For example the new Toyota Prius delivers lower MPG then the Daihatsu Sirion which is made by the same Toyota group (51 best vs 57 best). It is also slower and more sluggish (14 s to 62 compared to under 9.0). It also has higher emissions (almost twice worse on all counts). All of it while carrying the same amount of passengers and having only 30 liters more luggage space. It has a huge maintenance bill as the battery cells last only around 40-50 thousand miles and it has high ongoing maintenance as well. It is also a bomb. There are very few things that are more suicidal then sitting on a shorting battery in an accident with a fuel tank nearby.
You must be referring to the *OLD* Toyota Prius. the new 2004 prius gets 55mpg. 0-60 in 10s. Even more space, and is rated as Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle and Partial Zero Emission Vehicle.
Foreigners putting their dollars into dollar-denominated investments only puts off the problem. At some point, the foreigner must use the dollars to buy US-produced goods and services. Doing anything else means that US consumers have gotten a whole lot of real goods and services for the price of printing a bunch of green paper or transferring a few electrons.
One point that needs to bemade is the difference between a trad edeficit and a current accoutns deficit. The trade balance is the measure of goods and services between two countries. The current accounts balance is the trade balance plus investment. What we shoudl really be seeing is the dollar decreasing in value relatie to the foreign currency making US goods cheaper in the other country and foreign goods more expensive here.
In order to buy the foreign goods, dollars must be trade for the other currency. This should cause the dollar to fall relative to the other currency because their is greater demand for that currency than the dollar. But, what is happening is that many of those receiving dollars turn around and invest them in the US rather than changing them into their home currency. This tends to keep the dollar high a relatively stable. Basically, what is happening is the money we pay for foreign made goods gets used by the foreigner's to fund our government deficit.
Some congressman are starting to complain about China keeping their currenyc artificially low by not allowing it to float on the open market. At which point demand for Chinese goods should push the value of yuan higher.
If you read the SIRTF site you will note that the instrument is designed to operate at a much cooler temperature than it currently is at. It is designed to be cooled radiatively to 40K in a few weeks, then the liquid helium cools it to 5.5K. So, the blurriness of the image is probably due to the optics being slightly out of alignment at the current temperature. Wait until is gets to 5.5K for the really sharp pictures.
Dastardly
Re:Let's make this a press release!
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
But unless anyone's heard of you and cares what you have to say, noone will read it, let alone publish it.
How much editorial discretion is used on the Yahoo Finance pages? Or, do they just pick up what is on the wire perform a keyword search and add it to the news list for the appropriate stock?
A long track will have to be at a low angle, increasing the amount of time the vehicle spends flying through air.
Angle it upward in the last few kilometers.
However, building even a 5km railgun would stress contemporary engineering techniques.
Yep. I figured, but at least the technologies involved are well understood, and exist today. That does give it a leg up over the space elevator.
Putting major quantities of nuclear fuel ontop of a rocket (that might explode in the atmosphere) will always be percieved as a major public hazard. The ~1% failure rate for orbital rockets is too risky for decent atomic payloads to be accepted. (There was an uproar over even the small Cassini reactor)
I am glad you said perceived because while the failure rate may be about 1%. The failure mode of a launch failure is a minimal threat. The fuel package should have similar qualities of an RTG, i.e. solid mass. So, on a launch failure (explosion) it get's thrown away as a solid mass. A bigger threat is reentry, since that could theoretically burn down the solid mass. Although apparently RTGs can even handle reentry, so you just put enough containment on the outside, so the radioactive fuel in not reached on an uncontrolled reentry.
The rail could be at most 6-7 km long, and of course propulsion stops once the vehicle is off the rail. So all the acceleration needed to reach orbit must happen in those 6 km. The existing shuttle keeps its rockets firing for more than 40 km of travel. Reaching the same speed with less than 1/7th the time to do it means that instead of an uncomfortable 3gs, the passengers would experience a lethal acceleration greater than 20 times the earth's gravity.
Actually, it is much much worse. A shuttle or rocket of any kind does not have to accelerate to surface escape velocity, it only has to accelerate to escape velocity at the altitude that the engines cut out.
