Most of that "life support stuff" has been running on low-level embedded control systems and, in more complicated cases, proprietary UNIX variants, since before either Win2K or his wife were a twinkle in Bill Gates' eye.
Systems like that, used in medical, industrial and military applications, make Win2K look as stable as an overweight donkey on ice skates. Windows, like most general-purpose things, is a clumsy, plodding hack that does a mediocre-at-best job of a variety of things instead of a really good job at one. Linux, as the term is used most of the time, falls under the same category, albeit perhaps somewhat less clumsy and plodding. I wouldn't trust a desktop PC to run my toaster.
Generally, control devices used in critical applications like life support machines are rock solid. There are some PLCs at the plant I work in that have been running continuously for years in a harsh environment (aluminum foundry) without incident.
In my experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a minimal Gentoo Linux or FreeBSD server running than a minimal Solaris server. I'm not denying that Solaris kicks butt on Sun hardware, but it's a stretch to call a Solaris system minimal even if you install only the core packages that it (according to the installer) won't run without.
Yes, I know, but the stable orbit requiring the minimum tangential velocity to remain stable would be circular... as TV increases, orbit gets more elliptical and eventually parabolic (open)... it's like increasing the slope of a conical cross-section...
I could never motivate myself to make a product which wastes time for everyone.
You begin by speaking for yourself. Why didn't you stay on this track?
Real innovation comes from making productive programs which not only save time, but make money.
Real innovation can come from all manner of sources, however unlikely your prejudices make them seem. This sounds like a fuddy-duddy "rap isn't real music" argument.
I hope these kids [...] I recommend these kids [...] I don't really understand kids [...] I know most of the kids [...] KIDS!
I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
You are not as smart as the Quake engine author, you can't do it by yourself. Quit the overzealous cocky attitude!
Now why would you say something like that? Any one of these "kids" could very well be as smart as the Quake engine author. Don't go around pushing your can't-do attitude on potentially bright young programmers. Would you say the same thing if they had an ambitious plan to make, say, a really good electronics simulator?
Games are just throw away work afterall.
Despite all your whining, the video game industry is a $11 billion industry in the United States alone, and keep in mind that video games are similarly huge in Japan, Canada and the UK. And the aforementioned Quake engine author appeared number 10 in TIME's 50 most influential people in technology. Not bad for throw away work.
The only way something can fall into a black hole is by losing energy to fall it. If it doesn't lose any energy it will keep revolving around the black hole.
Something has to be in orbit to begin with for this to be true. Yes, the gas is rotating around the black hole, but that doesn't mean it's in orbit. It's just falling (being gravitationally attracted) toward the black hole.
In other words, the tangential velocity of the gas is not high enough to maintain a circular orbit at the same distance. Technically, anything falling with nonzero tangential velocity could be considered to be in a decaying orbit, but you're talking about a stable orbit which would require some loss of energy to start decaying, which TFA says nothing about.
Rock Ridge is a POSIX-related IEEE standard that has nothing to do with Microsoft. Joliet is as far as I know an open specification that Microsoft endorses but does not license, and even if they could and did license it, Joliet filesystems are backwards compatible with standard ISO 9660. Neither of these extensions have anything to do with FAT.
Fact: "Critics" and "expert" and (even worse) "analysts" tend to be terrible in predicting what people will buy.
Mostly, they're industry lapdogs who sensationalize the latest product the industry wants you to buy in industry-run media (since we're talking about the media industry here, that would be all media). It's all part of the big ugly capitalist machine: use all manner of sensationalism to foster consumerism.
If they did know jack, they would be wearing black turtlenecks, earning a dollar a year, and making people in San Francisco swoon with the really successful things.
Negative. They suck up to Black Turtleneck men and try to become Black Turtleneck men -- that is, those of them that are self-serving and ambitious enough, and are actually more than dimly aware of their aforementioned role.
I can scrawl notes on the margins of "Cryptonomicon" where Stephenson got the German wrong...
I didn't use Occam's Razor incorrectly. My logic would not have you throw out quantum mechanics and relativity in favor of Newtonian physics or something even more primitive, because there is extant factual evidence that requires you to formulate something more complex. I didn't say to always use the simplest explanation, I said to always use the simplest explanation that fits all of the facts, or in other words, formulate the simplest and most elegant theory that could produce the entire corpus of observations we have. Anything else is a waste of time, pointless at best, dangerous at worst.
