also if your kernel is not pure gpl IT IS ILLIGAL FOR YOU TO DISTRIBUTE IT. You are allowed to _use_ it like that but not distribute it. There are good reasons for that. Consider the following scenario:
Intel develops new closed undocumented architecture with a 16 core cpu. Similarly to current network or video cards, you need a proprietary driver to enable the super accelerated multicoreness. In order to enable the use of the newer faster computers, Linux vendors do what they did with the other proprietary drivers, label these drivers as "not part of the kernel" put them in a wrapper and ship their version of Linux with the proprietary drivers which, for now, intel is giving away for free with the hardware. For a while everybody is happy and content. The new 16 cores chip becomes the new standard. There are even 32 core chips on the market and the 64 cores chips are soon to be released all of which rely on proprietary drivers.
Suddenly, we hear that a large company, Lintelsoft, started by ex MS executives, makes a deal with Intel, a very lucrative deal for Intel, to license the drivers. Intel then says they won't give away the drivers anymore but you are free to buy the brand new Lintel Linux distribution. This distribution, which sells for 699$ a piece is all GPL'd except for those drivers that have become so standard that you need them in order for computers to run at a reasonable speed.
Open source programmers scramble to write free replacement drivers that work on their Gnubian distribution but only manage to make drivers that can run the multi core cpu's at 1/20th the speed as Intel won't release documentation or specifications. Linux is rendered mostly useless except for the Lintel distro, (which is also available for free and with sourcecode as Lintelora excluding the proprietary driver sources of course) You can always plug in the Gnubian drivers in the free Lintelora project and get a working computer but it will only run at 1/20th the speed of the commercial 699$ a pop version and isn't powerful enough to run the new Mozilaurus browser smoothly.
In this scenario, Lintelsoft would have effectively stolen Linux from the open source community, making profit with their source code and breaking all versions that are free.
How can we let anyone close up an obviously derived work based on some wrappers?
Notice that, even today I sometimes need to pay to get a fully working Linux from certain vendors, like Mandriva. (if i don't pay, 3d acceleration wont work.) I expect that kind of twisting of the law by commercial vendors. It surprises me that even Ubuntu is including proprietary video drivers nowadays.
What's worst is that legally in order to maintain copyrights you need to make reasonable efforts at protecting those rights. Legally if the open source community waits until the binary drivers become problematic before acting. Proprietary vendors will be able to argue legitimately that closed source code has been allowed in the kernel by the open source community for a long time now: You are not legally allowed to suddenly change your mind about interpretations to suit current needs.
I think it's the opposite. When he shorts the coil, this has the effect of acting as a load (breaking the system) because the current can now flow through the coil and dissipate in its resistance.
The way I think the observed effect could be explained is that when he puts the ferromagnetic rod in the shaft, it somehow changes the impedance of the system such that there is an impedance missmatch between the shorted coil and the rest of the system. This inhibits the breaking effect of the coil since current doesn't flow in it as much.
Somewhat he might have managed to make energy "resonate" between the different par of the system in such a way that it is transfered pretty efficiently instead of being lost quickly in the resistance of the coils.
From what I can see he doesn't create energy but prevents it from being dissipated as quickly as you would normally expect when you put a shorted coil in front of the magnets. I only watched the first video but I think it is a little misleading that in the first demo he turns the machine on, lets it accelerate just a bit (not a lot), then shorts the coil to slow it down. I'm guessing that if he would have let the machine accelerate without the break it would have gone as fast as in the later tests were we are witnessing the supposedly unexplainable effect. The fact that he didn't show us how fast the motor goes when it turns freely somewhat leads us to think that the machine is going faster than normal when he puts the rod in it when really it's probably just going (almost) as fast as if he was running it without a shorted coil as a load.
What I'm trying to say is that the effect is probably not actually accelerating the machine to a faster speed than it would go without a break. It's just inhibiting part of the breaking effect of the coil.
That is the biggest problem with religion, it's used all the time as an excuse for immoral acts. It's so ironic considering that their main recruting strategy is to appeal to morality by saying that if we believe we should not steal, we should not kill, we should be nice with others, it means we are a one of them. This is utter bullshit having a sense of community, ethics and morality is quite natural and totally independent of your faith. More often than not, religions end up circumventing rational morality, sometimes in very gruesome ways, instead of making people more ethical.
Free markets do work magic sometimes, and you are right, profit is often a cost of efficiency. It tends to be beneficial at least when it is lower than the gains in efficiencies.
