> "The power resulting from these collisions is 11,000 watts," >A buzzing mosquito should therefore be about 780W! I need to harness a few of this to power my car. Who needs horsepower (735W) when >mosquitopower are more powerful. Energy!=Power Power=Energy/Time Energy=Power*Time
The time taken for the collision is almost an instant. Not sure what the Energy of a "buzzing mosquito" (WTF kind of unit is that?) is. Certainly if you had an endless supply of "buzzing mosquito's"(lol), you could run your car on them (of course the weight cost would probably be unbearable).
> if apple wants to create table pc style laptops, maybe palm has the right amount of IP and >technology for that?
Yeah because every other tablet manufacturer has had to buy Palm to make a tablet pc.
Newsflash, you can license IP without buying other companies, and generally it works out a lot cheaper.
Mind you, it would be a sad day if Apple did buy palm, it would probably kill the Palm->linux conversion. Wait was that going to happen or was that a baseless rumour.
>I however would LOVE to see a PC built into an old UNIX manual has anyone seen such a case mod? Desecrate a UNIX manual, HERETIC! Let the great gods of computing rain fiery hell down on you.
> My two main gripes, > >* GIMP worst file open/save dialog box ever I assume you are referring to GIMP for windows. I'm using Gimp 2.2 on Gentoo, and it uses the Gnome file requestors which IMO are the best file requestors ever. I have used the windows version and have to agree that the windows requestors suck hard. > >* Text tool is nearly useless I agree, it is very light-weight, however I don't see this as much of a problem. Generally if I need to do titles or banners I use inkscape, GIMP is generally the wrong tool for the job in that situation.
What I'd really like to see would be colorspace independance (CMYK, Float, Arbitrary sized palette), that, and macro recording.
>Heterosexual, homosexual... if you want to focus on sexual deviation, consider: the disease was first found in primates, and then >"somehow" made the species jump. Wrap your head around that.
Duh, just ask any raving loony, havn't you heard "the CIA sprays HIV virus".
>Data structures with 32-bit pointers are smaller than those with 64-bit pointers, so the data structure takes less of a chunk out of >your cache (hopefully reducing the number of cache misses, where you have to fetch stuff from slower main memory) and less of a chunk >out of your main memory (hopefully reducing the number of page faults, where you have to fetch stuff from an even slower disk or file >server).
so was I right that if you define a Uint64 (not sure what the non-sdl name for that is) on a sparc v9 or sgi64 or mmx, it uses 64 bit math in a 32bit object file, and does it use 64 bit reg's mem-cpy's (wait is memcpy a kernel or libc function) on those platforms.
>A small comfort maybe, its no better with IRIX, while 64bit MIPS cpus have been around for 'some time' now as well, the last version >I used (6.5.something) still had 32 and 64bit libraries, and a whole bunch of 32bit binaries (but then, it did also run on the older >r4000 and the like still)
The way I was explained it (with regards as to why my ultrasparc uses 32bit userland), is that 32/64bit refers to address pointers and that 64 bit address pointers introduce a performance penalty (not sure why).
My understanding is that 32 bit binaries compiled for a 64bit arch still have the benefits of 64 bit math (and mov's?), but use 32 bit address pointers, so as to use less memory or whatever it is that makes them better. I could be wrong about that, but if it's optimised for a ultrasparc v9, why not use the v9 64 bit reg's, since it's not going to run on a 32 bit sparc anyway.
Can anyone with a clue explain that better? Please no trolls raving about how 64bit is uber fast and will pwn my noobage box please.
On a related note amd64's are faster because they have a better instruction set and more registers, not because of 64 bit math(which all machines since the P-Pro have anyway, mmx anyone?).
Or so I'm told, I've never had a chance to do any tests or profiling on an amd64, and gcc -m64 doesn't work on my Sunblade 100 under Gnu/Gentoo/gcc3.3 .
>What if the DRMed hardware is a TiVo (running Linux) instead of a book reader? TiVo verifies that all OS software is signed by TiVo >Inc. before running it. Unless you change the PROMs soldered to the motherboard to skip the checks there's no way of running your own >code on currently sold units. >Most users are reluctant or unable to try microsoldering tiny chips in an expensive piece of electronics.
