Counterstrike seems like the wrong work to me also. More of a rear guard action.
I have not been following this that closely, but if I recall correctly AMD has updated cores coming out early in 2007. And, I would hope they had some idea of what Intel had coming, so they would be prepared in 2007. So, we might end up seeing a leap frog process over the next few years. INtel will be fastest for 6-12 months, then AMD for 6-12 months, then Intel, then AMD... Until one of them stumbles and tries a design that does not perform.
It is not the judge they were worried about. It was IBM since if they gave IBM time to look over the code before trail IBM would have been able to do the research to show it was covered under the BSD agreement. Or, it was IBM owned code and SCO had no claims.
What is ironic is that by not showing any specific code, SCO may have shot themselves in the foot. IANAL but my understanding is that with code, even if it were very weak that it was actually misappropriated, could have got those claims in front of a jury. And, in the end that is SCO's only hope to get their claims infront of a jury of lay people who may not understand IBM's presentation of why that code is in Linux perfectly legally.
About the only thing it gets right are the things quoted from teh ruling. So, read the Groklaw article.
The judge did not throw out any evidence. The judge threw out a bunch of SCO's claims against IBM because SCO did not provide IBM with what specifically IBM did that caused SCO to bring those claims agains IBM. IBM asked what version, file, and line of code SCO was claiming IBM used improperly, and SCO did not tell them. So, the judge said you cannot litigate those claims against IBM because IBM cannot defend themselves without knowing exactly what you are claiming they did.
There is another set of motion practice going on to get some parts of SCO's expert reports stricken due to them bringing up supposed misconduct that was not part of what SCO has in their pleadings or that SCO mentioned during discovery. This could result in much of those expert reports being stricken which could properly be called throwing out evidence vs throwing out claims.
Actually, it is some evidence, theory that makes support initial evidence and makes new predictions, then more evidence in the form of verification of predictions.
Actually, I would argue global warming is evidence not theory. There is plenty of data showing globally rising temperatures. The theory is that there is a significant human contribution to that rising temperature due to burning of fossil fuels. One prediction of this theory is that carbon in the air and water would show a isotopis signatures consitent with carbon from very old sources (litte C-14). Additional evidence of human contirbution is in the timing of the temperature rise, the correlation of CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the distant past to global temperature, and computer models. I am sure there are more, but I don't know them all.
Personally, I don't want to wait for much more evidence say in the form of 4+ degree rise in average global temperature and the flooding, hurricanes, and economic disruption that said temperature rise and climate change would cause. Because, by then all you can do is say, "I told you so."
It is actually simpler. You are looking for the spectrum of the atmosphere. Then, based on that spectrum determine the composition. If the atmosphere is of a composition that is stable in the absence of life then it is unlikely there is life. Although there could be life that does not interac twiith the atmosphere.
If the atmosphere composition is unstable then there must be a mechanism maintaining that stability. One of those is life. The trick will be trying to exclude geological processes.
None of these is definitive proof of life or lack of life, but they should narrow the field and allow us to pick high probability targets for further study.
But the great thing about it is, if some parts are invalidated, the situation just reverts back to plain copyright law and whoever was breaking the GPL has even less permission than they did before.
Nope. A judge would take a very dim view if you sue me for distributing your software after you have given me explicit permission to do so. You might have some legal grounds to quibble over trivialities, but for all practical matters the software would still be Free Software.
I think you are missing the chain here...
The key clause being "if some parts are made invalid." If you cannot comply with the GPL due to some legal ruling saying the GPL license is not valid, you no longer have any permsission to make copies of the software.
Now it is unlikely you could be sued for your prior use of the software, as you had a reasonable expectation that what you were doing was with the permission of the copyright holder because you were obeying the license the copyright holder put on the software. But, if that license is made invalid everything reverts to copyrght law and you no longer have any license giving you permission to use or distribute some one else's copyrighted work aka the software. So, any subsequent distribution would be subject to copyright law and without a new license, illegal.
This is where people knowledgeable about the GPL and copyright law laugh at those who want to invalidate it thinking that it makes the software public domain. If the license is invalid there is no license which means the copyright holder retains all rights and no one has permission to distribute the software anymore. There is no law or legal precedent that automatically makes a copyrighted work public domain other than expiration of the copyright term. If there were there would not be the problem of so many orphaned copyrighted works that cannot be archived or rescued because the copyright holder cannot be identified.