One of my favourite libertarian economist summarized economics by two things.
One: Incentives matter. Two: There's no such thing as a free lunch.
And I tend to prefer free market solutions for a lot of problems. However, I find that pure libertarians often forget the dark side of incentives. Basically, incentives work both ways. In a laissez faire context, everybody has to compete. The actors in this system get incentives toward the two following strategies.
1) Improve yourself to be better and more valuable than others. Create value. This is where we you get efficiency gains and where the whole society benefits.
2) Destroy other's ability to compete with you. This is NOT a gain to society. In fact it can be a huge cost. Libertarians often forget that the same incentives that bring efficiencies also promote anti-competitive behaviours. It's a sword that cuts both ways.
This happens in almost all competitive situations. Why do you think there is always a need for referees in sports?
Another example I heard against the free markets all the time comes from the world of management. Apparently, some years ago, Microsoft had adopted an interdepartmental competition system in order to motivate sectors to innovate. The most successful projects would get more budgets for the following year and the less successful would get less or get killed. The projects were judged against each other instead of on their own merits and everybody knew that. What happened is that the different Microsoft applications stopped being interoperable with each other because no team would want to help another one at the risk of losing their own budget. The e-mail client stopped interacting well with the web browser, and the word processor would not play well with internet applications etc. Microsoft had to reform quickly in order to survive.
I think do think free market incentives are an important tool for an efficient society, however, this is only true in contexts where we can assure competition will be fair and that the gains in efficiencies for everyone is greater than the profit to a few select people.
I dunno... I'm always a little more suspicious of people who dress too nicely, act too nicely, write too cleanly or any other things which take effort to get a superficially nice result but nothing else of real value. This suspiciousness extends to organisations that harbour that kind of culture so that, when I have a choice, I avoid them. It always seems to me like they're either compensating for their lack of true value and competence or they are trying to deceive or both. After all, snake oil salesmen always have the most most professional personality and looks.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks like that. Companies that cater to people like me are disadvantaged if they hold high superficial standards.
Well, as we often witness, a system can be the most representative and fair on paper, but if the players aren't honest and willing to play a fair gaim, there are always ways to manipulate it and get unfair advantages.
For example, the commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK are not that democratic on paper compared with the US. I mean England still has a queen and a monarchy. However, it seems that their participants although by no means angels play a pretty fair game. For example, here in canada the queen of England still has authority on us on paper but she acts in good faith and pretty much never meddles in our affairs. We also have a senate with members apointed for life.
Whereas in the US, you have a very strong democratic constitution with all kinds of checks and balance to make it the most democratic, fair, decentralised, representative of "We the people" etc. , yet you get suspicious electronic voting, swiftboating, signing statements, medias with questionable influences and tight integration of corporative interests in the political process so that in practice, because of the lower level of integrity in american politics, it seems the most crooked and manipulative crooks who are willing to play in the gray areas of constitutionality end up being the leaders.
It goes to show that the markets _can_ moderate themselves and that outsourcing isn't necessarily bad in itself. It can help countries get out of poverty.
IMO outsourcing only becomes immoral and akin to slavery when the jobs go to people who are kept poor by their government and we exploit this situation. When giving our business and jobs to those countries, we become in a way accomplices with the crooked governments. However, when we outsource to democracies like India that have, in spite of some problems of corruption, a government that acts on behalf of its people, it can lead to beneficial results for everyone.
Since my ISP is charging me per comment view, it's too expensive for me to deliver this comment to you free of charge. Please deposit 25 cents in my paypall account and I will grant access to you.
I think the harm being addressed here is that consumers and businesses need more alternatives for obtaining net access. They shouldn't be in a market where they only have one ISP to choose from.
This is the crucial part. Yeah if there were plenty of competitors and plenty of parallel alternative routes owned by different people to get from point A to point B on the internet, we wouldn't have anything to worry about as competition would take care of the problem.
However, is this ever going to happen? Is this even cost effective? I mean, duplicating the net infrastructure in order to ensure a minimum level of competition would cost _billions_. Sometimes, because of these kinds of cost, it's better to have a single semi-monopolistic infrastructure that is well regulated and neutral and that acts as a kind of common good. This reduces the costs of having the competition.
Sometimes market competition just isn't effective. Consider the roads and the highways. Would we save money by privatising the road system and ensuring that there are competing alternatives to go everywhere? The cost for the redundant infrastructure would be phenomenaly high.