Of course, why is the limit 6-7 km? Why not 100km, 200km? Put the exit at the top of a mountain and get a slightly lower escape velocity. Could this be done today... I have no idea, but making acceleration of passengers and cargo reasonable is an engineering problem not a fundamental design flaw. Actually, the worse acceleration problem is probably not getting to speed, but upon loss of propulsion the deceleration due to air. This would almost require a combined railgun rocket design. At a minimum enough rocket power to negate air resistance and thereby minimize g forces on the cargo and passengers.
I think my main point is that the focus has to be on at low cost means of putting #1 Cargo and #2 People in low earth orbit. Once you can do that cheaply and reliably a lot of options become possible. Like:
1) Manned mission to Mars Build a second ISS with ion engines. Probably nuclear powered. Attach a landing craft. Go to Mars orbit. Drop landing craft. Do work. Go back to orbit. Return to earth.
2) Much bigger robotic missions to other planets. Assemble them in space.
3) Space shuttle (literally) a craft to shuttle around orbits between LEO and the moon, that never lands. Fuel can be sent up on the low cost launch system. The craft can be used to maintain earth orbiting satelites.
One thing Bush does have right is that to get any farther than we have, we need nuclear powered craft.
We're finally seeing an admission from the aerospace establishment that the shuttle has failed as an experiment. Wings on space craft are essentially a burden.
Wings could be useful if you horizontally launched the spacecraft. Although putting the wings on the space stage may not be such a great idea. But, hauling a spacecraft to 50 or 60 thousand feet using conventional jet aircraft, then firing rockets to get the space stage to space could reduce the payload to weight ratio.
Another launch system I wish would be considered is the rail gun. A miles long tunnel whose exit was at altitude, and magnetically accelerated the spacecraft to high velocities would also increase payload to weight ratio. You don't even have to get to escape velocity on exit. Any amount of velocity or altitude that can be acquired from sources other than those carried on the spacecraft reduce the amount of fuel the space craft has to carry, and improves the payload to weight ratio. Not to mention non-rocket energy sources should be mor eeffcient.
No, nuclear waste cannot be managed and contained safely. You're spouting exactly the kind of BS that the Yucca Mountain supporters want you to believe. Tool.
No, fossil fuel waste cannot be managed and contained safely. You're spouting exactly the kind of BS that the no nuclear anywhere crowd wants you to believe. Tool.
What woudl you rather deal with a few tons of solid nuclear waste? Or, millions of tons of gaseous waste?
2) Let's use big expendable boosters to get hardware to LEO, and smaller expendable boosters to get people to LEO. Put the people in modern versions of the Apollo or Gemini craft (the so-called "Big" Gemini was an appropos solution)>
The only problem I have is expendable had better not mean leave in space which would be bad. And, recoverable for recycling would be nice, why waste all that metal. Reusable is ideal, but may be more costly than making a new one, and recycling the old.
1) Any human space travel beyond LEO will start from LEO in spacecraft built in LEO and that return to LEO. If we do that, we will never need to spend money trying to build airplane-spacecraft hybrids.
This is smart for two reasons.
1) The engineering specs for a craft that never has to deal with an atmosphere are very different from a craft that has to deal with moving through atmosphere and overcoming surface gravity.
2) Two words - ION Engines. They are very efficient, fast and work well from low earth orbit.
3) Could make nuclear powered spacecraft more feasible and safer. It is probably safer to launch the reactor and fuel separated for assembly in space, than to launch a ready to go reactor that is just fired up in space.
I went to my boss last week (I work directly for the CFO, so IT isn't his top priority), and told him that this is crazy, and that one person cannot possible meet this companies IT demands. He said he realizes that, but I'm not getting another warm body until at least 'Next Spring'. I just wanted to walk out right there.
The first thing you do is stop thinking of yourself as a peon, who has to do whatever anyone tells you. You report directly to the CFO who reports to the CEO. Even is a 100 person company how many people are 2 steps from the CEO and not management?
You have to wear two hats. One hat is the IT manager, which menas you have to prioritize the time of your employees (you) and decide what gets done when. The other hat is the IT worker who performs the tasks that the IT manager assigns him.
Next you need to go through and take your time, and start allocating it. I don't know how long stuff takes for you so this example is pulled out of my ass. Take a 40 hour week. Allocate 20 hours to direct support tasks, take the 20 left over and schedule you projects in that time. Leave an hour or 2 a week for managing your time. some may say a 40 hour week will get you laid off, but reality never actually ends up in 40 hour weeks. Crises will occur and you will end up working 50 hours. Or, you will underestimate the scope of a project, but decide it is worthwhile to put in some extra hours to bring it in on time anyways. So, starting with 40 hours will keep things from getting out of control. And, don't forget you take vacations.