In a lower post you say if you pay money for a license you are allowed to use the software. But, we can show the same effect there as well. Click wrap licenses are a good example since they have had portions ruled invalid or unenforceable before. The key is that the copyright holder did have a choice they could have revoked the license and you would no longer have permission to use the software, but more typically they just let you continue using the software under the same license minus the invalidated clause, or more analagous to the GPL issue under a new license that is the same as the original minus the invalidated clause. If they did revoke the license because of the invalidated clause, I suspect you could reasonably sue for a refund of your license fee, and they could not sue you for prior use because you reasonably thought you had a license. In the end there is nothing in it for the copyright holder of paid software to revoke licenses when some egregious license term that they really had no intention of ever enforcing gets invalidated.
Yes, we are. First, all of that is solar. Second we eat a significant portion of that solar, and if we don't want to be the only living creatures aside from those that live off us, other animals eeat that solar. Plus, their are inedible polants that eat that solar.
And, we do need fresh water so a significant portion of that energy converts salt water to freshwater. And, if we want rivers and lakes we should waste some of that solar energy to let the water flow down hill. And, to avoid weather disruption some needs to be wasted on heating the planet normally.
Terrestial solar is definitely a finite resource, and could be much more finite than you think. Have you mutiplied the solar energy in an American diet times 6 billion people. Then compare that to total solar insolation.
Space based solar is a much bigger resource and effectivly infinite until we figure some really neat new things to use all that energy for.
This is why a proposal fo ronsite pyroprocessing of spent fuel is a proposal. The pyro facility should be small enough and efficient enough to be located at the same site as the reactors. Pyroprocessing while I guess it can be tuned to put out pure Plutonium, I understand it is much easier to do when the result is a fuel mix of Pu-239 and U-238, which cannot be used for a weapon without a lot of additional processing, but is great for a fast neutron reactor.
The waste is highly radioactive but relatively short lived products. Something like 1,000 year to reach the same radioactivity as the original Uranium ore, instead of 10,000 year like the unprocessed waste. Plus, reprocessing allows the use of about 100x more of the energy avaiable in the original ore. Basically, translating to 1/100th of the waste per MWh.
Actually, as per the article waste is only a big problem when you can't recycle it to make more fuel. Doing so cuts down the amount of "waste" dramatically.
Just to be clear. It cuts down the waste to energy ratio. As you should end up with pretty much the same amount of waste as fuel. Even a fission reactions only converts a tiny bit of mass to energy, so that should not be a significant factor. You just get about 100x more energy out of a given amount of fuel.
The article previously described those concerns: that, *excluding* anthropogenic alterations, which they *specifically stated that they could not model well at the time* (quite the contrast to the present, where the papers state that we *can* model quite accurately**), there would be another ice age in *tens of thousands of years*.
Interestingly read recently that anthropogenic alterations actually started approximately 8000 years ago with the advent of agriculture. And, that the result of said modification is humanity avoided the ice age that we should be in the middle of right now due to orbital factors. So, modern information suggests the prediction of a glacial period in about 10,000 years was also wrong as that woul dbe time for another interglacial period. (The orbital cycle in question is ~22,000 years)
If you see a guy driving a minivan, he obviously has a job, a wife, some kids, etc. etc. It may not be true in certain cases, but that's how society "sees" you.
And, why is this a bad thing? Talk about a societal problem. How is it a bad thing for a MAN to have a job, a wife, and kids. I guess it is more important to not get ripped on by other men without those things, than to have a lot of women wish you were their MAN.
The fact that they move may also be a factor. Maybe it helps to keep the dirt from getting crusty (although that might require moisture), and thus make breezes, gusts, and whirl winds a littl emore effective.
Rep. Lorie Fowlke (R-Orem) pointed out that HB 257 is the most narrowly defined legislation of these kinds of violent games bills. "I think it is worth a try," she said. "Otherwise we give up and say the court will always determine our values."
And, Dastardly said, "It is worth a try to keep these bills from being passed otherwise we give up and say the politicians will always determine our values."
