Dutch governmental institutions are allowed to compete against commercial companies as long as they: - Account for all cost - Do not make misuse special governmental privileges. For example the government cannot use a loan that has better conditions then a private party could obtain. - Do not gain advantage out of data use. You cannot use data that a commercial party would have to buy or cannot access. - Individuals do the work should not have regulatory responsibility that may cause conflicts of interest.
So as long as those requirements are met the people that are writing the software account for their hours, and the cost is administrated properly, there is no problem
Software companies should not be allowed to hold your creative work at ransom.
A subscription model in itself is not a problem. But companies that want to use this model should be forced to provide full specifications of their data model, so that you are able to take your business elsewhere whenever you want to.
Because you cannot patent an idea. Not even a brilliant one. You can only patent the implementation of an idea.
So the question to be aswered is: 'is this implementation obvious to someone familiar in the field', which is exactly what the patent office is supposed to do by law.
There are many useful applications of RPV's and the general public should be allowed to enjoy those. However that same general public also has the right to be protected from unreasonable danger. Drones *do* fall out of the sky and therefore can harm people and property. So instead of trying to register everything I'd say there should be ate least two categories of drones. One 'free for all' that is sufficiently lightweight and slow so as not to cause any serious harm and another which is everything else. You should not be able to buy the 'everything else' category without at least some training.
Audi has built an industrial scale plant that converts renewable gas to chemical energy ( although not liquid) see http://www.audi.com/content/com/brand/en/vorsprung_durch_technik/content/2013/10/energy-turnaround-in-the-tank.html. Actually, if commercially viable, converting electricity back to nautral gas as this plant does is a very bright idea. In Europe we already have infrastructure to transport gas so this seems a good way for storing excess energy.
AFIAK, live stock are not fed coal or petrol. So any carbon that they emit must come from the CO2 that was stored in te plants that they eat during there lifetime. So how does that add to global warming? If the plant material was not eaten by the live stock, it would have been eaten by other animals (like humans) or would have rotted away.
Humans can't directly digest most plant material so we have to burn fuel to cook it, thus producing CO2. Also raw plant material has less calories/kg then most meats, we would have to transport more to feed all people in the world. If other animals animals ate the plants I don't see why the would not produce the same amount of gasses compared to live stock. If it was rotting away, some of the material would eventually become coal, but most of it would enter the atmosphere as methane.
This is what Dr. Kees A. Schouhamer Immink (one of the actual engineers that invented the CD) says about it:
"The disk diameter is a very basic parameter, because it relates to playing time. All parameters then have to be traded off to optimise playing time and reliability. The decision was made by the op brass of Philips. 'Compact Cassette was a great success', they said, 'we don't think CD should be much larger'. As it was, we made CD 0.5 cm larger yielding 12 cm. (There were all sorts of stories about it having something to do with the length of Beethoven's 9th Symphony and so on, but you should not believe them.)"
I want the latest stable KDE, but I want bleeding-edge PidginIM (because I trust the development cycle) or SciPy (because I do development on my local desktop). With apt pinning you can. (http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html).
It's not so difficult. Over here in the Netherlands, all this means for me as a consumer is that my old TV, computer or white goods will be accepted by whatever shop I'm buying my new stuff. I payed in advance for the cost for good recycling.
The article talks about three times the battery Power (watts), not three times the capacity (Ampere*hr).
The technology basically seems to reduce the internal resistance by creating more stable electrodes.
If it works, it may very well do exactly what they claim.
Finally a credible CAD platform for free OS'es?
on
SGI's New Linux Boxes
·
· Score: 1
I sincerely hope that some of the larger MCAD vendors take note. Otherwise these boxes will end up being just expensive games machines. We've been using SGI IRIX boxes for our Pro/E work for years but it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify the (hardware) costs to the suits.
Most engineers like the flexibility and stability of the un*x platform, so please PTC,SDRC, Dassault and the likes, wake up!!
