Ares 1 was almost done. To put people on top of a Delta-IV or Atlas requires man-rating them. Building a new launch system means throwing away years of engineering effort. If you want to start building Direct now, you have to consider all the work that's already gone into Ares in the cost. Is it still cheaper?
Well now that Obama is going to cancel Ares 1, the USA won't have any human spaceflight capacity until probably the 2020s (assuming the rest of Constellation isn't canceled before then too). That can't be helpful for the future of the space station.
No, no girls play RPGs... but a lot of 30-something stay at home mom/housewives whose children are now off to school during the day and are bored play them obsessively.
No. You're confusing several concepts, and the GPL.
Yes, if you are a reasonable person and think that Apple's EULA should be ignored, then you should think the GPL version 3 should be ignored also. However, that does not mean you think the GPL version 2 should be ignored. And yes, a lot of people don't support the GPLv3 for this very reason.
The distinction is that the GPL, version 3, and Apple's license are USE licenses. The GPL version 2 is a DISTRIBUTION license. Distribution licenses have their legal force from the fact that software distribution requires copying, an action prohibited under copyright law without permission. The Linux kernel, for example, is licensed under the GPL version 2. You can use it without accepting the terms and conditions of the GPL version 2 all you want. You only have to accept the license if you wish to distribute it.
Use licenses, like Apple's EULA and the GPL version 3, are a lot more controversial... although it seems that since Apple's lawsuit against Psystar,/. has become much friendly toward them than it used to be. The legal logic behind a use license is that to use the software, it has to be copied into your computer's ram. Strictly speaking, use licenses SHOULD have no legal bearing in the USA, since US copyright law has an explicit exemption to allow necessary copying of software for the purpose of using it. However, the USA operates on a common law legal system, where judges defer to precedent over the law itself where possible. Use licenses, like Apple's EULA and the GPLv3, are only enforceable in the US because of bad precedent which, strictly speaking, goes against the law as it is written.
Because the CO2 isn't sufficient to cause a major impact alone. The disaster scenarios that motivate the extreme measures proposed rely on complex feedback effects that aren't well understood and whose implementation in climate models is very ad hoc.
The hardware is the same, but the quality control is different. Teslas and Quadros are held to rigorous standards. GeForces have an acceptable error rate. That's fine for gaming, but falls flat in scientific computing.
This isn't a huge achievement. Nobody else has done it because it's silly.
There are two major reasons... the first is they use GeForce cards. That's not a good idea, since GeForces are held to much lower quality standards than Teslas and Quadros. They're intended for gaming graphics, where a minor error here or there isn't the end of the world. "Sorry we missed your cancer, since our supercomputer miscalculated that region of the reconstruction." The second problem is, that's one bandwidth starved machine. It's based on a pretty nice motherboard, but with 13 GPUs that's not a lot of bandwidth to go around.
The more popular layout for a GPU supercomputer of that size is a small cluster of 2-GPU blades, with a hypertransport interconnect. It's a little bit trickier to work with, but there are fewer bottlenecks.
Let's take for granted that "When some kind of school shooting happens, there is typically a message before hand". That does not, in any way, imply that every time you encounter such a "message", there's a statistically significant chance that a violent act will follow.
In fact, most people will agree that most "threats" of this nature do *not* result in violent acts. There thousands, if not millions of "threats" like these, uttered idly every day -- a simple hyperbolic expression of frustration. Meanwhile, school shootings happen a handful of times a year, at worst.
Similarly, I can guarantee that almost every school shooter will have imbibed some form of liquid before committing their heinous crimes. It does not follow that everyone who has a drink with their breakfast is going to shoot up their school.
"A usually precedes B" does not necessarily mean "A has occurred, therefor B MUST occur." It doesn't even necessarily mean "A has occurred, therefor B is even 1% likely to occur".
No, most people are so illogical that they wouldn't agree to that, unless you guided their hand all the way. And they vote.
You're totally right. The absolutely had a legal right to do what they did.
It doesn't change the fact that it was the stupidest, most counter-productive action they could have taken. It was perfectly legal, and also completely stupid and unjust.
Well, under the Conservatives in the 90s, there was civil freedom, a truly successful economy (for the first time since the second world war) and (mostly) respect for the individual. New Labour took it all away in exchange for "benefits for all."
I do lean a bit right, but I don't consider myself a rampaging conservative.... but regardless I have to say that the UK today seems hell-bent on proving Alexis De Tocqueville's statement: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
Personally I'm not a lawyer and I'd really like to know exactly what law it is that Intel broke.
I could understand if Intel had a monopoly in the compiler business. Or if they paid Microsoft to sabotage their compiler on AMD. But they don't, and they didn't.
