Regular DVD are quite good enough on average. Surprisingly good when you separate the signals as S-video or comp. Sure, some things look technically better on HD. But how many people will pay? How many have bought HDTV in the US? And many people are satisfied with only 250 lines on airline & portable DVD players.
I think none of these will fly at any premium until display technology is sufficiently cheap.
Yes, needing all contributors permission (or rewriting their code) was what I meant about Linux not being moveable. The boilerplate (copyright/licence) distributed with GPLv2 includes the "or any later version" so tends to be the default.
The FSF _could_ make itself party to a future GPL simply by issuing the licence including itself in the terms. A coder would make the FSF party by licencing under such. This would give RMS standing to sue NVidia over the Linux graphics module being [allegedly] a derivative work. Something Linus pointedly refuses to do.
FSF requires copyright assignment for contibuting to GNU projects. This assists copyright enforcement (but is not necessary), and may have unintended consequences in the event of an FSF bankruptcy and auction of assets.
Recent email exchanges have convinced me that RMS is rather more radical than I had assumed. (absent code better than closed, derivative wedge). Closer to what his critics claim. A zealot. There is a surprisingly large gulf between "Free Software" and "Open Source".
It appears that MySQL has just woken up to the odd GPLv2 clause giving users the right to apply a later version at their option. Who could possibly accept such an unknown clause? Linus can't, and hasn't. I doubt Linux could be moved to GPLv3 even if he wanted to -- too many authors.
As for the danger of GPL subversion, it is clear and present: RMS could and would insert "As oversight authority, the FSF is party to this licence and may sue for enforcment" [@11 ur baze b3l0ng 2me]
A bigger question is whether an ISP, Yahoo or gmail can hand over your email without a warrent or your permission. You have a contractual relationship of some kind with them, and they are effectively your servants with an expectation of privacy.
I think there is law in a number of states which clarifies that electronic communication in transit or in storage are protected.
Not quite. RMS is P!ssed at Linus for allowing binary modules like NVidia's. Apparently, RMS believes that user freedom is bad when it could be but is not used to promote more freedom (force NVidia open).
RMS is also very upset that Linus is building a Linux GPLv3 consensus on LKML rather than his discussion/arbitration mechanism. This is a bit of a political power struggle, and Linus refuses to be divided-and-conquered. RMS doesn't want to deal with an en-bloc Linux position.
... until the Linux `dhcpcd` starts faking answers. Which will be Zero-day. A bigger problem will be when the servers does encoded challenge/response ala "Trecherous Computing". As an adjudged monopolist, MS will have be be enjoined from invoking the DMCA.
DHCP embrace-and-extend (MS patent) to OS/pl/sw reporting isn't entirely stupid, however, the smarts will have to be in gateway/proxy machines that will have to recognize the extended DHCP requests and reconfigure their routers appropriately.
One big problem is that few of these gateways are MS-Windows machines. Most are Criscos that get fried up by the heavy traffic:) I doubt an x86 box could service a full-speed OC-3 if the table look-ups get extensive.
The evidence is not public [yet]. The reporter presumably had enough basis to report the tort filings and get it past the CBS editor. There's always more that isn't reported, and influences what gets out. I don't trust reporters much, but I trust the police less. But we will see.
Ah, but those claims were made in legal filings before Nina's disappearance. Presumably there was some evidence to back them up, and it appears the case settled. More will come out in the trial. I certainly wouldn't expect anything now. I believe in "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Do you?
You trust the cops too much. They have pressure to close cases and press charges. Little/no fallout if it's the wrong guy. Anyone with an alibi that checks out is off. Anyone without is in. It doesn't matter that perps carefully manufacture alibis, nor that most people don't have one most of the time.
Criminals prey upon people. Police prey upon criminals. They get mixed up. The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend.
"Who watches the watchers?" is an old question. The answer, if there is one, is "The watched".
People should have equal access to cameras. And in the face of criminal charges, the accused does have the right of subpoena and full access to any and all exculpatory evidence. When the Persecutor isn't being malfeasant, as they frequently are on TV.
