You are deceiving yourself: of course there will be another election in the US in 2008. It will be another joke, and another Republican puppet will be elected. The ruling party needs to maintain the illusion of democracy -- at least for a while -- or there likely will be a public backlash. =8-P
Why use a radio signal? The cartridge is in the chamber, why not just have a cartridge with some contacts to interface to the firing mechanism? No worries about radio interference, etc....
How about having an RFID (yeah, I know there are issues with this) tag implated in the palm of your trigger hand that is read by an emitter in the grip, rather than entering in an 8-digit code each time? This has the added benefit that you'd just have to show someone your implant scar and say "Back-off, I'm encrypted.", rather than actually having to pull out a gun. =;-)
Of course, most people are to frickin' stupid to be allowed to own a gun. Or drive. Or breed. =8-P
Why is it that every time I read about an 'iPod-killer' the comparisons just make me want to go out and buy an iPod, even when the reviews are pro-'killer' (not this article is)?
Before posting my first post, I had skimmed the article, but it appears I skimmed it too quickly. My first impression was that this really was just a modification to MOND, which is itself just a fudge-factor added to Newton's theory. In MOND, Fg(M) is replaced by Fg(M)+a, where a is a very small constant. From my first scan of the article, I thought they were just replacing the constant a with a function a(phi), where phi is the gravitational field strength. Although this is the effect of what they did, they do actually formulate the theory as a vector+scalar modification to Einstein's tensor field. That means that their formulation can actually be used to describe the local curvature.
This is not an improvement to Einstein's theory of gravity. It is, however, an improvement to Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): MOND is merely an empirical correction to Newtonian gravity, so this is an improved 'empirical' gravity (well, it's got to survive a few more tests before we know if it's an improvement to MOND).
One big difference between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of gravity is that Newton's theory says what gravity does (ie. it gives us the magnitude and direction of the force of gravity between two objects) whereas Einstein's theory says that and how as well (i.e. mass curves space-time). Einstein's theory improves on Newton's in that it is more accurate and actually provides insight (testable) into how gravity actually works.
It is likely that Einstein's theory will be improved upon at some time, and be replaced by a more enlightening theory (quantum gravity? string theory?), but for now it is the best theory of gravity we've got....
The group doing the study on how flamewars get started (posted later than the parent to this) would find some invaluable data here....
My own contributions, probably already stated elsewhere:
Evolution is an observation. Take all of the fossil collections in all of the
Museums of the world, date them according to some accurate method (stratigraphy, mineral deposition, radioactive decay, etc.), then line them all up according to those ages. Now, create sub-groups of everything that looks similar. Start with, for example, whales: what you find is that the features of whales have changed over time and, as you pull older and older specimens into the 'whale' group, they start looking less and less like whales and more and more like big freakin' hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) with sharp teeth. Obviously, this is an over-simplification: as you go back further in the fossil record, data (fossils) become more sparse. However, there are tried and true methods for finding correlations from noisy data (such as gaps in fossil records, or gaps in digital recordings, etc. -- same methods, different dirt). If you could walk along the time-lines in those sub-groups, observing for yourself the changes and similarities, I think that most people would probably get a clue (however, you'd need an awfully big room to store all of those whales...
Darwin's theory is a theory about how evolution happens, it is not about whether or not evolution happens: as said above, evolution is an observational fact. Darwin's original theory is very different than the modern theororetical understanding of how evolution happens.
The word 'theory' in scientific parlance means something which is testable and falsifiable. In common terms, it usually means a vague idea or guess: this would be called a hypothesis (at best) in scientific terms. Darwin's theory was testable by comparing it to existing species records, and data collected by Darwin; his theory was also falsifiable, and withstood those tests. ID and creationism are not theories: they are guesses.
IDers claim (via the watchmaker analogy) that complex things (like watches) require something even more complex (like a watchmaker) to conceive and create them. Ok, that means that god is more complex than we are, indeed more complex than the Universe. Who created god?
Ok, normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'm not quite through my first coffee of the day, so what the heck...
First off, the observations of the CMB and the Hubble flow demonstrate that the Universe was smaller and hotter in the past. It's pretty simple physics, I'm sure you can figure it out without hurting yourself.
Second, you must be channelling Halton Arp: he tends to pull numbers out of his *ss without any data to back them up. He also tends to point at random line-of-sight alignments of objects at different distances and make weird claims about how those objects support his bogus claim of the day.
Third, superluminal motions are a geometric effect and do not show real 'faster than light' motions. This was explained in the 60s.
There are people who follow the original Ten Commandments and there are people who don't. Those who have faith, generally do. Those who have none, generally do not.
Wow, you are naive....
Actions speak louder than words. Faith has shit-all to do with being ethical, or even moral. (I like to think I'm both ethical and moral, but I have no faith in any god whatsoever.)
I don't have an iPod shuffle, but from those I have seen, I think that the shuffle is smaller than this when you consider the volume. Also, a 2.4cm cube in your pocket is rather awkward, even if it is only 18g.
Anyone out there have a ruler and an iPod shuffle to verify this?
I still would have hated studying English in high school, even with that book. I had the usual teenage mentality that what I wanted to say was more important than how I said it, and figured I could write a decent sentence when it was really required.
However, many, many years after high school, I picked up a collegue's copy of that book while waiting at his desk for him to return. After a quick skim, I realized it was an incredibly succinct guide to the (proper) usage of the language. I went and bought a copy later that week.
FWIW, I'll probably give a copy to my son if he has problems with grammar in school. Of course, he starts kindergarten in September, so I think Strunk and White might be a bit much at this point...
Yep - the first Intel-based Apple machines will be PowerBooks.
For all vendors laptops are outselling desktops, and this has been true for Apple for longer than most, I believe. The G4 is starting to suck really badly in comparison with even the slowest Pentium M on the market today: Apple needed that low-power G5 badly, IBM couldn't deliver.