You keep saying that we should start exploring alternative theories "in the face of new evidence," but where is this evidence? Agreed, in the past and present many scientists have and do not want to let go of obsolete theories, and granted, probably most of our current theories are incomplete pictures of reality, but that's no justification for jumping the gun and prematurely speculating on new theories when there is no evidence to require them.
Scientists have relegated relativity and quantum mechanics to the ranges of conditions in which they work, and begun working on string theory and other theories to attempt to fit the entire body of facts. What it sounds like you are suggesting is equivalent to starting a new theory based on the assumption that a complete string theory will probably be invalidated by new evidence at some point in the future, and directing the new theory based on pure speculation about what that new evidence might be (with some romantic bias, no doubt). What if we really do have the whole picture? And even if we don't, what chance is there that you've gone in the right direction without factual guidance?
While there is nothing to positively discount any of the possibilities you mentioned, you cannot say that all of those theories have equal merit simply because none have been either proven or disproven. Occam's Razor is a good principle; we shouldn't waste time exploring anything more complicated than your first theory until we have evidence that necessitates making other assumptions (such as finding life forms similar to Earth's on Mars).
This is not an indication of a closed mind, but rather a solid scientific principle that prevents pseudoscience, mysticism, self-serving bias and other nonsense from creeping into and tainting the study of our universe. Scientists have (or should have) no problem questioning "common thinking" as long as there is some factual basis for doing so.
Sorry to rain on everyone's parades here, but to find any signs of life on Mars would really damage the current theory of how life got to be here.
Why? The "current theory" is that life arose from complex molecules eventually forming reproducing organisms, evolving over time to the level of complexity we see today on Earth. How would the discovery that something similar happened on Mars damage that theory in the least? Besides, the invalidation of theories is a big part of scientific progress, so if anything, it's a good day for science when a theory is disproven.
See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible.
First, you can't just state facts like that without any hint that they are supported by evidence (to quote Sagan, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Second, even if we are to accept this as truth, just how small are these chances, numerically? Third, it's entirely possible for two next door neighbours to both win the lottery in the same week.
However, if we find life on our next door neighbor, we have some explaining to do.
Sure we do. And if we don't find life there, we still have some explaining to do. That's the purpose of science: to explain.
All of a sudden, earth won't seem so unique anymore. And we'll start wondering why SETI hasn't turned anything up yet.
Sounds like a creationist fnord to me. Life on Earth only seems unique because so far it's the only example we have. To flipside a previous analogy, it's possible for an entire city to go a hundred years without any of its inhabitants winning the lottery.
Now, if we found HUMAN life on Mars, that would really destroy all of the ongoing theories of the origins of life on earth.
Back on topic. No one said anything about human life. In any case, I'd like to hear about this supposed plethora of ongoing theories of the origins of life are. Intelligent design is going out of style.
And what does this have to do with the price of beans in Morocco?
In any case, this is a copy of the big bold text on the front page of the site that you linked to, in case you missed it:
Please note that the $100 laptops--not yet in production--will not be available for sale. The laptops will only be distributed to schools directly through large government initiatives.
A large chunk of the world's biggest computer hardware and software companies get together and decide to install this TPM chip. Why? To save their buddies (subsidiaries, joint ventures, partners, whatever) -- the online retailers, services, media and banks -- the cost of fraud (and maybe tell you how it will protect you too, to get you to buy their stuff). But who decides what sites are allowed to read the TPM chip's contents? Why, the coalition of hardware and software companies, of course. How do they ensure its success? Make the ISPs require it. After all, most of the ISPs are their buddies too. But how do they make sure all ISPs require it, and make the whole system legitimate? They call up their government buddies, or make some new government buddies, and before you know it the law is doing it for them.
Seriously, I've used it from behind a whole whack of different firewall/proxy configurations, and I've never had a single problem. And what could you possibly need to screw with in your browser? Turn on JavaScript?