N.Korea is no longer a Generally Embargoed Country (currently Cuba, Iran, Sudan) but is highly restricted like Syria. The US has always restricted exports starting with pine logs in 1782 to avoid helping the Royal Navy. See the BIS website.
People are political creatures. It is foolish to pretend otherwise. Science _is_ political, but has anarbitration mechanism (physical proof). That is not the same as fundamentally apolitical.
Al Gore is nothing if not political. I'm disturbed by many advocates of Global Warming since they often do not adress the objections of their opponents with facts, but more often appeals to authority.
And aren't the shareholders of Exxon entitled to freedom of association (into Exxon) and freedom of speech as that association? If their lies are flagrant, they must be easily disprovable.
Agreed that non-neutral nets may be very unpleasant for users. However, The Internet is all about choice, and sufficient numbers of people have enough that non-neutrality will likely never grow beyond niche:
Look at the server end: Online biz (especially big biz like gaming, maybe VoIP) will make bloody sure they've good good pipes. They pay kilobucks per month with negotiated service levels, and ping _will_ be good. They'll switch backbones to get it.
End users have less negotiation power, but significant numbers have a choice between DSL and cable. They compete rather firecely, and neither wants the stigma of being slower. Cable loves VoIP because it hurts their main competitor, the telcos.
The Internet is not a monolithic system. It is build and runs on choice. High ping will be interpreted as damage, and routed around.
As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. You cannot force a mind. You can try persuasion. Some techniques will work on some poeple. Nothing will work on others.
The only thing you can do is try. As effectively as possible. IMHO, GW advocates have been somewhat ineffective since the range of rhetorical strategies has been rather limited.
And then there's the question of force: at what point is coersion acceptable?
Life has survived warmer. Humans are remarkably adaptable and migrate quickly.
Half used means half done. We don't get more warming than we've already had.
What math shows a tipping point? The physical and chemical equilibria and steady-states are all monotonic continuous functions.
The real question is how much real effort to expend to reduce an uncertain future risk. Or more precisely, how much to compell others to follow our risk-tolerance.
No, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm saying the oceans are the sink for CO2, washed there by the rain. Less washed at higher temperatures due to lower solubility.
I'm not sure. Calcifying ortganisms will have more CaHCO3 raw material at slightly lowre pH. The lower pH certainly hurts. The higher Ca helps. I'm not sure of the balance.
I'm sorry, apparently I haven't been clear: Of course the oceans aren't saturated. Too much alkalinity (Ca/Mg+2). It isn't the oceans giving up CO2, but the rain scrubbing [or not] the atmosphere and washing the CO2 into the oceans.
Strictly speaking, this is not an equilibrium but a steady-state.
m2 of total earth surface area (land and ocean). I just used that as a divisor to get more understandable [human scale] quantities. I could easily convert to pounds per square foot for Americans.
Fortunately, none of us have to search for CO2 in a volume. Rain already does that for us. It falls through the atmosphere, scrubbing all the way.
Precisely: the oceans are the sinks, and rain the the transport mechanism. It has excellent contact to scrub the air and will be saturated. Some (~15%?) rain evaporates locally, before it can contact earth salts and releases it's CO2. A lot gets washed to the sea. As the oceans increase in CO2, more sediment (limestone) will drop. A simple function of ionic equilibria.
Numbers, easy: I just calculated them per m2 of earth from: 250 MBoe/d fuel, 350 ppmv CO2 in 14.7 psi atmosphere, and 32" global average rainfall (incl oceans&deserts). Correction welcome.
There is an even better established scientific fact that proves causality in the other direction: If water gets warmer, it absorbs less CO2.
To the extent there has been global warming, I'm not really sure the cause. The most likely to me appears to be variations in solar output. Perhaps variations in near-vaccuum absorptivity as the solar system travels through different regions of space.
Ah, the "tipping point". But the earth has been warmer, and survived. With our inventories, it unlikely we could do more than double the increase we've already done. Oil is half gone.
In short, if you think we're going to fall off a cliff, and want people to listen, you'd better be able to show that cliff crystal-clear. If not, they won't listen and you'll have to become shrill. Chemical equilibria operate over very wide ranges. What presice tipping point do you see?