I don't get how they can legally do this (IANAL), surely if the Object code is signed, then to comply with (even v2 of the GPL) the source code should generate signed Object code also. If it generates different object code, or unsigned object code, then it isn't really the source code. That would be like distributing a modified (linux)kernel, and when asked for source code giving them the original un-modified code instead.
from : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL --- Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.
Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself. ---
>Shouldn't there be a possibility to make changes to the GPL and release your software under your own, derivative license? (Scary, I >know, but someone might want to do it.) They seem to forbid it as it is now.
I was under the impression that you could make derivatives, you just couldn't then go and call it the GPL, you had to call it something else. I could be entirely wrong though.
First of all IANAL, all of what I wrote could be complete BS. I don't even know if you expected answers, but here goes.
>Interesting, I suppose I'll have to answer you with yet another few questions:
>While 'obvious' patents are an issue everywhere, why is it that it seems to be a much larger issue with software?
I don't have an answer to that question.
> Do the technical people not exist in order to determine if some piece of software is patentable?
With regards to interfaces, I would argue that it would be (relatively) straight-forward to determine if it was innovative. On the other hand, determining if an algorithm had ever been used in math, or software, seems practically impossible. Perhaps a (non-ideal) solution, would be to have some kind of public veto system. Better still would be no software patents.
> Why doesn't the patent office follow the same stringent rules on patenting software as they do for other disciplines?
I wouldn't know, perhaps they do? Certainly I'm not the one to ask. If you're a US citizen (I'm not), perhaps there's someone you could write to, but probably not.
> If the patent offices were to follow these so-called rules, would the problem disappear? I don't think so, or more, I don't think a full prior-art search is possible due to the nature of software (workings are obfuscated ((well at least in proprietary code, which I imagine has ~100% of patent holdings.)) ), and shear volume of software in existance.
> Should software be copyright? Isn't hardware in a sense copyrightable as well?
On one hand all control of distribution of information is artificial and against the nature of information and people. On the other hand there is a lot of software that is written to make money, that (probably) wouldn't of been written had it not been for copyright.
I myself try to use as little proprietry(sic?) software as I can make do with, and wouldn't even consider writing code that wasn't free.
>I could design the hardware in say VHDL, or whatever, copyright that, produce a piece of hardware on that design and then patent >the chip, could I not?
yes, but (assuming you didn't distribute VHDL) the copyright wouldn't buy you anything, as without the patent, someone else could make something else that functions identically without looking at your source, and hence wouldn't be infringing your copyright. However I think there's something called the "Chip Protection Act" or some such, that makes it illegal to copy someone elses chip design by reverse engineering, which kind of makes the case moot.
>Is it the documentation that is being patented for Hardware, and thus the documentation (assuming any were done) should be the item >submitted for patent? The way I understand it is that a patent covers method (and function?), i.e. someone can't do it the same way as you without paying you royalties, but again IANAL, IANAUSC (US Citizen). > Just a few thoughts I suppose.. Just a few more, perhaps I'm just rambling, who knows, not me.
> And then only a matter of time until Apple releases an update that breaks it again... True, but that won't stop "warez d00ds" from trying (and almost certainly succeeding).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating "stealing" (or actually stealing) MacOS X (why when I have Gentoo ((Mac,Windows Zealots please ignore, I don't care what OS you like/use)) ), but I imagine there would be significant interest from the warez scene, if only from the props for being the first.
Has anyone tried building it? Perhaps it already works, you can already run wine on Windows, FreeBSD and Solaris, so presumably it's straight-forward to build on OSX being *nix and posix, maybe a few work-arounds are needed, but surely nothing major.
Native rendering (not X11) could possibly need a bit more work, but other than that I can't really see any obstacles.
>What differentiates a piece of hardware from a piece of software, aside from the medium in which it is presented?
Personally I'm against software patents and indifferent to patents in general, but I guess the big difference is Software is already restricted by copyright, that and software patents are quite often (successfully) filed on trivial or obvious ideas. Also if you've read a software patent, they go against the principle of patents, full disclosure of mechanism. Most s-patents I've read are worded such, that they could cover 10-20 different things, and don't show you how the Licensor does even one thing.