Re:Warning to old media
on
Gmail Gets RSS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My various daily updated websites that use metafile data to pass a hyperlink (blog with RSS feed for you non-jerk-new-wordphobes)
I like it when people call things what they are. Now, back to listening to my network-streamed compressed audio (podcast?).
I think calling me an ideologue, for starters, is a bit premature based solely on the fact that I'm concerned about potential abuse of the Internet by an organization that has repeatedly flouted international law in other arenas. I think that's a legitimate concern for people of all political stripes. Since you didn't bother to point out what ideology I'm supposed to be subscribing to, I can't very well elaborate further.
as long as it [1] aligns with your wacky world view
Again, what world view are we talking about here, and who are you to say whether it is 'wacky' or not? Sounds to me like you're the one who's suffering from self-serving bias, not me.
and [2] is, somewhere and somehow, in print. The link you posted is by some worthless scumbag who just hates the military and got hoaxed as a result of his own ideological blindness.
The link I posted was a good example of the type of thing I'm worried about, even if it isn't real. I don't just believe anything I read, and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with your views of that, to me, is the height of ideological blindness. And how do you draw the conclusion that the author of the article is a 'worthless scumbag'? Is that just what you call everyone who you think hates the military? More importantly, how can you tell me that he got hoaxed, any more than I can tell you it's 100% real? Do you know the guy?
I just wish there was way to make you see what a complete shithead you are.
Why do people resort to name-calling when they see something they don't like? You accuse me of ideological blindness, yet you lash out with no real argument against people who don't share your opinion. Get a life, hypocrite.
I'm deeply concerned about not only the motives of the U.S. military engaging in 'cyberspace warfare' in terms of whether it would be kept within legal limitations (if that's even possible), but also about the competence of the people who would be carrying it out to make appropriate decisions with respect to the legality of what they are doing. Take a look at this article to see what I mean.
The point of my post was that no one can understand what they are getting into when language similar to "subject to change" is used.
Anyone can understand just fine what they are getting into. If it says on the contract, "this contract can be changed at any time by Party A in any way that suits Party A's fancy, regardless of Party B," then I see no reason why it is not clear to Party B that they are essentially signing a blank check, and therefore, except in very specific circumstances, Party B should simply not agree to the contract.
You claim that these kinds of contracts are used to screw unions all the time; I work for a major auto manufacturer in the union capital of Canada (and a stone's throw from Detroit), and I have never heard of this happening. I find it hard to believe that any reasonably sized union, no doubt employing lawyers, would be duped into signing a contract that was so clearly open-ended on the employer's end.
Why should it be illegal? If I am a developer, the license is a contract between me and each user of my software. I am offering them this option of my own free will, knowing full well that the license could potentially change to something I don't agree with.
So, it becomes an issue of trust in the body that governs the license; in the case of the GPL, the FSF. If they go in a direction I don't like, I can release a new version of my software under a different license or strictly under the old license, but the previous version(s) will always be bound to comply with the changes I didn't like, at the end user's option. I'm quite aware of this possibility, yet I continue to release software under the GPL.
Laws shouldn't exist to protect people against their own stupidity. If you don't understand what you're getting yourself into before you agree to a contract, you have no business being party to the contract.
The point is, someone shouldn't be able to take GPL software that contributing developers worked hard on, modify it a bit, package it up, sell the binaries, and make it arbitrarily difficult (albeit not impossible) for the general public to separately obtain the source code. Abuses of that allowance -- and there would be plenty of them -- would negate most of free software's key benefits for the affected software family.
Yes, I realize that. I figured that the question in the parent post would pretty much be moot for cases like the Linux kernel itself, so I responded referring to the general case where the clause is present.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of that "life support stuff" has been running on low-level embedded control systems and, in more complicated cases, proprietary UNIX variants, since before either Win2K or his wife were a twinkle in Bill Gates' eye.
Systems like that, used in medical, industrial and military applications, make Win2K look as stable as an overweight donkey on ice skates. Windows, like most general-purpose things, is a clumsy, plodding hack that does a mediocre-at-best job of a variety of things instead of a really good job at one. Linux, as the term is used most of the time, falls under the same category, albeit perhaps somewhat less clumsy and plodding. I wouldn't trust a desktop PC to run my toaster.