Reality would like a word with you. For AMD to have had 50% or more market share, they would have had to build 50% of the chips being sold. AMD has never had that kind of manafacturing capacity. In fact, one of the reasons why Intel is so successful is they have always invested heavily in their fabrication technology. Sure, Intel manipulated AMD out of sales. But the reason they were in a position to do so, was that AMD couldn't supply the volume of chips with the predictability to satisfy any of the major vendors. Regardless how good AMD's chips were in comparison to Intel's at the time, the major OEMs were still beholden to Intel. Intel was king for the simple fact that there was nobody else big enough to wear the crown.
AMD invested heavily in chip design in the 90s. They brought in a lot smart guys who worked on the Alpha, which heavily influenced the K8. And they were doing well at the time. They did have some market segments sewn up. When they really failed, was when Intel pushed them into a price war. AMD couldn't keep up with Intel's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could. And while I don't intend to absolve Intel of any wrongdoing in their part, I would like to put it in perspective... compared to the rest of the industry, AMD neglected their fabs. It wasn't market manipulation that ended their profitability, it was falling yields. Why do you think they eventually spun off Global Foundries?
Yeah, maybe had they made more money they would have been able to invest more heavily in their weak areas. But it's not like they demonstrated any interest in doing so at the time; it's not like credit and tech investment was hard to come by back then. It all seems a bit like 'speculative history' fiction. What would have happened if the Nazis hadn't put jet research on hold at the beginning of the second world war?! That's a very interesting question. But they did.
Wait... Bush being smart and stupid at the same time is perfectly normal. And you support this claim with an example... which is Bush being smart and stupid at the same time.
Pff, they don't have to invade anybody's privacy to pull this stunt off. These days most people are willing to give out that kind of information for free.
No. Nokia offers the patents to everyone under 'Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory' terms, since they're essential for implementation of several wireless technologies. Literally everybody else in the industry licenses them. But Apple doesn't want to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
That was the point of the constellation project - to make it feasible to leave LEO. Constellation has now been thoroughly dismantled so who knows.
Ares 1 was almost done. To put people on top of a Delta-IV or Atlas requires man-rating them. Building a new launch system means throwing away years of engineering effort. If you want to start building Direct now, you have to consider all the work that's already gone into Ares in the cost. Is it still cheaper?
Well now that Obama is going to cancel Ares 1, the USA won't have any human spaceflight capacity until probably the 2020s (assuming the rest of Constellation isn't canceled before then too). That can't be helpful for the future of the space station.
No, no girls play RPGs... but a lot of 30-something stay at home mom/housewives whose children are now off to school during the day and are bored play them obsessively.
Network affect.
Traffic.
Lawyers and judges are professional pedants.
Who are Chase to interfere? Well they're the ones fronting the money.
I'd say they have a basis to intervene.
No. You're confusing several concepts, and the GPL.
Yes, if you are a reasonable person and think that Apple's EULA should be ignored, then you should think the GPL version 3 should be ignored also. However, that does not mean you think the GPL version 2 should be ignored. And yes, a lot of people don't support the GPLv3 for this very reason.
The distinction is that the GPL, version 3, and Apple's license are USE licenses. The GPL version 2 is a DISTRIBUTION license. Distribution licenses have their legal force from the fact that software distribution requires copying, an action prohibited under copyright law without permission. The Linux kernel, for example, is licensed under the GPL version 2. You can use it without accepting the terms and conditions of the GPL version 2 all you want. You only have to accept the license if you wish to distribute it.
Use licenses, like Apple's EULA and the GPL version 3, are a lot more controversial... although it seems that since Apple's lawsuit against Psystar, /. has become much friendly toward them than it used to be. The legal logic behind a use license is that to use the software, it has to be copied into your computer's ram. Strictly speaking, use licenses SHOULD have no legal bearing in the USA, since US copyright law has an explicit exemption to allow necessary copying of software for the purpose of using it. However, the USA operates on a common law legal system, where judges defer to precedent over the law itself where possible. Use licenses, like Apple's EULA and the GPLv3, are only enforceable in the US because of bad precedent which, strictly speaking, goes against the law as it is written.
IFS compression is a patent minefield, unfortunately.
Because the CO2 isn't sufficient to cause a major impact alone. The disaster scenarios that motivate the extreme measures proposed rely on complex feedback effects that aren't well understood and whose implementation in climate models is very ad hoc.
No, the chips are almost exactly the same (except Quadros have 100% unbroken chips). You're thinking driver differences.
The hardware is the same, but the quality control is different. Teslas and Quadros are held to rigorous standards. GeForces have an acceptable error rate. That's fine for gaming, but falls flat in scientific computing.