Slashdot Mirror
Dutch governmental institutions are allowed to compete against commercial companies as long as they:
- Account for all cost
- Do not make misuse special governmental privileges. For example the government cannot use a loan that has better conditions then a private party could obtain.
- Do not gain advantage out of data use. You cannot use data that a commercial party would have to buy or cannot access.
- Individuals do the work should not have regulatory responsibility that may cause conflicts of interest.
So as long as those requirements are met the people that are writing the software account for their hours, and the cost is administrated properly, there is no problem
Edsgar Dijkstra did not use a computer for most of his career.
When a free market monopolist censors just as well.
Software companies should not be allowed to hold your creative work at ransom.
A subscription model in itself is not a problem. But companies that want to use this model should be forced to provide full specifications of their data model, so that you are able to take your business elsewhere whenever you want to.
Because you cannot patent an idea. Not even a brilliant one. You can only patent the implementation of an idea.
So the question to be aswered is: 'is this implementation obvious to someone familiar in the field', which is exactly what the patent office is supposed to do by law.
There are many useful applications of RPV's and the general public should be allowed to enjoy those. However that same general public also has the right to be protected from unreasonable danger. Drones *do* fall out of the sky and therefore can harm people and property.
So instead of trying to register everything I'd say there should be ate least two categories of drones. One 'free for all' that is sufficiently lightweight and slow so as not to cause any serious harm and another which is everything else. You should not be able to buy the 'everything else' category without at least some training.
Audi has built an industrial scale plant that converts renewable gas to chemical energy ( although not liquid) see http://www.audi.com/content/com/brand/en/vorsprung_durch_technik/content/2013/10/energy-turnaround-in-the-tank.html. Actually, if commercially viable, converting electricity back to nautral gas as this plant does is a very bright idea. In Europe we already have infrastructure to transport gas so this seems a good way for storing excess energy.
And the bandwidth cost is mostly covered by the consumer anyway.
Seriously, what is the basis for this idea?
AFIAK, live stock are not fed coal or petrol. So any carbon that they emit must come from the CO2 that was stored in te plants that they eat during there lifetime. So how does that add to global warming? If the plant material was not eaten by the live stock, it would have been eaten by other animals (like humans) or would have rotted away.
Humans can't directly digest most plant material so we have to burn fuel to cook it, thus producing CO2. Also raw plant material has less calories/kg then most meats, we would have to transport more to feed all people in the world. If other animals animals ate the plants I don't see why the would not produce the same amount of gasses compared to live stock. If it was rotting away, some of the material would eventually become coal, but most of it would enter the atmosphere as methane.
So how am I wrong here?
So what's wrong with http://www.kicad-pcb.org/
I still got one of these.
This is what Dr. Kees A. Schouhamer Immink (one of the actual engineers that invented the CD) says about it:
o ry.pdf for the whole story.
"The disk diameter is a very basic parameter, because it relates to playing time. All parameters then have to be traded off to optimise playing time and reliability. The decision was made by the op brass of Philips. 'Compact Cassette was a great success', they said, 'we don't think CD should be much larger'. As it was, we made CD 0.5 cm larger yielding 12 cm. (There were all sorts of stories about it having something to do with the length of Beethoven's 9th Symphony and so on, but you should not believe them.)"
See http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/cdst
It's not so difficult. Over here in the Netherlands, all this means for me as a consumer is that my old TV, computer or white goods will be accepted by whatever shop I'm buying my new stuff. I payed in advance for the cost for good recycling.
The article talks about three times the battery Power (watts), not three times the capacity (Ampere*hr).
The technology basically seems to reduce the internal resistance by creating more stable electrodes.
If it works, it may very well do exactly what they claim.
I sincerely hope that some of the larger MCAD vendors take note. Otherwise these boxes will end up being just expensive games machines. We've been using SGI IRIX boxes for our Pro/E work for years but it becomes increasingly more difficult to justify the (hardware) costs to the suits.
Most engineers like the flexibility and stability of the un*x platform, so please PTC,SDRC, Dassault and the likes, wake up!!