Then, when you have your time figured out, whenever some one comes to you with a project. You size it, prioritize it, and schedule it. You then give the person a start and completion date. If you are scheduled too far out you then have to tell the person, I won't have any time to start that for 6 months, but don't give astrt or completion date because you can't ee that far ahead.
You will have to speak with your boss though, and let him know what you are doing. Because when people have a problem with your prioritization or scheduling they will go over your head. But, if he has the paper showing what is scheduled when. Rather than just saying, "Yes" and making you attempt to do it. He should make the other person justify why their project is more important than everything else.
You need your boss to back you up when you say, "No". And, it sounds like he knows the problem, so fi you tell people "No", and give hime the facts to justify your "No" he should back you up, or if he does override you, it will involve dropping or deprioritizing something else. It sounds like your boss is a decent guy, so organize your time on "paper" (electronically works too), and you may find things will work out.
Ok. Maybe I am dense and have not delved into the depths of what works with KDE what works with Gnome and what doesn't. But, in my experience which desktop I choose doesn't change which applications I can run. Gnome programs will run in KDE and KDE apps will run in Gnome as long as both are installed and hence libraries installed.
About the only thing I can think of that is needed is an installer that will put a program you install into both desktop's menus. Otherwise a distribution maker can decide to standardize on one desktop and still have any program run just by installing the right libraries.
But "boring" is too much the result of either too little imagination, sleepiness/depression, or misunderstanding.
A friend of mine said they didn't like it. They then said, they were pretty drunk when they saw it. You then take into account being driven to the theatre, getting tickets, snacks, watchign previews. About half way through the movie the alchohol should be making the person real tired. I suggested seeing it again sometime, sober, and with a good nights sleep.
If it is, then it would appear that their claim that MySQL is under the GPL is false - they place additional limits on distribution, which IIRC the GPL prohibits.
Not exactly. Because the GPL makes it so if you ship software that requires linking to GPL software to work then that software must be GPL. This is why the LGPL exists.
After some thought, I came to the conclusion that databases are a weird case. Because doesn't a database driver have to link to the database software. I think the LGPL is compatible. But, if the driver is GPL, then trying to link your software to the driver forces an open source license on your software to comply with the GPL.
Note, this is of course only if you distribute software.
The MySQL folks seem to think so. At least, when we talked to them about this, they insisted that if we even tested our application against MySQL to ensure interoperability, we would have to GPL our code or cut a commercial license distribution deal with them.
If this isn't what I said, it is what I meant. This was the impression I got from their website which stopped me from even using their database for a project. One question though.
How do you write a jdbc Java app for MySQL without putting at least a class.forname()? Because if you cannot eliminate that line you have explicitly linked to a GPL'd piece of software which under the GPL means your software should be GPL. Remember the GPL considers linked software a derivative application, the LGPL explicitly allows linking.
For some reason, everybody seems to think the GPL requires everything to be on a FTP site..
Good point, although it turns out the internet is probably the cheapest ways to distribute source as necessary, since you don't have to have some one handle preparing and shipping media. And, can spend that persons time on something that is actually profitable.
MySQL is an interesting situation because the GPL makes it so that if you ship an application that requires interaction with a MySQL database then that application must be GPL. This is because MySQL is GPL, then the ODBC and JDBC drivers must be GPL, therefore the application that uses the drivers must be GPL. So, if you want to ship your application under a different license you need a license from MySQL AB.
If MySQL were LGPL MySQL AB would not have a licensing business.
So they cannot distribute Linux, but could still distribute Samba, GCC, et al. unless they made similar moves against them.
But, how can they attack Linux on grounds that the GPL is not valid, then turn around and take rights to other software under the GPL. While at this time Samba, GCC, et al. cannot sue SCO. They could request written clarification of SCO's acceptance of the GPL, if SCO were dumb enough to write that letter, they can hand a copy over to IBM to demonstrate SCO's acceptance that the GPL is legal. But, they still can't sue SCO, yet. The lawsuits could only occur if SCO somehow wins on grounds the GPL is invalid, in which case all copyright holders of GPL software that SCO has ever distributed sue SCO for infringement. Because if the GPL is declared not valid, it was never valid, and therefore SCO has been infringing since day 1.