Firstly, when did I ever say I'm an american, I live in New Zealand, and I've never even been to the USA. Secondly you missed my point, it wasn't that all keyboards should be US-layout (though in NZ they are), it was that you shouldn't be looking at the keyboard when you type you should be looking at the screen, and hence it doesn't matter what symbols are on the keyboard. Besides which I prefer the spanish layout as it is easier to type accents.
True, you do need to convert DC to AC (pulse wave is AC right?), however you don't require a transformer, to step up the voltage you'll probably need an inductor, but as you increase the modulation frequency you can decrease the inductance (and hence size) of the inductor. The wires in the inductor still have to be thick enough to handle the neccessary current though.
Ever tried getting a 12V horn relay and making it resonate, touch the terminals on that and you'll get a nasty shock.
IANAEE, but I worked in an electronics store for a while, and built a few switch-mode power supplies.
Has anyone else noticed that the keyboard layout is almost identical to a Sun Type 6. Those Keys are pretty swank, though I don't really see the point in it, Who looks at the keyboard when they type anyway?
>We need a new furnace for the house, but this beast will easily keep my house ( located in the nether regions of Canada ) warm all >winter. I am only disappointed that this rig will cost about the same as a new furnace. But it will be much more fun;), on the other hand a furnace isn't obsolete in 18 months.
> I think it's only fair they get a few perks seeing they created this world in an attempt to work out the meaning of life. Mice, it was mice. Details are important, or we'll end up with another stupid answer like 42.
Slashdot Mirror
Standard Chat and Messages are Client->Server->Client. File Transfer (and presumably voice and video) are Client ->Client.
Don't be ridiculous, you need the paddles to revive people. med-packs are for WIA.
>bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
;)
>
>LOL, i tried that once. Aside from crashing my box instantly, what does it do exactly?
That's what ulimits/quotas are for
> "The power resulting from these collisions is 11,000 watts,"
>A buzzing mosquito should therefore be about 780W! I need to harness a few of this to power my car. Who needs horsepower (735W) when >mosquitopower are more powerful.
Energy!=Power
Power=Energy/Time
Energy=Power*Time
The time taken for the collision is almost an instant. Not sure what the Energy of a "buzzing mosquito" (WTF kind of unit is that?) is.
Certainly if you had an endless supply of "buzzing mosquito's"(lol), you could run your car on them (of course the weight cost would probably be unbearable).
> if apple wants to create table pc style laptops, maybe palm has the right amount of IP and
>technology for that?
Yeah because every other tablet manufacturer has had to buy Palm to make a tablet pc.
Newsflash, you can license IP without buying other companies, and generally it works out a lot cheaper.
Mind you, it would be a sad day if Apple did buy palm, it would probably kill the Palm->linux conversion. Wait was that going to happen or was that a baseless rumour.
>I however would LOVE to see a PC built into an old UNIX manual has anyone seen such a case mod?
Desecrate a UNIX manual, HERETIC! Let the great gods of computing rain fiery hell down on you.
> My two main gripes,
>
>* GIMP worst file open/save dialog box ever
I assume you are referring to GIMP for windows. I'm using Gimp 2.2 on Gentoo, and it uses the Gnome file requestors which IMO are the best file requestors ever. I have used the windows version and have to agree that the windows requestors suck hard.
>
>* Text tool is nearly useless
I agree, it is very light-weight, however I don't see this as much of a problem. Generally if I need to do titles or banners I use inkscape, GIMP is generally the wrong tool for the job in that situation.
What I'd really like to see would be colorspace independance (CMYK, Float, Arbitrary sized palette), that, and macro recording.
Vim isn't GPL, it's not even Free Software. It's open-source charity wear.
>Heterosexual, homosexual... if you want to focus on sexual deviation, consider: the disease was first found in primates, and then >"somehow" made the species jump. Wrap your head around that.
Duh, just ask any raving loony, havn't you heard "the CIA sprays HIV virus".