I'm not saying that neutrality is a great solution, just that it's the best we have. I'm all for the invisible hand wherever the free market can work, I'm just not sure this is a place where it can.
I concur, acrobat has been crashing browsers for as long as I can remember. It's time someone clues in at Adobe. I'm convinced there would have been a fix by now if it was open source.
Maybe it's simply because I got poor teachers my whole life, but all my courses in grammar and language were about stupid drill exercises void of any meaning or explanations. I did a bachelor in electrical engineering without ever having learned to write at all. However 3 years ago when I started my degree in computational linguistics I was farced to see that all those rules, I was made to repeat, like a child in a third world sweatshop, had actually some logic behind them. Now _logic_ that is something my little geek mind could understand. When I started to see logic behind it all, I started to be eager to find it every time I didn't understand a rule and made mistakes, this made me improved rapidly.
First, tell student's that writing well is about conveying information in the clearest most unambiguous way possible.
Almost every rule of language can be argued to flow from that first principle. (Albeit in a fuzzy probabilistic way) Tell them that some rules add specific information to sentences while others add a bit of redundancy that reduces possible confusion.
Show your student example error sentences and explain to them why the error has the potential to make the sentence unclear. Sometimes it is obvious directly from the sentence, but often you can modify it slightly, add one or two word, and the potential confusion becomes apparent.
Tell them how sentences usually have a hierarchical structure so that almost every word attaches to another one and that reducing the distance between connected words makes sentences clearer.
The only reason everyone uses Windows is that everyone uses Windows.
I use Windows because I want to be compatible with everyone else. Companies write Windows only software and drivers because they want to be compatible with the majority.
Force a fraction of society to switch to a cheaper alternative, and you will precipitate another big chunk into doing the same.
Slashdot Mirror
The more mature and somewhat cheaper DriveOk http://www.driveoktracking.com/products.php devices have been available for a while now.
DriveOk makes similar units that are a bit less expensive and more mature in their functionality: http://www.driveoktracking.com/products.php
also if your kernel is not pure gpl IT IS ILLIGAL FOR YOU TO DISTRIBUTE IT. You are allowed to _use_ it like that but not distribute it. There are good reasons for that. Consider the following scenario:
Intel develops new closed undocumented architecture with a 16 core cpu. Similarly to current network or video cards, you need a proprietary driver to enable the super accelerated multicoreness. In order to enable the use of the newer faster computers, Linux vendors do what they did with the other proprietary drivers, label these drivers as "not part of the kernel" put them in a wrapper and ship their version of Linux with the proprietary drivers which, for now, intel is giving away for free with the hardware. For a while everybody is happy and content. The new 16 cores chip becomes the new standard. There are even 32 core chips on the market and the 64 cores chips are soon to be released all of which rely on proprietary drivers.
Suddenly, we hear that a large company, Lintelsoft, started by ex MS executives, makes a deal with Intel, a very lucrative deal for Intel, to license the drivers. Intel then says they won't give away the drivers anymore but you are free to buy the brand new Lintel Linux distribution. This distribution, which sells for 699$ a piece is all GPL'd except for those drivers that have become so standard that you need them in order for computers to run at a reasonable speed.
Open source programmers scramble to write free replacement drivers that work on their Gnubian distribution but only manage to make drivers that can run the multi core cpu's at 1/20th the speed as Intel won't release documentation or specifications. Linux is rendered mostly useless except for the Lintel distro, (which is also available for free and with sourcecode as Lintelora excluding the proprietary driver sources of course) You can always plug in the Gnubian drivers in the free Lintelora project and get a working computer but it will only run at 1/20th the speed of the commercial 699$ a pop version and isn't powerful enough to run the new Mozilaurus browser smoothly.
In this scenario, Lintelsoft would have effectively stolen Linux from the open source community, making profit with their source code and breaking all versions that are free.
How can we let anyone close up an obviously derived work based on some wrappers?
Notice that, even today I sometimes need to pay to get a fully working Linux from certain vendors, like Mandriva. (if i don't pay, 3d acceleration wont work.) I expect that kind of twisting of the law by commercial vendors. It surprises me that even Ubuntu is including proprietary video drivers nowadays.
What's worst is that legally in order to maintain copyrights you need to make reasonable efforts at protecting those rights. Legally if the open source community waits until the binary drivers become problematic before acting. Proprietary vendors will be able to argue legitimately that closed source code has been allowed in the kernel by the open source community for a long time now: You are not legally allowed to suddenly change your mind about interpretations to suit current needs.
If you want to distribute your version of linux, yes.