When you were jolted by 110 volt power and nothing happened what really happened was that the current was travelling on the outside surface of your skin (probably being conducted via sweat and oils) instead of through the inside of your body and that's why you aren't dead or horribly burned right now.
Actually, the reason nothing happened is that the resistance of dry skin is about 100Kohms. So, the current passing through you body was only about 1 milliamp. Current gets deadly at 50milliamps. Length of exposure is a factor. If you hold on long enough your skin will burn and eventually the contact point will reach juicy flesh reducing you resistance to the point where deadly current is passing through your body.
I'm no electrition, but isn't 60 Hz a measure of frequency, which is neither amps nor volts and shouldn't have anything to do with deadliness?
Very high frequency AC for some reason conducts across the surface fo the skin. Therefore it is much less deadly than 60Hz AC because the currect doesn't pass through your heart.
The strange coincidence was that at the peak of a hot season the power companies decided to pull several of their major generators "for maintenance" right before the failuers.
At any one time the power that could have been produced by generators in maintenance didn't come close to what that one reactor could generate. Putting those generators in maintenance would not have been a problem had that reactor been running. Every game that was played was dependent on the supply just barely meeting demand. The conditions where taking Natural Gas generators down for maintenance could drive prices up significantly would not have occurred had the San Onofre reactor been running.
It was the REGULATIONS put in place that caused everything to fall apart, not a lack of them.
Possibly, but if one of the San Onofre's 1100MW reactors had not been down, in combination with droughts in the Pacific Northwest, demand may not have outstripped supply.
The california problems were cronic problems that went on over a long period of time.
What no one seems to talk about is the 1100MW nuclear reactor that could not produce power during the time due to refueling and then a busted turbine. That is what put the production on the hairy edge of demand, and then by gaming the system other producers were able to extend their profits.
Slashdot Mirror
2004 Toyota Prius 0-60 is 10.0, and bigger, and more fuel efficient.
Dastardly
For example the new Toyota Prius delivers lower MPG then the Daihatsu Sirion which is made by the same Toyota group (51 best vs 57 best). It is also slower and more sluggish (14 s to 62 compared to under 9.0). It also has higher emissions (almost twice worse on all counts). All of it while carrying the same amount of passengers and having only 30 liters more luggage space. It has a huge maintenance bill as the battery cells last only around 40-50 thousand miles and it has high ongoing maintenance as well. It is also a bomb. There are very few things that are more suicidal then sitting on a shorting battery in an accident with a fuel tank nearby.
You must be referring to the *OLD* Toyota Prius. the new 2004 prius gets 55mpg. 0-60 in 10s. Even more space, and is rated as Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle and Partial Zero Emission Vehicle.
Dastardly
Foreigners putting their dollars into dollar-denominated investments only puts off the problem. At some point, the foreigner must use the dollars to buy US-produced goods and services. Doing anything else means that US consumers have gotten a whole lot of real goods and services for the price of printing a bunch of green paper or transferring a few electrons.
One point that needs to bemade is the difference between a trad edeficit and a current accoutns deficit. The trade balance is the measure of goods and services between two countries. The current accounts balance is the trade balance plus investment. What we shoudl really be seeing is the dollar decreasing in value relatie to the foreign currency making US goods cheaper in the other country and foreign goods more expensive here.
In order to buy the foreign goods, dollars must be trade for the other currency. This should cause the dollar to fall relative to the other currency because their is greater demand for that currency than the dollar. But, what is happening is that many of those receiving dollars turn around and invest them in the US rather than changing them into their home currency. This tends to keep the dollar high a relatively stable. Basically, what is happening is the money we pay for foreign made goods gets used by the foreigner's to fund our government deficit.
Some congressman are starting to complain about China keeping their currenyc artificially low by not allowing it to float on the open market. At which point demand for Chinese goods should push the value of yuan higher.
Dastardly
If you read the SIRTF site you will note that the instrument is designed to operate at a much cooler temperature than it currently is at. It is designed to be cooled radiatively to 40K in a few weeks, then the liquid helium cools it to 5.5K. So, the blurriness of the image is probably due to the optics being slightly out of alignment at the current temperature. Wait until is gets to 5.5K for the really sharp pictures.
Dastardly
But unless anyone's heard of you and cares what you have to say, noone will read it, let alone publish it.