This was intended as a joke.
IANARL
>Data structures with 32-bit pointers are smaller than those with 64-bit pointers, so the data structure takes less of a chunk out of >your cache (hopefully reducing the number of cache misses, where you have to fetch stuff from slower main memory) and less of a chunk >out of your main memory (hopefully reducing the number of page faults, where you have to fetch stuff from an even slower disk or file >server).
so was I right that if you define a Uint64 (not sure what the non-sdl name for that is) on a sparc v9 or sgi64 or mmx, it uses 64 bit math in a 32bit object file, and does it use 64 bit reg's mem-cpy's (wait is memcpy a kernel or libc function) on those platforms.
Just curious, that's all.
>A small comfort maybe, its no better with IRIX, while 64bit MIPS cpus have been around for 'some time' now as well, the last version >I used (6.5.something) still had 32 and 64bit libraries, and a whole bunch of 32bit binaries (but then, it did also run on the older >r4000 and the like still)
The way I was explained it (with regards as to why my ultrasparc uses 32bit userland), is that 32/64bit refers to address pointers and that 64 bit address pointers introduce a performance penalty (not sure why).
My understanding is that 32 bit binaries compiled for a 64bit arch still have the benefits of 64 bit math (and mov's?), but use 32 bit address pointers, so as to use less memory or whatever it is that makes them better. I could be wrong about that, but if it's optimised for a ultrasparc v9, why not use the v9 64 bit reg's, since it's not going to run on a 32 bit sparc anyway.
Can anyone with a clue explain that better? Please no trolls raving about how 64bit is uber fast and will pwn my noobage box please.
On a related note amd64's are faster because they have a better instruction set and more registers, not because of 64 bit math(which all machines since the P-Pro have anyway, mmx anyone?).
Or so I'm told, I've never had a chance to do any tests or profiling on an amd64, and gcc -m64 doesn't work on my Sunblade 100 under Gnu/Gentoo/gcc3.3 .
>What if the DRMed hardware is a TiVo (running Linux) instead of a book reader? TiVo verifies that all OS software is signed by TiVo >Inc. before running it. Unless you change the PROMs soldered to the motherboard to skip the checks there's no way of running your own >code on currently sold units.
>Most users are reluctant or unable to try microsoldering tiny chips in an expensive piece of electronics.
I don't get how they can legally do this (IANAL), surely if the Object code is signed, then to comply with (even v2 of the GPL) the source code should generate signed Object code also. If it generates different object code, or unsigned object code, then it isn't really the source code. That would be like distributing a modified (linux)kernel, and when asked for source code giving them the original un-modified code instead.
from : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
---
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.
Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself.
---
I guess that implies that I was indeed correct.
>Shouldn't there be a possibility to make changes to the GPL and release your software under your own, derivative license? (Scary, I >know, but someone might want to do it.) They seem to forbid it as it is now.
I was under the impression that you could make derivatives, you just couldn't then go and call it the GPL, you had to call it something else. I could be entirely wrong though.
First of all IANAL, all of what I wrote could be complete BS.
I don't even know if you expected answers, but here goes.
>Interesting, I suppose I'll have to answer you with yet another few questions:
>While 'obvious' patents are an issue everywhere, why is it that it seems to be a much larger issue with software?
I don't have an answer to that question.
> Do the technical people not exist in order to determine if some piece of software is patentable?
With regards to interfaces, I would argue that it would be (relatively) straight-forward to determine if it was innovative.
On the other hand, determining if an algorithm had ever been used in math, or software, seems practically impossible.
Perhaps a (non-ideal) solution, would be to have some kind of public veto system. Better still would be no software patents.
> Why doesn't the patent office follow the same stringent rules on patenting software as they do for other disciplines?
I wouldn't know, perhaps they do? Certainly I'm not the one to ask. If you're a US citizen (I'm not), perhaps there's someone you could write to, but probably not.
> If the patent offices were to follow these so-called rules, would the problem disappear?
I don't think so, or more, I don't think a full prior-art search is possible due to the nature of software (workings are obfuscated ((well at least in proprietary code, which I imagine has ~100% of patent holdings.)) ), and shear volume of software in existance.