Depends on where it snaps. There is a lot of talk about tension here, but the whole thing is really hed up by orbital dynamics. So, if it were to break the result would depend on the location.
The center of gravity would be very close to geosynchronous orbit, so it makes me wonder whether a break at the bottom would result in slow drift due to a slight difference between the rotation of the cable structure and the rotation of the earth. If it snapped outside the atmospher the section below would fall due to being too slow to be orbital for their altitude. Everything above would continue circling, but since the center of gravity will have moved up it will be slower than earth orbit.
Basically, the stuff below the break would drop and accelerate probably breaking up depending on where the break was. The stuff below would continue with a different orbit. I suspect the only stuff landing on the planet would be the first 100 miles or so. Everything else would either stay in orbit or burn up. Which is why an ocean base is ideal since there will be plenty of water for the cable to fall in and not people.
Correct onboard power is not feasible, but the lifters initial job that requires the laser propulsion is not lifting cargo it is lifting more cable. Thousands if not millions of strands. At that point running superconducting wire along the tower will not be terribly difficult.
To pull this off there will be thousands if not millions of strands. The first one is mostly to get things started. Once the first one is set up the climber than has to start pulling all the other strands that will make up the final cable. I expect the final cable will look more like a tower extending upwards beyond sight than a "cable".
There is the rail gun concept of science fiction fame (Moon is a Harsh Mistress; Asimov) where they don't even use a rocket, but simply magnetically accelerate a ferrous container over a many miles long course to get it to escape velocity by the time it reached the end. The length of the launch tube dictates the amountof acceleration. And, there are issues with friction during the acceleration phase, but ballisticaly launching something including people safely into space is probably less difficult than the space elevator.
There is absolutely no way that a space elevator wouldn't completely revolutionize space travel.
And, you do not need to carry your motive energy source with you on the space elevator. Run an eletrical line up the elevator and have the transport climber use that for energy. (I think the laser version is for construction.) Or, better use solar energy from the station at the top.
Think of how much energy is used by a rocket to move 90+% of the fuel the first 100m upward. Think about how much of a rocket's energy is being used simply to launch the remaining fuel to the height where it will be used. Now imagine all that energy not being needed. And, all the energy needed to launch the container for that fuel. That is what will make the space elevator revolutionary the energy requirement per lb to get to geosynch orbit will be a fraction of the current level. And, that energy can be provided by ground or space based fixed energy resources.
The coutner weight is not there for tension it is there to counter balance the weight of the cable such that the center of gravity is at geosynchronous oribit. The result is that the entire thing moves in step with teh earths surface. That is not to say there is not tension, just that it is not simple.
That is the act. Ivy league rich kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth who never had to work for anything in his life, but decided acting like a texas rancher would be fun. Which act got him elected governor of Texas and president of the US.
Well, that depends... You are correct it is about calories. The way I look at it is this way though.
1 tablespoon of fat (oil, butter, mayo, etc..) 100Cal 1 oz dry pasta 100Cal 1 slice of bread 100Cal 1.5-2.5oz of meat (depending on animal) 100cal (40-70cal/oz) 5-10 oz vegetables (depending on fiber content) 100Cal.
The way I see it all diets that work control calories the differences are about making it easier to eat less calories. Atkins works because it easier to eat 800 calories of pasta, than a 12oz steak. Of course vegetables are a better way to go, since it would take a couple pounds of most vegetables to equal the steak or pasta. Even giving 200 calories for 2 tbls of full fat dressing.
And soda is a problem just because it is really easy to drink 500 calories without really noticing. That is only about 3 12 Oz cans. 1 at lunch, 1 atmid-afternoon, and 1 at dinner. Then, you have to only eat about 1500 calories in solid food which I think tends to be very unstatisfying, so if you are not paying attention you actually eat say 1800Cal of food and 500Cal of soda and start gaining a pound every 10 days. (assuming you don't exercise the extra 300/day calories away).
Slashdot Mirror
Counterstrike seems like the wrong work to me also. More of a rear guard action.