How much editorial discretion is used on the Yahoo Finance pages? Or, do they just pick up what is on the wire perform a keyword search and add it to the news list for the appropriate stock?
Dastardly
A long track will have to be at a low angle, increasing the amount of time the vehicle spends flying through air.
Angle it upward in the last few kilometers.
However, building even a 5km railgun would stress contemporary engineering techniques.
Yep. I figured, but at least the technologies involved are well understood, and exist today. That does give it a leg up over the space elevator.
Putting major quantities of nuclear fuel ontop of a rocket (that might explode in the atmosphere) will always be percieved as a major public hazard. The ~1% failure rate for orbital rockets is too risky for decent atomic payloads to be accepted. (There was an uproar over even the small Cassini reactor)
I am glad you said perceived because while the failure rate may be about 1%. The failure mode of a launch failure is a minimal threat. The fuel package should have similar qualities of an RTG, i.e. solid mass. So, on a launch failure (explosion) it get's thrown away as a solid mass. A bigger threat is reentry, since that could theoretically burn down the solid mass. Although apparently RTGs can even handle reentry, so you just put enough containment on the outside, so the radioactive fuel in not reached on an uncontrolled reentry.
Dastardly
The rail could be at most 6-7 km long, and of course propulsion stops once the vehicle is off the rail. So all the acceleration needed to reach orbit must happen in those 6 km. The existing shuttle keeps its rockets firing for more than 40 km of travel. Reaching the same speed with less than 1/7th the time to do it means that instead of an uncomfortable 3gs, the passengers would experience a lethal acceleration greater than 20 times the earth's gravity.
Actually, it is much much worse. A shuttle or rocket of any kind does not have to accelerate to surface escape velocity, it only has to accelerate to escape velocity at the altitude that the engines cut out.
Of course, why is the limit 6-7 km? Why not 100km, 200km? Put the exit at the top of a mountain and get a slightly lower escape velocity. Could this be done today... I have no idea, but making acceleration of passengers and cargo reasonable is an engineering problem not a fundamental design flaw. Actually, the worse acceleration problem is probably not getting to speed, but upon loss of propulsion the deceleration due to air. This would almost require a combined railgun rocket design. At a minimum enough rocket power to negate air resistance and thereby minimize g forces on the cargo and passengers.
I think my main point is that the focus has to be on at low cost means of putting #1 Cargo and #2 People in low earth orbit. Once you can do that cheaply and reliably a lot of options become possible. Like:
1) Manned mission to Mars
Build a second ISS with ion engines. Probably nuclear powered. Attach a landing craft. Go to Mars orbit. Drop landing craft. Do work. Go back to orbit. Return to earth.
2) Much bigger robotic missions to other planets. Assemble them in space.
3) Space shuttle (literally) a craft to shuttle around orbits between LEO and the moon, that never lands. Fuel can be sent up on the low cost launch system. The craft can be used to maintain earth orbiting satelites.
One thing Bush does have right is that to get any farther than we have, we need nuclear powered craft.
Dastardly
We're finally seeing an admission from the aerospace establishment that the shuttle has failed as an experiment. Wings on space craft are essentially a burden.
Wings could be useful if you horizontally launched the spacecraft. Although putting the wings on the space stage may not be such a great idea. But, hauling a spacecraft to 50 or 60 thousand feet using conventional jet aircraft, then firing rockets to get the space stage to space could reduce the payload to weight ratio.
Another launch system I wish would be considered is the rail gun. A miles long tunnel whose exit was at altitude, and magnetically accelerated the spacecraft to high velocities would also increase payload to weight ratio. You don't even have to get to escape velocity on exit. Any amount of velocity or altitude that can be acquired from sources other than those carried on the spacecraft reduce the amount of fuel the space craft has to carry, and improves the payload to weight ratio. Not to mention non-rocket energy sources should be mor eeffcient.
Dastardly
No, nuclear waste cannot be managed and contained safely. You're spouting exactly the kind of BS that the Yucca Mountain supporters want you to believe. Tool.
No, fossil fuel waste cannot be managed and contained safely. You're spouting exactly the kind of BS that the no nuclear anywhere crowd wants you to believe. Tool.
What woudl you rather deal with a few tons of solid nuclear waste? Or, millions of tons of gaseous waste?