> Should software be copyright? Isn't hardware in a sense copyrightable as well?
On one hand all control of distribution of information is artificial and against the nature of information and people.
On the other hand there is a lot of software that is written to make money, that (probably) wouldn't of been written had it not been for copyright.
I myself try to use as little proprietry(sic?) software as I can make do with, and wouldn't even consider writing code that wasn't free.
>I could design the hardware in say VHDL, or whatever, copyright that, produce a piece of hardware on that design and then patent >the chip, could I not?
yes, but (assuming you didn't distribute VHDL) the copyright wouldn't buy you anything, as without the patent, someone else could make something else that functions identically without looking at your source, and hence wouldn't be infringing your copyright.
However I think there's something called the "Chip Protection Act" or some such, that makes it illegal to copy someone elses chip design by reverse engineering, which kind of makes the case moot.
>Is it the documentation that is being patented for Hardware, and thus the documentation (assuming any were done) should be the item >submitted for patent?
The way I understand it is that a patent covers method (and function?), i.e. someone can't do it the same way as you without paying you royalties, but again IANAL, IANAUSC (US Citizen).
> Just a few thoughts I suppose..
Just a few more, perhaps I'm just rambling, who knows, not me.
> And then only a matter of time until Apple releases an update that breaks it again...
True, but that won't stop "warez d00ds" from trying (and almost certainly succeeding).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating "stealing" (or actually stealing) MacOS X (why when I have Gentoo ((Mac,Windows Zealots please ignore, I don't care what OS you like/use)) ), but I imagine there would be significant interest from the warez scene, if only from the props for being the first.
>When will WINE be ready for Intel OSX?
Has anyone tried building it? Perhaps it already works, you can already run wine on Windows, FreeBSD and Solaris, so presumably it's straight-forward to build on OSX being *nix and posix, maybe a few work-arounds are needed, but surely nothing major.
Native rendering (not X11) could possibly need a bit more work, but other than that I can't really see any obstacles.
>And even if you could get a copy off one of the new iMacs it doesn't work on generic PC hardware.
Only a matter of time.
>What differentiates a piece of hardware from a piece of software, aside from the medium in which it is presented?
Personally I'm against software patents and indifferent to patents in general, but I guess the big difference is Software is already restricted by copyright, that and software patents are quite often (successfully) filed on trivial or obvious ideas.
Also if you've read a software patent, they go against the principle of patents, full disclosure of mechanism. Most s-patents I've read are worded such, that they could cover 10-20 different things, and don't show you how the Licensor does even one thing.
Firstly, when did I ever say I'm an american, I live in New Zealand, and I've never even been to the USA. Secondly you missed my point, it wasn't that all keyboards should be US-layout (though in NZ they are), it was that you shouldn't be looking at the keyboard when you type you should be looking at the screen, and hence it doesn't matter what symbols are on the keyboard. Besides which I prefer the spanish layout as it is easier to type accents.
True, you do need to convert DC to AC (pulse wave is AC right?), however you don't require a transformer, to step up the voltage you'll probably need an inductor, but as you increase the modulation frequency you can decrease the inductance (and hence size) of the inductor. The wires in the inductor still have to be thick enough to handle the neccessary current though.
Ever tried getting a 12V horn relay and making it resonate, touch the terminals on that and you'll get a nasty shock.
IANAEE, but I worked in an electronics store for a while, and built a few switch-mode power supplies.
Has anyone else noticed that the keyboard layout is almost identical to a Sun Type 6.
Those Keys are pretty swank, though I don't really see the point in it, Who looks at the keyboard when they type anyway?
>We need a new furnace for the house, but this beast will easily keep my house ( located in the nether regions of Canada ) warm all >winter. I am only disappointed that this rig will cost about the same as a new furnace. ;), on the other hand a furnace isn't obsolete in 18 months.
But it will be much more fun
Why is the Parent not modded funny, someone please mod it up.
> I think it's only fair they get a few perks seeing they created this world in an attempt to work out the meaning of life.
Mice, it was mice. Details are important, or we'll end up with another stupid answer like 42.