Generally, control devices used in critical applications like life support machines are rock solid. There are some PLCs at the plant I work in that have been running continuously for years in a harsh environment (aluminum foundry) without incident.
In my experience, it's a heck of a lot easier to get a minimal Gentoo Linux or FreeBSD server running than a minimal Solaris server. I'm not denying that Solaris kicks butt on Sun hardware, but it's a stretch to call a Solaris system minimal even if you install only the core packages that it (according to the installer) won't run without.
Yes, I know, but the stable orbit requiring the minimum tangential velocity to remain stable would be circular... as TV increases, orbit gets more elliptical and eventually parabolic (open)... it's like increasing the slope of a conical cross-section...
I could never motivate myself to make a product which wastes time for everyone.
You begin by speaking for yourself. Why didn't you stay on this track?
Real innovation comes from making productive programs which not only save time, but make money.
Real innovation can come from all manner of sources, however unlikely your prejudices make them seem. This sounds like a fuddy-duddy "rap isn't real music" argument.
I hope these kids [...] I recommend these kids [...] I don't really understand kids [...] I know most of the kids [...] KIDS!
I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids!
You are not as smart as the Quake engine author, you can't do it by yourself. Quit the overzealous cocky attitude!
Now why would you say something like that? Any one of these "kids" could very well be as smart as the Quake engine author. Don't go around pushing your can't-do attitude on potentially bright young programmers. Would you say the same thing if they had an ambitious plan to make, say, a really good electronics simulator?
Games are just throw away work afterall.
Despite all your whining, the video game industry is a $11 billion industry in the United States alone, and keep in mind that video games are similarly huge in Japan, Canada and the UK. And the aforementioned Quake engine author appeared number 10 in TIME's 50 most influential people in technology. Not bad for throw away work.
The only way something can fall into a black hole is by losing energy to fall it. If it doesn't lose any energy it will keep revolving around the black hole.
Something has to be in orbit to begin with for this to be true. Yes, the gas is rotating around the black hole, but that doesn't mean it's in orbit. It's just falling (being gravitationally attracted) toward the black hole.
In other words, the tangential velocity of the gas is not high enough to maintain a circular orbit at the same distance. Technically, anything falling with nonzero tangential velocity could be considered to be in a decaying orbit, but you're talking about a stable orbit which would require some loss of energy to start decaying, which TFA says nothing about.
Rock Ridge is a POSIX-related IEEE standard that has nothing to do with Microsoft. Joliet is as far as I know an open specification that Microsoft endorses but does not license, and even if they could and did license it, Joliet filesystems are backwards compatible with standard ISO 9660. Neither of these extensions have anything to do with FAT.
Fact: "Critics" and "expert" and (even worse) "analysts" tend to be terrible in predicting what people will buy.
Mostly, they're industry lapdogs who sensationalize the latest product the industry wants you to buy in industry-run media (since we're talking about the media industry here, that would be all media). It's all part of the big ugly capitalist machine: use all manner of sensationalism to foster consumerism.
If they did know jack, they would be wearing black turtlenecks, earning a dollar a year, and making people in San Francisco swoon with the really successful things.
Negative. They suck up to Black Turtleneck men and try to become Black Turtleneck men -- that is, those of them that are self-serving and ambitious enough, and are actually more than dimly aware of their aforementioned role.
I can scrawl notes on the margins of "Cryptonomicon" where Stephenson got the German wrong...
Do people actually do this?
In text books I will pencil in corrections to mistakes I find in formulas.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I didn't use Occam's Razor incorrectly. My logic would not have you throw out quantum mechanics and relativity in favor of Newtonian physics or something even more primitive, because there is extant factual evidence that requires you to formulate something more complex. I didn't say to always use the simplest explanation, I said to always use the simplest explanation that fits all of the facts, or in other words, formulate the simplest and most elegant theory that could produce the entire corpus of observations we have. Anything else is a waste of time, pointless at best, dangerous at worst.
You keep saying that we should start exploring alternative theories "in the face of new evidence," but where is this evidence? Agreed, in the past and present many scientists have and do not want to let go of obsolete theories, and granted, probably most of our current theories are incomplete pictures of reality, but that's no justification for jumping the gun and prematurely speculating on new theories when there is no evidence to require them.