Dastardly
2) Let's use big expendable boosters to get hardware to LEO, and smaller expendable boosters to get people to LEO. Put the people in modern versions of the Apollo or Gemini craft (the so-called "Big" Gemini was an appropos solution)>
The only problem I have is expendable had better not mean leave in space which would be bad. And, recoverable for recycling would be nice, why waste all that metal. Reusable is ideal, but may be more costly than making a new one, and recycling the old.
1) Any human space travel beyond LEO will start from LEO in spacecraft built in LEO and that return to LEO. If we do that, we will never need to spend money trying to build airplane-spacecraft hybrids.
This is smart for two reasons.
1) The engineering specs for a craft that never has to deal with an atmosphere are very different from a craft that has to deal with moving through atmosphere and overcoming surface gravity.
2) Two words - ION Engines. They are very efficient, fast and work well from low earth orbit.
3) Could make nuclear powered spacecraft more feasible and safer. It is probably safer to launch the reactor and fuel separated for assembly in space, than to launch a ready to go reactor that is just fired up in space.
Dastardly
I went to my boss last week (I work directly for the CFO, so IT isn't his top priority), and told him that this is crazy, and that one person cannot possible meet this companies IT demands. He said he realizes that, but I'm not getting another warm body until at least 'Next Spring'. I just wanted to walk out right there.
The first thing you do is stop thinking of yourself as a peon, who has to do whatever anyone tells you. You report directly to the CFO who reports to the CEO. Even is a 100 person company how many people are 2 steps from the CEO and not management?
You have to wear two hats. One hat is the IT manager, which menas you have to prioritize the time of your employees (you) and decide what gets done when. The other hat is the IT worker who performs the tasks that the IT manager assigns him.
Next you need to go through and take your time, and start allocating it. I don't know how long stuff takes for you so this example is pulled out of my ass. Take a 40 hour week. Allocate 20 hours to direct support tasks, take the 20 left over and schedule you projects in that time. Leave an hour or 2 a week for managing your time. some may say a 40 hour week will get you laid off, but reality never actually ends up in 40 hour weeks. Crises will occur and you will end up working 50 hours. Or, you will underestimate the scope of a project, but decide it is worthwhile to put in some extra hours to bring it in on time anyways. So, starting with 40 hours will keep things from getting out of control. And, don't forget you take vacations.
Then, when you have your time figured out, whenever some one comes to you with a project. You size it, prioritize it, and schedule it. You then give the person a start and completion date. If you are scheduled too far out you then have to tell the person, I won't have any time to start that for 6 months, but don't give astrt or completion date because you can't ee that far ahead.
You will have to speak with your boss though, and let him know what you are doing. Because when people have a problem with your prioritization or scheduling they will go over your head. But, if he has the paper showing what is scheduled when. Rather than just saying, "Yes" and making you attempt to do it. He should make the other person justify why their project is more important than everything else.
You need your boss to back you up when you say, "No". And, it sounds like he knows the problem, so fi you tell people "No", and give hime the facts to justify your "No" he should back you up, or if he does override you, it will involve dropping or deprioritizing something else. It sounds like your boss is a decent guy, so organize your time on "paper" (electronically works too), and you may find things will work out.
Dastardly
Ok. Maybe I am dense and have not delved into the depths of what works with KDE what works with Gnome and what doesn't. But, in my experience which desktop I choose doesn't change which applications I can run. Gnome programs will run in KDE and KDE apps will run in Gnome as long as both are installed and hence libraries installed.
About the only thing I can think of that is needed is an installer that will put a program you install into both desktop's menus. Otherwise a distribution maker can decide to standardize on one desktop and still have any program run just by installing the right libraries.
If I have missed something please let me know.
Dastardly
But "boring" is too much the result of either too little imagination, sleepiness/depression, or misunderstanding.
A friend of mine said they didn't like it. They then said, they were pretty drunk when they saw it. You then take into account being driven to the theatre, getting tickets, snacks, watchign previews. About half way through the movie the alchohol should be making the person real tired. I suggested seeing it again sometime, sober, and with a good nights sleep.
Dastardly
If it is, then it would appear that their claim that MySQL is under the GPL is false - they place additional limits on distribution, which IIRC the GPL prohibits.
Not exactly. Because the GPL makes it so if you ship software that requires linking to GPL software to work then that software must be GPL. This is why the LGPL exists.