I have not been following this that closely, but if I recall correctly AMD has updated cores coming out early in 2007. And, I would hope they had some idea of what Intel had coming, so they would be prepared in 2007. So, we might end up seeing a leap frog process over the next few years. INtel will be fastest for 6-12 months, then AMD for 6-12 months, then Intel, then AMD... Until one of them stumbles and tries a design that does not perform.
How about 4 cores and 4 memory channels?
It is not the judge they were worried about. It was IBM since if they gave IBM time to look over the code before trail IBM would have been able to do the research to show it was covered under the BSD agreement. Or, it was IBM owned code and SCO had no claims.
What is ironic is that by not showing any specific code, SCO may have shot themselves in the foot. IANAL but my understanding is that with code, even if it were very weak that it was actually misappropriated, could have got those claims in front of a jury. And, in the end that is SCO's only hope to get their claims infront of a jury of lay people who may not understand IBM's presentation of why that code is in Linux perfectly legally.
About the only thing it gets right are the things quoted from teh ruling. So, read the Groklaw article.
The judge did not throw out any evidence. The judge threw out a bunch of SCO's claims against IBM because SCO did not provide IBM with what specifically IBM did that caused SCO to bring those claims agains IBM. IBM asked what version, file, and line of code SCO was claiming IBM used improperly, and SCO did not tell them. So, the judge said you cannot litigate those claims against IBM because IBM cannot defend themselves without knowing exactly what you are claiming they did.
There is another set of motion practice going on to get some parts of SCO's expert reports stricken due to them bringing up supposed misconduct that was not part of what SCO has in their pleadings or that SCO mentioned during discovery. This could result in much of those expert reports being stricken which could properly be called throwing out evidence vs throwing out claims.
Actually, it is some evidence, theory that makes support initial evidence and makes new predictions, then more evidence in the form of verification of predictions.
Actually, I would argue global warming is evidence not theory. There is plenty of data showing globally rising temperatures. The theory is that there is a significant human contribution to that rising temperature due to burning of fossil fuels. One prediction of this theory is that carbon in the air and water would show a isotopis signatures consitent with carbon from very old sources (litte C-14). Additional evidence of human contirbution is in the timing of the temperature rise, the correlation of CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the distant past to global temperature, and computer models. I am sure there are more, but I don't know them all.
Personally, I don't want to wait for much more evidence say in the form of 4+ degree rise in average global temperature and the flooding, hurricanes, and economic disruption that said temperature rise and climate change would cause. Because, by then all you can do is say, "I told you so."
Perhaps he was referring to the fact that it is plate tectonics. Not techtonics?
It is actually simpler. You are looking for the spectrum of the atmosphere. Then, based on that spectrum determine the composition. If the atmosphere is of a composition that is stable in the absence of life then it is unlikely there is life. Although there could be life that does not interac twiith the atmosphere.
If the atmosphere composition is unstable then there must be a mechanism maintaining that stability. One of those is life. The trick will be trying to exclude geological processes.
None of these is definitive proof of life or lack of life, but they should narrow the field and allow us to pick high probability targets for further study.
But the great thing about it is, if some parts are invalidated, the situation just reverts back to plain copyright law and whoever was breaking the GPL has even less permission than they did before.
Nope. A judge would take a very dim view if you sue me for distributing your software after you have given me explicit permission to do so. You might have some legal grounds to quibble over trivialities, but for all practical matters the software would still be Free Software.
I think you are missing the chain here...
The key clause being "if some parts are made invalid." If you cannot comply with the GPL due to some legal ruling saying the GPL license is not valid, you no longer have any permsission to make copies of the software.
Now it is unlikely you could be sued for your prior use of the software, as you had a reasonable expectation that what you were doing was with the permission of the copyright holder because you were obeying the license the copyright holder put on the software. But, if that license is made invalid everything reverts to copyrght law and you no longer have any license giving you permission to use or distribute some one else's copyrighted work aka the software. So, any subsequent distribution would be subject to copyright law and without a new license, illegal.
This is where people knowledgeable about the GPL and copyright law laugh at those who want to invalidate it thinking that it makes the software public domain. If the license is invalid there is no license which means the copyright holder retains all rights and no one has permission to distribute the software anymore. There is no law or legal precedent that automatically makes a copyrighted work public domain other than expiration of the copyright term. If there were there would not be the problem of so many orphaned copyrighted works that cannot be archived or rescued because the copyright holder cannot be identified.