Scientists have relegated relativity and quantum mechanics to the ranges of conditions in which they work, and begun working on string theory and other theories to attempt to fit the entire body of facts. What it sounds like you are suggesting is equivalent to starting a new theory based on the assumption that a complete string theory will probably be invalidated by new evidence at some point in the future, and directing the new theory based on pure speculation about what that new evidence might be (with some romantic bias, no doubt). What if we really do have the whole picture? And even if we don't, what chance is there that you've gone in the right direction without factual guidance?
While there is nothing to positively discount any of the possibilities you mentioned, you cannot say that all of those theories have equal merit simply because none have been either proven or disproven. Occam's Razor is a good principle; we shouldn't waste time exploring anything more complicated than your first theory until we have evidence that necessitates making other assumptions (such as finding life forms similar to Earth's on Mars).
This is not an indication of a closed mind, but rather a solid scientific principle that prevents pseudoscience, mysticism, self-serving bias and other nonsense from creeping into and tainting the study of our universe. Scientists have (or should have) no problem questioning "common thinking" as long as there is some factual basis for doing so.
Sorry to rain on everyone's parades here, but to find any signs of life on Mars would really damage the current theory of how life got to be here.
Why? The "current theory" is that life arose from complex molecules eventually forming reproducing organisms, evolving over time to the level of complexity we see today on Earth. How would the discovery that something similar happened on Mars damage that theory in the least? Besides, the invalidation of theories is a big part of scientific progress, so if anything, it's a good day for science when a theory is disproven.
See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible.
First, you can't just state facts like that without any hint that they are supported by evidence (to quote Sagan, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Second, even if we are to accept this as truth, just how small are these chances, numerically? Third, it's entirely possible for two next door neighbours to both win the lottery in the same week.
However, if we find life on our next door neighbor, we have some explaining to do.
Sure we do. And if we don't find life there, we still have some explaining to do. That's the purpose of science: to explain.
All of a sudden, earth won't seem so unique anymore. And we'll start wondering why SETI hasn't turned anything up yet.
Sounds like a creationist fnord to me. Life on Earth only seems unique because so far it's the only example we have. To flipside a previous analogy, it's possible for an entire city to go a hundred years without any of its inhabitants winning the lottery.
Now, if we found HUMAN life on Mars, that would really destroy all of the ongoing theories of the origins of life on earth.
Back on topic. No one said anything about human life. In any case, I'd like to hear about this supposed plethora of ongoing theories of the origins of life are. Intelligent design is going out of style.
And what does this have to do with the price of beans in Morocco?
In any case, this is a copy of the big bold text on the front page of the site that you linked to, in case you missed it:
Please note that the $100 laptops--not yet in production--will not be available for sale. The laptops will only be distributed to schools directly through large government initiatives.
Good luck getting started with Linux.
A large chunk of the world's biggest computer hardware and software companies get together and decide to install this TPM chip. Why? To save their buddies (subsidiaries, joint ventures, partners, whatever) -- the online retailers, services, media and banks -- the cost of fraud (and maybe tell you how it will protect you too, to get you to buy their stuff). But who decides what sites are allowed to read the TPM chip's contents? Why, the coalition of hardware and software companies, of course. How do they ensure its success? Make the ISPs require it. After all, most of the ISPs are their buddies too. But how do they make sure all ISPs require it, and make the whole system legitimate? They call up their government buddies, or make some new government buddies, and before you know it the law is doing it for them.
If it sounds like a racket to you, join the club.
Try this:
http://www.mavrinac.com/projects/wicwacwoe/google. xml
Quite possibly the most useless Google Homepage module available.
Um... no?
Seriously, I've used it from behind a whole whack of different firewall/proxy configurations, and I've never had a single problem. And what could you possibly need to screw with in your browser? Turn on JavaScript?
My various daily updated websites that use metafile data to pass a hyperlink (blog with RSS feed for you non-jerk-new-wordphobes)
I like it when people call things what they are. Now, back to listening to my network-streamed compressed audio (podcast?).