Today isn't april fool's day. It's valentine's day!
I think it's the opposite. When he shorts the coil, this has the effect of acting as a load (breaking the system) because the current can now flow through the coil and dissipate in its resistance.
The way I think the observed effect could be explained is that when he puts the ferromagnetic rod in the shaft, it somehow changes the impedance of the system such that there is an impedance missmatch between the shorted coil and the rest of the system. This inhibits the breaking effect of the coil since current doesn't flow in it as much.
Somewhat he might have managed to make energy "resonate" between the different par of the system in such a way that it is transfered pretty efficiently instead of being lost quickly in the resistance of the coils.
From what I can see he doesn't create energy but prevents it from being dissipated as quickly as you would normally expect when you put a shorted coil in front of the magnets. I only watched the first video but I think it is a little misleading that in the first demo he turns the machine on, lets it accelerate just a bit (not a lot), then shorts the coil to slow it down. I'm guessing that if he would have let the machine accelerate without the break it would have gone as fast as in the later tests were we are witnessing the supposedly unexplainable effect. The fact that he didn't show us how fast the motor goes when it turns freely somewhat leads us to think that the machine is going faster than normal when he puts the rod in it when really it's probably just going (almost) as fast as if he was running it without a shorted coil as a load.
What I'm trying to say is that the effect is probably not actually accelerating the machine to a faster speed than it would go without a break. It's just inhibiting part of the breaking effect of the coil.
And what are those fullfilled prophecies may I ask?
That is the biggest problem with religion, it's used all the time as an excuse for immoral acts. It's so ironic considering that their main recruting strategy is to appeal to morality by saying that if we believe we should not steal, we should not kill, we should be nice with others, it means we are a one of them. This is utter bullshit having a sense of community, ethics and morality is quite natural and totally independent of your faith. More often than not, religions end up circumventing rational morality, sometimes in very gruesome ways, instead of making people more ethical.
Can't be THAT hard to compile OSX on ARM. Dosn't ARM use a RISC architechture like the powerPC?
Free markets do work magic sometimes, and you are right, profit is often a cost of efficiency. It tends to be beneficial at least when it is lower than the gains in efficiencies.
One of my favourite libertarian economist summarized economics by two things.
One: Incentives matter. Two: There's no such thing as a free lunch.
And I tend to prefer free market solutions for a lot of problems. However, I find that pure libertarians often forget the dark side of incentives. Basically, incentives work both ways. In a laissez faire context, everybody has to compete. The actors in this system get incentives toward the two following strategies.
1) Improve yourself to be better and more valuable than others. Create value. This is where we you get efficiency gains and where the whole society benefits.
2) Destroy other's ability to compete with you. This is NOT a gain to society. In fact it can be a huge cost. Libertarians often forget that the same incentives that bring efficiencies also promote anti-competitive behaviours. It's a sword that cuts both ways.
This happens in almost all competitive situations. Why do you think there is always a need for referees in sports?
Another example I heard against the free markets all the time comes from the world of management. Apparently, some years ago, Microsoft had adopted an interdepartmental competition system in order to motivate sectors to innovate. The most successful projects would get more budgets for the following year and the less successful would get less or get killed. The projects were judged against each other instead of on their own merits and everybody knew that. What happened is that the different Microsoft applications stopped being interoperable with each other because no team would want to help another one at the risk of losing their own budget. The e-mail client stopped interacting well with the web browser, and the word processor would not play well with internet applications etc. Microsoft had to reform quickly in order to survive.
I think do think free market incentives are an important tool for an efficient society, however, this is only true in contexts where we can assure competition will be fair and that the gains in efficiencies for everyone is greater than the profit to a few select people.
Are you reffering to this?
I dunno... I'm always a little more suspicious of people who dress too nicely, act too nicely, write too cleanly or any other things which take effort to get a superficially nice result but nothing else of real value. This suspiciousness extends to organisations that harbour that kind of culture so that, when I have a choice, I avoid them. It always seems to me like they're either compensating for their lack of true value and competence or they are trying to deceive or both. After all, snake oil salesmen always have the most most professional personality and looks.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks like that. Companies that cater to people like me are disadvantaged if they hold high superficial standards.
Well, as we often witness, a system can be the most representative and fair on paper, but if the players aren't honest and willing to play a fair gaim, there are always ways to manipulate it and get unfair advantages.