After some thought, I came to the conclusion that databases are a weird case. Because doesn't a database driver have to link to the database software. I think the LGPL is compatible. But, if the driver is GPL, then trying to link your software to the driver forces an open source license on your software to comply with the GPL.
Note, this is of course only if you distribute software.
Dastardly
It appears to have changed since I last checked some time ago.
Dastardly
The MySQL folks seem to think so. At least, when we talked to them about this, they insisted that if we even tested our application against MySQL to ensure interoperability, we would have to GPL our code or cut a commercial license distribution deal with them.
If this isn't what I said, it is what I meant. This was the impression I got from their website which stopped me from even using their database for a project. One question though.
How do you write a jdbc Java app for MySQL without putting at least a class.forname()? Because if you cannot eliminate that line you have explicitly linked to a GPL'd piece of software which under the GPL means your software should be GPL. Remember the GPL considers linked software a derivative application, the LGPL explicitly allows linking.
Dastardly
For some reason, everybody seems to think the GPL requires everything to be on a FTP site..
Good point, although it turns out the internet is probably the cheapest ways to distribute source as necessary, since you don't have to have some one handle preparing and shipping media. And, can spend that persons time on something that is actually profitable.
Dastardly
MySQL is an interesting situation because the GPL makes it so that if you ship an application that requires interaction with a MySQL database then that application must be GPL. This is because MySQL is GPL, then the ODBC and JDBC drivers must be GPL, therefore the application that uses the drivers must be GPL. So, if you want to ship your application under a different license you need a license from MySQL AB.
If MySQL were LGPL MySQL AB would not have a licensing business.
Dastardly
So they cannot distribute Linux, but could still distribute Samba, GCC, et al. unless they made similar moves against them.
But, how can they attack Linux on grounds that the GPL is not valid, then turn around and take rights to other software under the GPL. While at this time Samba, GCC, et al. cannot sue SCO. They could request written clarification of SCO's acceptance of the GPL, if SCO were dumb enough to write that letter, they can hand a copy over to IBM to demonstrate SCO's acceptance that the GPL is legal. But, they still can't sue SCO, yet. The lawsuits could only occur if SCO somehow wins on grounds the GPL is invalid, in which case all copyright holders of GPL software that SCO has ever distributed sue SCO for infringement. Because if the GPL is declared not valid, it was never valid, and therefore SCO has been infringing since day 1.
Dastardly
But in the _real_ world, the employer can spend so much time and money making life difficult that it would have been better to be fired.
And, at least if they fire you you get a severance. Right?
When you were jolted by 110 volt power and nothing happened what really happened was that the current was travelling on the outside surface of your skin (probably being conducted via sweat and oils) instead of through the inside of your body and that's why you aren't dead or horribly burned right now.
Actually, the reason nothing happened is that the resistance of dry skin is about 100Kohms. So, the current passing through you body was only about 1 milliamp. Current gets deadly at 50milliamps. Length of exposure is a factor. If you hold on long enough your skin will burn and eventually the contact point will reach juicy flesh reducing you resistance to the point where deadly current is passing through your body.
I'm no electrition, but isn't 60 Hz a measure of frequency, which is neither amps nor volts and shouldn't have anything to do with deadliness?
Very high frequency AC for some reason conducts across the surface fo the skin. Therefore it is much less deadly than 60Hz AC because the currect doesn't pass through your heart.
The strange coincidence was that at the peak of a hot season the power companies decided to pull several of their major generators "for maintenance" right before the failuers.
At any one time the power that could have been produced by generators in maintenance didn't come close to what that one reactor could generate. Putting those generators in maintenance would not have been a problem had that reactor been running. Every game that was played was dependent on the supply just barely meeting demand. The conditions where taking Natural Gas generators down for maintenance could drive prices up significantly would not have occurred had the San Onofre reactor been running.
Dastardly
It was the REGULATIONS put in place that caused everything to fall apart, not a lack of them.
Possibly, but if one of the San Onofre's 1100MW reactors had not been down, in combination with droughts in the Pacific Northwest, demand may not have outstripped supply.
Dastardly
The california problems were cronic problems that went on over a long period of time.
What no one seems to talk about is the 1100MW nuclear reactor that could not produce power during the time due to refueling and then a busted turbine. That is what put the production on the hairy edge of demand, and then by gaming the system other producers were able to extend their profits.
Dastardly