In a lower post you say if you pay money for a license you are allowed to use the software. But, we can show the same effect there as well. Click wrap licenses are a good example since they have had portions ruled invalid or unenforceable before. The key is that the copyright holder did have a choice they could have revoked the license and you would no longer have permission to use the software, but more typically they just let you continue using the software under the same license minus the invalidated clause, or more analagous to the GPL issue under a new license that is the same as the original minus the invalidated clause. If they did revoke the license because of the invalidated clause, I suspect you could reasonably sue for a refund of your license fee, and they could not sue you for prior use because you reasonably thought you had a license. In the end there is nothing in it for the copyright holder of paid software to revoke licenses when some egregious license term that they really had no intention of ever enforcing gets invalidated.
Yes, we are. First, all of that is solar. Second we eat a significant portion of that solar, and if we don't want to be the only living creatures aside from those that live off us, other animals eeat that solar. Plus, their are inedible polants that eat that solar.
And, we do need fresh water so a significant portion of that energy converts salt water to freshwater. And, if we want rivers and lakes we should waste some of that solar energy to let the water flow down hill. And, to avoid weather disruption some needs to be wasted on heating the planet normally.
Terrestial solar is definitely a finite resource, and could be much more finite than you think. Have you mutiplied the solar energy in an American diet times 6 billion people. Then compare that to total solar insolation.
Space based solar is a much bigger resource and effectivly infinite until we figure some really neat new things to use all that energy for.
This is why a proposal fo ronsite pyroprocessing of spent fuel is a proposal. The pyro facility should be small enough and efficient enough to be located at the same site as the reactors. Pyroprocessing while I guess it can be tuned to put out pure Plutonium, I understand it is much easier to do when the result is a fuel mix of Pu-239 and U-238, which cannot be used for a weapon without a lot of additional processing, but is great for a fast neutron reactor.
The waste is highly radioactive but relatively short lived products. Something like 1,000 year to reach the same radioactivity as the original Uranium ore, instead of 10,000 year like the unprocessed waste. Plus, reprocessing allows the use of about 100x more of the energy avaiable in the original ore. Basically, translating to 1/100th of the waste per MWh.
Actually, as per the article waste is only a big problem when you can't recycle it to make more fuel. Doing so cuts down the amount of "waste" dramatically.
Just to be clear. It cuts down the waste to energy ratio. As you should end up with pretty much the same amount of waste as fuel. Even a fission reactions only converts a tiny bit of mass to energy, so that should not be a significant factor. You just get about 100x more energy out of a given amount of fuel.
The article previously described those concerns: that, *excluding* anthropogenic alterations, which they *specifically stated that they could not model well at the time* (quite the contrast to the present, where the papers state that we *can* model quite accurately**), there would be another ice age in *tens of thousands of years*.
Interestingly read recently that anthropogenic alterations actually started approximately 8000 years ago with the advent of agriculture. And, that the result of said modification is humanity avoided the ice age that we should be in the middle of right now due to orbital factors. So, modern information suggests the prediction of a glacial period in about 10,000 years was also wrong as that woul dbe time for another interglacial period. (The orbital cycle in question is ~22,000 years)
If you see a guy driving a minivan, he obviously has a job, a wife, some kids, etc. etc. It may not be true in certain cases, but that's how society "sees" you.
And, why is this a bad thing? Talk about a societal problem. How is it a bad thing for a MAN to have a job, a wife, and kids. I guess it is more important to not get ripped on by other men without those things, than to have a lot of women wish you were their MAN.
The fact that they move may also be a factor. Maybe it helps to keep the dirt from getting crusty (although that might require moisture), and thus make breezes, gusts, and whirl winds a littl emore effective.
let along a fucking one.
And, of course that is impossible since there is no fucking in World of Warcraft.
Rep. Lorie Fowlke (R-Orem) pointed out that HB 257 is the most narrowly defined legislation of these kinds of violent games bills. "I think it is worth a try," she said. "Otherwise we give up and say the court will always determine our values."