For example, the commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK are not that democratic on paper compared with the US. I mean England still has a queen and a monarchy. However, it seems that their participants although by no means angels play a pretty fair game. For example, here in canada the queen of England still has authority on us on paper but she acts in good faith and pretty much never meddles in our affairs. We also have a senate with members apointed for life.
Whereas in the US, you have a very strong democratic constitution with all kinds of checks and balance to make it the most democratic, fair, decentralised, representative of "We the people" etc. , yet you get suspicious electronic voting, swiftboating, signing statements, medias with questionable influences and tight integration of corporative interests in the political process so that in practice, because of the lower level of integrity in american politics, it seems the most crooked and manipulative crooks who are willing to play in the gray areas of constitutionality end up being the leaders.
It's actually a single cylinder, 4 stroke lawn-mower engine.
500GHz is mightlily close to the frequency of visible light. Do you think this processor glows when it run?
It goes to show that the markets _can_ moderate themselves and that outsourcing isn't necessarily bad in itself. It can help countries get out of poverty.
IMO outsourcing only becomes immoral and akin to slavery when the jobs go to people who are kept poor by their government and we exploit this situation. When giving our business and jobs to those countries, we become in a way accomplices with the crooked governments. However, when we outsource to democracies like India that have, in spite of some problems of corruption, a government that acts on behalf of its people, it can lead to beneficial results for everyone.
Since my ISP is charging me per comment view, it's too expensive for me to deliver this comment to you free of charge. Please deposit 25 cents in my paypall account and I will grant access to you.
This is the crucial part. Yeah if there were plenty of competitors and plenty of parallel alternative routes owned by different people to get from point A to point B on the internet, we wouldn't have anything to worry about as competition would take care of the problem.
However, is this ever going to happen? Is this even cost effective? I mean, duplicating the net infrastructure in order to ensure a minimum level of competition would cost _billions_. Sometimes, because of these kinds of cost, it's better to have a single semi-monopolistic infrastructure that is well regulated and neutral and that acts as a kind of common good. This reduces the costs of having the competition.
Sometimes market competition just isn't effective. Consider the roads and the highways. Would we save money by privatising the road system and ensuring that there are competing alternatives to go everywhere? The cost for the redundant infrastructure would be phenomenaly high.
I'm not saying that neutrality is a great solution, just that it's the best we have. I'm all for the invisible hand wherever the free market can work, I'm just not sure this is a place where it can.
It's called a Mac
I concur, acrobat has been crashing browsers for as long as I can remember. It's time someone clues in at Adobe. I'm convinced there would have been a fix by now if it was open source.
One advice: Explain the why.
Maybe it's simply because I got poor teachers my whole life, but all my courses in grammar and language were about stupid drill exercises void of any meaning or explanations. I did a bachelor in electrical engineering without ever having learned to write at all. However 3 years ago when I started my degree in computational linguistics I was farced to see that all those rules, I was made to repeat, like a child in a third world sweatshop, had actually some logic behind them. Now _logic_ that is something my little geek mind could understand. When I started to see logic behind it all, I started to be eager to find it every time I didn't understand a rule and made mistakes, this made me improved rapidly.
First, tell student's that writing well is about conveying information in the clearest most unambiguous way possible.
Almost every rule of language can be argued to flow from that first principle. (Albeit in a fuzzy probabilistic way) Tell them that some rules add specific information to sentences while others add a bit of redundancy that reduces possible confusion.
Show your student example error sentences and explain to them why the error has the potential to make the sentence unclear. Sometimes it is obvious directly from the sentence, but often you can modify it slightly, add one or two word, and the potential confusion becomes apparent.
Tell them how sentences usually have a hierarchical structure so that almost every word attaches to another one and that reducing the distance between connected words makes sentences clearer.
Also Writing Well by Zimmerman is pretty good.
The problem is that in order to believe in god you have to take a very unscientific perspective on things.
There's an inconsistency in using science in your life but making an exeption regarding your religion.
There ARE religions that are more sensical though:
see: Church of Reality Unitarian Universalists or other atheist religions like buddhism
In the Provenzano code the key is the +3 shift," mathematics expert Alessandro Martignago told Discovery News.
eh... They had to get the specialists of integer additions to crack the case?
Hehe, so true,
MS is shooting itself in the foot in doing that.
The only reason everyone uses Windows is that everyone uses Windows.
I use Windows because I want to be compatible with everyone else. Companies write Windows only software and drivers because they want to be compatible with the majority.
Force a fraction of society to switch to a cheaper alternative, and you will precipitate another big chunk into doing the same.
There are good alternatives! Also this Church