You ideologues will believe anything
I think calling me an ideologue, for starters, is a bit premature based solely on the fact that I'm concerned about potential abuse of the Internet by an organization that has repeatedly flouted international law in other arenas. I think that's a legitimate concern for people of all political stripes. Since you didn't bother to point out what ideology I'm supposed to be subscribing to, I can't very well elaborate further.
as long as it [1] aligns with your wacky world view
Again, what world view are we talking about here, and who are you to say whether it is 'wacky' or not? Sounds to me like you're the one who's suffering from self-serving bias, not me.
and [2] is, somewhere and somehow, in print. The link you posted is by some worthless scumbag who just hates the military and got hoaxed as a result of his own ideological blindness.
The link I posted was a good example of the type of thing I'm worried about, even if it isn't real. I don't just believe anything I read, and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with your views of that, to me, is the height of ideological blindness. And how do you draw the conclusion that the author of the article is a 'worthless scumbag'? Is that just what you call everyone who you think hates the military? More importantly, how can you tell me that he got hoaxed, any more than I can tell you it's 100% real? Do you know the guy?
I just wish there was way to make you see what a complete shithead you are.
Why do people resort to name-calling when they see something they don't like? You accuse me of ideological blindness, yet you lash out with no real argument against people who don't share your opinion. Get a life, hypocrite.
I'm deeply concerned about not only the motives of the U.S. military engaging in 'cyberspace warfare' in terms of whether it would be kept within legal limitations (if that's even possible), but also about the competence of the people who would be carrying it out to make appropriate decisions with respect to the legality of what they are doing. Take a look at this article to see what I mean.
Being required to show ID does have one thing going for it - it does enable you to figure out who the terrorists were, although after the fact.
I'm sure all those terrorists (look out, there's one now!) would use their real IDs to get on the plane.
Only Gilmore and the Slashdork "Anything the government does is EEEVVVIIILLL" people care about traveling without showing ID.
Incorrect. I don't think anything the government does is EEEVVVIIILLL, yet I certainly care about traveling without showing ID. Statement disproven.
I have no doubt if a poll were taken, the vast majority of the American public would not support Gilmore and his insane quest.
How scientific of you. Excellent support for your rock-solid position.
TFA was right about one thing - Gilmore is a complete jerk and his attitude will most certainly result in his losing this case.
TFA was in support of Gilmore's motives, and I don't recall reading anything suggesting that he is a 'complete jerk' anywhere in it.
Are you talking about Marsupilami?
The point of my post was that no one can understand what they are getting into when language similar to "subject to change" is used.
Anyone can understand just fine what they are getting into. If it says on the contract, "this contract can be changed at any time by Party A in any way that suits Party A's fancy, regardless of Party B," then I see no reason why it is not clear to Party B that they are essentially signing a blank check, and therefore, except in very specific circumstances, Party B should simply not agree to the contract.
You claim that these kinds of contracts are used to screw unions all the time; I work for a major auto manufacturer in the union capital of Canada (and a stone's throw from Detroit), and I have never heard of this happening. I find it hard to believe that any reasonably sized union, no doubt employing lawyers, would be duped into signing a contract that was so clearly open-ended on the employer's end.
Why should it be illegal? If I am a developer, the license is a contract between me and each user of my software. I am offering them this option of my own free will, knowing full well that the license could potentially change to something I don't agree with.
So, it becomes an issue of trust in the body that governs the license; in the case of the GPL, the FSF. If they go in a direction I don't like, I can release a new version of my software under a different license or strictly under the old license, but the previous version(s) will always be bound to comply with the changes I didn't like, at the end user's option. I'm quite aware of this possibility, yet I continue to release software under the GPL.
Laws shouldn't exist to protect people against their own stupidity. If you don't understand what you're getting yourself into before you agree to a contract, you have no business being party to the contract.
The point is, someone shouldn't be able to take GPL software that contributing developers worked hard on, modify it a bit, package it up, sell the binaries, and make it arbitrarily difficult (albeit not impossible) for the general public to separately obtain the source code. Abuses of that allowance -- and there would be plenty of them -- would negate most of free software's key benefits for the affected software family.
Yes, I realize that. I figured that the question in the parent post would pretty much be moot for cases like the Linux kernel itself, so I responded referring to the general case where the clause is present.
What a punch in the nuts for GNU, too... the FSF starts drafting a new GPL, and it's categorized as "Linux" (not even "GNU/Linux") on Slashdot.