eat it too.
You know...I've never really liked that saying...I mean, how do you eat cake that you don't have?
there's something funny about life you'll learn some day - not everything is meant for you, nor will you understand everything.
for those that would be interested in the news, they know what it means. For everyone else, a few seconds with your favourite search engine (less time than your post took, by far) would have resulted in the answer being the first few pages of hits.
and YET...that's irrelevant, because as many people have pointed out the problem is the cores that share L2 cache. There have been large systems with many, many processors for a long time, some of which run Linux. The problem that was described was 48cores on a single die, sharing the same cache. Sun's die-to-die tech isn't relevant to this problem, nor is putting more than 6 8-core CPUs in a single system.
I guess sports is where the problem doesn't exist for me; I'll occasionally watch a sport game on TV, but if I do it will always be at a larger social gathering. I never would sit at home watching a football game alone or with just a few people; that sort of activity is dying off, btw. There's a real world out there that is much more interesting than watching a bunch of men run around in tight pants wrestling with each other. To me, at least ;)
fark you. I know this is just a troll response, but that was some of the most anti-OSS crap I've ever seen you editorialize. Is it because they want a token controversial-subject person, because they think it improves readership? Is that why they let you stay on while constantly bashing the same community this site used to be defined by?
next you'll be telling me people still listen to actual "radio" stations, versus stations on pandora/live365/XM/etc.
Silly talk. What year is this? Isn't our Jupiter orbiter with a crazy AI neighbored by a super-massive baby by now?
This is completely stupid. Whether the Earth is moving, or whether it is immobile and the rest of the universe is moving in relation to the Earth, is 100% arbitrary, with what you want as the reference point, becoming the reference point. Whether you frame the universe as moving in relation to a presumed Big Bang, or the Earth, does it really matter? I'll give you a hint: the answer is no. It doesn't change a single bit of astrophysics in the slightest (beyond the obvious bit of changing the reference point for the movement).
have you all forgotten high school phyics? A man is standing still, and a boy runs past him, going west, at 5mph. Only, the man and boy are on a tram, moving east at 15mph. The tram is on a large ship going west at 10mph..is the man the point of reference again? No, because they're all on the earth, spinning east at 900mph. Fark, you people want to laugh at someone for picking a different reference point than you? Seriously? One needs to pick a reference point to do anything meaningful in physics; theirs is just different than yours.
I wasn't aware that cargo ships cause people to cover the ground with asphalt. Guess I learned something today. Thanks!
trust versus untrust. A person with explosives in a backpack is easier to deal with than a car full of explosives. The military vehicles were, so to speak, inside the trust zone. A minivan driven by some random person? not so much. it's why larger vehicles aren't allowed on the Hoover dam, for instance.
that's fine. I was responding to the fact that he's not solving the problem, and the problem will still exist, only moved to another location.
Doesn't preclude us (the general public) from having pure motives, though. Got us to the moon well enough.
are they highspeed rails? Nope. So, irrelevant, really.
I gave up cars several years ago. I do have a motorcycle, but I either walk, ride a bicycle, ride my motorcycle, or do public transportation. A motorcycle can go crazy places. I do all my shopping with it; and on the rare occasions I need something that won't fit in my large hiking backpack, I rent a truck.
Point is, we're not all members of the planet-destroying hippy generation that dramatically increased our meat consumption (the beef industry is more destructive to the planet than all the transportation industries combined). I had to help solve a software bug this morning when a customer had an order go through for an overnight delivery of a handtowel from California to Hawaii, and the shipping wasn't computed correctly. The customer's site specializes in eco-friendly products. So, somewhere there's a person in Hawaii that thinks overnight shipping an empty box (just forget the damn contents) is somehow more environmentally friendly than ANY handtowel they could have bought at their walkin stores. $80 shipping for a $7 item. That shit right there, with environmentalists driving SUVs and doing whatever they want because they buy carbon neutral credits is the problem. But fortunately, that generation is getting old and will die off soon enough, and we'll have a healthier planet because of it.
There are PLENTY of people who would love to get in a high-speed train from LA to Phoenix, LA to SF, that sort of thing. They might not be children of the 60s, but that doesn't mean they aren't worthwhile consumers.
it's hard to crash a train into the pentagon, if the tracks don't go that direction.
ps, I said "learn and explore" not just learn. Also, with the extremely massive cost of actually colonizing space, reasons for doing it should be analyzed. We don't become invulnerable to asteroids in space, and instead become extremely vulnerable to teeny tiny rocks. Rocks that burn up in the first second of entering our atmosphere would take out the ISS. We don't quite have energy shields working yet, after all.
We got to the moon with a very short list of public reasons for going; people had personal reasons they wanted to see us there, but it wasn't a long list that got mass acceptance.
you missed the point. He wants off because we're doing unsustainable things and our species is doomed to kill itself off. I'm saying that the problem should be solved, not duct-taped; moving to another planet isn't going to suddenly make us start living more sustainably.
how is that a pure motive? we should become an invasive species on an entirely different planet? Like I said, it's our mess - we should fix it. We shouldn't leave because we broke this place and want another place to break, we should leave because exploration and learning is fun and cool. His ideal of preservation of the species is silly, because the problem isn't going away just because we go to another place; we need to learn to have more sustainable activities. This is *phenominally* more true if living in space. If this planet goes belly-up, what the hell would it really matter that our species ended? Why...does that matter at all? Why on Earth (err...off Earth?) would you care?
It's our mess, we need to live with it. The planet is still *exceptionally* salvageable, in the lifetime of genX even. No matter how cool we make the spacecraft, they'll still need raw materials from time to time, which would still mean strip-mining another planet somewhere.
Also, and I'm a cold-hearted bastard for saying this (obviously), but I think Hawkings underestimates the value of going hiking, climbing a mountain, going surfing, rolling around on the beach under a blanket just after watching a sunset, etc. Would there be new activities avail in space? Sure, but if we can't "sustain" our environment when it has massive automated systems for cleaning our air, producing food, breaking down waste, cleaning water, etc...then what makes us think we'd do better in a metal can where we have to recreate all those systems ourselves? The Earth should never be left because it's not sustainable. If it should ever be left, it should be because we want to learn and explore. G-d, why can't we have pure motives.
ps - I'd really like Canonical to answer some day why removing /etc/postfix means I can no longer install postfix. It's not even enough to just create the directory.
If i *remove* an app, I want it gone. If I'm *installing* an app, do everything necessary to install it. I see no other distribution with this problem...especially ones that use that icky rpm which is supposedly so inferior.