And, Dastardly said, "It is worth a try to keep these bills from being passed otherwise we give up and say the politicians will always determine our values."
Depends on where it snaps. There is a lot of talk about tension here, but the whole thing is really hed up by orbital dynamics. So, if it were to break the result would depend on the location.
The center of gravity would be very close to geosynchronous orbit, so it makes me wonder whether a break at the bottom would result in slow drift due to a slight difference between the rotation of the cable structure and the rotation of the earth. If it snapped outside the atmospher the section below would fall due to being too slow to be orbital for their altitude. Everything above would continue circling, but since the center of gravity will have moved up it will be slower than earth orbit.
Basically, the stuff below the break would drop and accelerate probably breaking up depending on where the break was. The stuff below would continue with a different orbit. I suspect the only stuff landing on the planet would be the first 100 miles or so. Everything else would either stay in orbit or burn up. Which is why an ocean base is ideal since there will be plenty of water for the cable to fall in and not people.
Correct onboard power is not feasible, but the lifters initial job that requires the laser propulsion is not lifting cargo it is lifting more cable. Thousands if not millions of strands. At that point running superconducting wire along the tower will not be terribly difficult.
To pull this off there will be thousands if not millions of strands. The first one is mostly to get things started. Once the first one is set up the climber than has to start pulling all the other strands that will make up the final cable. I expect the final cable will look more like a tower extending upwards beyond sight than a "cable".
There is the rail gun concept of science fiction fame (Moon is a Harsh Mistress; Asimov) where they don't even use a rocket, but simply magnetically accelerate a ferrous container over a many miles long course to get it to escape velocity by the time it reached the end. The length of the launch tube dictates the amountof acceleration. And, there are issues with friction during the acceleration phase, but ballisticaly launching something including people safely into space is probably less difficult than the space elevator.
There is absolutely no way that a space elevator wouldn't completely revolutionize space travel.
And, you do not need to carry your motive energy source with you on the space elevator. Run an eletrical line up the elevator and have the transport climber use that for energy. (I think the laser version is for construction.) Or, better use solar energy from the station at the top.
Think of how much energy is used by a rocket to move 90+% of the fuel the first 100m upward. Think about how much of a rocket's energy is being used simply to launch the remaining fuel to the height where it will be used. Now imagine all that energy not being needed. And, all the energy needed to launch the container for that fuel. That is what will make the space elevator revolutionary the energy requirement per lb to get to geosynch orbit will be a fraction of the current level. And, that energy can be provided by ground or space based fixed energy resources.
The coutner weight is not there for tension it is there to counter balance the weight of the cable such that the center of gravity is at geosynchronous oribit. The result is that the entire thing moves in step with teh earths surface. That is not to say there is not tension, just that it is not simple.
Too bad Bose speakers are incapable of reproducing 20Khz. But, not to worry that $150 home theater in a bok has no problem with 20kHz.
unsophisticated monkey such as George Bush.
That is the act. Ivy league rich kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth who never had to work for anything in his life, but decided acting like a texas rancher would be fun. Which act got him elected governor of Texas and president of the US.
Well, that depends... You are correct it is about calories. The way I look at it is this way though.
1 tablespoon of fat (oil, butter, mayo, etc..) 100Cal
1 oz dry pasta 100Cal
1 slice of bread 100Cal
1.5-2.5oz of meat (depending on animal) 100cal (40-70cal/oz)
5-10 oz vegetables (depending on fiber content) 100Cal.
The way I see it all diets that work control calories the differences are about making it easier to eat less calories. Atkins works because it easier to eat 800 calories of pasta, than a 12oz steak. Of course vegetables are a better way to go, since it would take a couple pounds of most vegetables to equal the steak or pasta. Even giving 200 calories for 2 tbls of full fat dressing.
And soda is a problem just because it is really easy to drink 500 calories without really noticing. That is only about 3 12 Oz cans. 1 at lunch, 1 atmid-afternoon, and 1 at dinner. Then, you have to only eat about 1500 calories in solid food which I think tends to be very unstatisfying, so if you are not paying attention you actually eat say 1800Cal of food and 500Cal of soda and start gaining a pound every 10 days. (assuming you don't exercise the extra 300/day calories away).