This isn't a huge achievement. Nobody else has done it because it's silly.
There are two major reasons... the first is they use GeForce cards. That's not a good idea, since GeForces are held to much lower quality standards than Teslas and Quadros. They're intended for gaming graphics, where a minor error here or there isn't the end of the world. "Sorry we missed your cancer, since our supercomputer miscalculated that region of the reconstruction." The second problem is, that's one bandwidth starved machine. It's based on a pretty nice motherboard, but with 13 GPUs that's not a lot of bandwidth to go around.
The more popular layout for a GPU supercomputer of that size is a small cluster of 2-GPU blades, with a hypertransport interconnect. It's a little bit trickier to work with, but there are fewer bottlenecks.
Let's take for granted that "When some kind of school shooting happens, there is typically a message before hand". That does not, in any way, imply that every time you encounter such a "message", there's a statistically significant chance that a violent act will follow.
In fact, most people will agree that most "threats" of this nature do *not* result in violent acts. There thousands, if not millions of "threats" like these, uttered idly every day -- a simple hyperbolic expression of frustration. Meanwhile, school shootings happen a handful of times a year, at worst.
Similarly, I can guarantee that almost every school shooter will have imbibed some form of liquid before committing their heinous crimes. It does not follow that everyone who has a drink with their breakfast is going to shoot up their school.
"A usually precedes B" does not necessarily mean "A has occurred, therefor B MUST occur."
It doesn't even necessarily mean "A has occurred, therefor B is even 1% likely to occur".
No, most people are so illogical that they wouldn't agree to that, unless you guided their hand all the way. And they vote.
Duh. We expect morticians to be dour, unhappy people. Looking forward to anything is a class A violation of stereotypes. Lock 'er up!
You're totally right. The absolutely had a legal right to do what they did.
It doesn't change the fact that it was the stupidest, most counter-productive action they could have taken. It was perfectly legal, and also completely stupid and unjust.
Well, under the Conservatives in the 90s, there was civil freedom, a truly successful economy (for the first time since the second world war) and (mostly) respect for the individual. New Labour took it all away in exchange for "benefits for all."
I do lean a bit right, but I don't consider myself a rampaging conservative.... but regardless I have to say that the UK today seems hell-bent on proving Alexis De Tocqueville's statement: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
It's Randall Kennedy. Poor reasoning has never stopped him before.
Personally I'm not a lawyer and I'd really like to know exactly what law it is that Intel broke.
I could understand if Intel had a monopoly in the compiler business. Or if they paid Microsoft to sabotage their compiler on AMD. But they don't, and they didn't.
Reality would like a word with you. For AMD to have had 50% or more market share, they would have had to build 50% of the chips being sold. AMD has never had that kind of manafacturing capacity. In fact, one of the reasons why Intel is so successful is they have always invested heavily in their fabrication technology. Sure, Intel manipulated AMD out of sales. But the reason they were in a position to do so, was that AMD couldn't supply the volume of chips with the predictability to satisfy any of the major vendors. Regardless how good AMD's chips were in comparison to Intel's at the time, the major OEMs were still beholden to Intel. Intel was king for the simple fact that there was nobody else big enough to wear the crown.
AMD invested heavily in chip design in the 90s. They brought in a lot smart guys who worked on the Alpha, which heavily influenced the K8. And they were doing well at the time. They did have some market segments sewn up. When they really failed, was when Intel pushed them into a price war. AMD couldn't keep up with Intel's aggressive pricing because they simply could not produce competitive chips as inexpensively as Intel could. And while I don't intend to absolve Intel of any wrongdoing in their part, I would like to put it in perspective... compared to the rest of the industry, AMD neglected their fabs. It wasn't market manipulation that ended their profitability, it was falling yields. Why do you think they eventually spun off Global Foundries?
Yeah, maybe had they made more money they would have been able to invest more heavily in their weak areas. But it's not like they demonstrated any interest in doing so at the time; it's not like credit and tech investment was hard to come by back then. It all seems a bit like 'speculative history' fiction. What would have happened if the Nazis hadn't put jet research on hold at the beginning of the second world war?! That's a very interesting question. But they did.
Wait... Bush being smart and stupid at the same time is perfectly normal. And you support this claim with an example... which is Bush being smart and stupid at the same time.
It's like a perfect storm of bad reasoning.
You would prefer 'Expected error occurred. We could have handled with this transparently, but we'd rather pop up an annoying dialog box?'
Pff, they don't have to invade anybody's privacy to pull this stunt off. These days most people are willing to give out that kind of information for free.
No. Nokia offers the patents to everyone under 'Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory' terms, since they're essential for implementation of several wireless technologies. Literally everybody else in the industry licenses them. But Apple doesn't want to pay.