Slashdot Mirror
I think none of these will fly at any premium until display technology is sufficiently cheap.
The FSF _could_ make itself party to a future GPL simply by issuing the licence including itself in the terms. A coder would make the FSF party by licencing under such. This would give RMS standing to sue NVidia over the Linux graphics module being [allegedly] a derivative work. Something Linus pointedly refuses to do.
FSF requires copyright assignment for contibuting to GNU projects. This assists copyright enforcement (but is not necessary), and may have unintended consequences in the event of an FSF bankruptcy and auction of assets.
Recent email exchanges have convinced me that RMS is rather more radical than I had assumed. (absent code better than closed, derivative wedge). Closer to what his critics claim. A zealot. There is a surprisingly large gulf between "Free Software" and "Open Source".
As for the danger of GPL subversion, it is clear and present: RMS could and would insert "As oversight authority, the FSF is party to this licence and may sue for enforcment" [@11 ur baze b3l0ng 2me]
I think there is law in a number of states which clarifies that electronic communication in transit or in storage are protected.
RMS is also very upset that Linus is building a Linux GPLv3 consensus on LKML rather than his discussion/arbitration mechanism. This is a bit of a political power struggle, and Linus refuses to be divided-and-conquered. RMS doesn't want to deal with an en-bloc Linux position.
One big problem is that few of these gateways are MS-Windows machines. Most are Criscos that get fried up by the heavy traffic :) I doubt an x86 box could service a full-speed OC-3 if the table look-ups get extensive.
Ah, but those claims were made in legal filings before Nina's disappearance. Presumably there was some evidence to back them up, and it appears the case settled. More will come out in the trial. I certainly wouldn't expect anything now. I believe in "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". Do you?
Criminals prey upon people. Police prey upon criminals. They get mixed up. The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend.
People should have equal access to cameras. And in the face of criminal charges, the accused does have the right of subpoena and full access to any and all exculpatory evidence. When the Persecutor isn't being malfeasant, as they frequently are on TV.
Al Gore is nothing if not political. I'm disturbed by many advocates of Global Warming since they often do not adress the objections of their opponents with facts, but more often appeals to authority.
And aren't the shareholders of Exxon entitled to freedom of association (into Exxon) and freedom of speech as that association? If their lies are flagrant, they must be easily disprovable.
Look at the server end: Online biz (especially big biz like gaming, maybe VoIP) will make bloody sure they've good good pipes. They pay kilobucks per month with negotiated service levels, and ping _will_ be good. They'll switch backbones to get it.
End users have less negotiation power, but significant numbers have a choice between DSL and cable. They compete rather firecely, and neither wants the stigma of being slower. Cable loves VoIP because it hurts their main competitor, the telcos.
The Internet is not a monolithic system. It is build and runs on choice. High ping will be interpreted as damage, and routed around.
The only thing you can do is try. As effectively as possible. IMHO, GW advocates have been somewhat ineffective since the range of rhetorical strategies has been rather limited.
And then there's the question of force: at what point is coersion acceptable?
Half used means half done. We don't get more warming than we've already had.
What math shows a tipping point? The physical and chemical equilibria and steady-states are all monotonic continuous functions.
The real question is how much real effort to expend to reduce an uncertain future risk. Or more precisely, how much to compell others to follow our risk-tolerance.
I'm more convinced that algae will grow!
Strictly speaking, this is not an equilibrium but a steady-state.
Fortunately, none of us have to search for CO2 in a volume. Rain already does that for us. It falls through the atmosphere, scrubbing all the way.
Numbers, easy: I just calculated them per m2 of earth from: 250 MBoe/d fuel, 350 ppmv CO2 in 14.7 psi atmosphere, and 32" global average rainfall (incl oceans&deserts). Correction welcome.
To the extent there has been global warming, I'm not really sure the cause. The most likely to me appears to be variations in solar output. Perhaps variations in near-vaccuum absorptivity as the solar system travels through different regions of space.
In short, if you think we're going to fall off a cliff, and want people to listen, you'd better be able to show that cliff crystal-clear. If not, they won't listen and you'll have to become shrill. Chemical equilibria operate over very wide ranges. What presice tipping point do you see?