There is one thing the Cringley article really made me think about: what Intel chip is Apple going to use? The Pentium M kinda makes sense, but I don't think that Apple is going to back out of the 64-bit apps (unless they do it really quietly). The EMT64 (or whatever the heck Intel's acronym is for their port of AMD's x86-64 extensions) P4 isn't any better than the G5 when it comes to power consumption and heat-output (or not enough to really base a laptop on).
But...
Intel bought the rights to the Alpha architecture (or licensed it: whatever --- all of the Alpha engineers when to work for Intel), what was it, three years ago? The original Alpha was not something you'd ever see in a laptop, but it was the best architecture out there (for what I do, anyway). Perhaps Intel has learned something from those engineers: perhaps Apple will be using an as-yet-unmarketed chip from Intel.
Ok, I'd better stop smoking that Longbottom leaf...
Ok, let me see: a genetic payload designed to disrupt normal cell operations, a coating designed to protect/hide the payload until it is injected into the cell. Isn't that a virus? Is this the first artificial virus? (Excepting the modified natural virii which have been used for decades for medical research).
Personally, I think most of the hate directed at the previous two, Jar-Jar comments aside, was a media invention. Things get repeated enough and people start to believe it.
Nope, I honestly disliked Episodes I and II whatever the marketing-types might say... Episode I would more aptly be named "The Marketing Menace" and II "The Corporate Wars": they were, quite frankly, the biggest budget fucking crap I've ever seen. Lucas should have let someone else write the screen-play and direct.
I'm disillusioned enough that I won't go and see the final movie in the theater: I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD. I wish I had the $10 per movie I paid to see Episodes I and II back, and the four hours of my life...
I'd like to point out that the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution as fact (although it wasn't this most recent pope that made that dogmatic switch). Of course, they just accept it as God's will...
So, I don't think the Pope would have been offended.
Seems to me that the only people who are offended by evolution are a few (well, 51%) Americans...
Heh - I'm in the same boat: my four-year old's handwriting is (or soon will be) better than mine. Any forms I fill in look like crap, so I get my wife to do any writing on joint applications and such.
BTW, handwriting analyis, IMNSHO, is about as useful as phrenology....
Ok, I haven't read the article yet (mirrors?), but I have read some of the comments.
Don't think of hydrogen as an energy source or a fuel: as has been pointed out many times before (and not just on/.), hydrogen is a rotten fuel since it takes so much energy to harvest it (i.e. from water or hydrocarbons). Instead, think of it as a half-decent battery which can store a *lot* of energy and doesn't have any toxic waste.
After all, what do you do with a battery: you charge it somehow, the energy is stored chemically (notoriously inefficient), and then it is discharged. Some batteries can be recharged and reused but, in the end, there is always a shell laden with noxious stuff left to dispose of.
How does a hyrdogen cell work? You put energy into creating and storing the hydrogen ( think charging a battery), the hydrogen is expended by combining it with oxygen in the air (producing heat and, hence, work to drive an engine or generator). After the cell is discharged, it can very likely be reused or, if not, recycled.
The problem with a hydrogen-based 'energy transport mechanism' (aka battery) is the source of the energy initially required to break the hydrogen from its chemical bonds. Lots of options:
nuclear (results in some nasty waste, but it is a heck of a lot less stupid than burning fscking coal
solar
wind
bacterial (proposed as a way to break some hydrocarbons)
Some of these mechanisms are made more viable because you're using a more efficient battery to store the energy.
The original paper on the anomolous acceleration came out, I think, in 1997 (I reviewed it in a graduate astrophysics class I was taking around then). The authors did a good job of discussing some of the possible explanations for the discrepancy, including leaks from the craft, dark matter, 'modified newtonian dynamics' (MOND), and others which I can't remember. None of the explanations they came up with really explained the magnitude or direction of the effect that was observed.
A little while after the paper was released a researcher pointed out, in a short, concise, article, that assymmetry in the way radiation from its ever-weakening energy sources (the RTGs mentioned) reflected from the craft, especially from the main communications antenna produced an acceleration of roughly the right magnitude and in the right direction.
It would have been great if MOND had provided the explanation (MOND has been proposed as an alternative to the bulk of the dark matter content in galaxies - not as an alternative to the content in the rest of the universe, though): I like observations which throw a wrench in our usual way of thinking about the universe - it makes things much more exciting. =;-)
I'll confess I haven't read the book but, from reading the comments posted, I think I have an idea of what was said.
Any educational system can produce nobel laureates or complete duds. The local gene pool might be a factor but there are at least two other equally important factors:
Motivated and enthusiastic teachers
These are generally well (or adequately) compensated and have the active support of the school administration (not always the case) and the parents.
Motivated and actively involved parents
The influence of the parents on the schooling of their children cannot be underestmated. Parents can not only affect what is being done and taught (and how it is taught) in their children's schools but they can also be involved in their children's education at home -- teaching by example and by actively educating their children.
Children learn values, ethics, and practical knowledge from their parents and, to a lesser extent, from their teachers. This can be done passively, in which case you never know what your kids are really picking up, or actively. Of course, one or two bad peers can really mess up an otherwise good kid...
To make a long story short (I gotta run for a train), don't make the educational system just another scapegoat and assume that the perfect system is just around the corner (or across the border). Education of practial matters is best done in school (any school, really) and at home; education of religious matters is best done in church (or synagogue, temple, whatever) and...home.
I attend both astronomy and computing conferences regularly. In the last year or two (since Mac OS X and the new line of PowerBooks really started catching on) I have seen a dramatic change in the laptops being used at these conferences. A couple years ago, there would have been a handful of Dells, a few IBMs, some Sonys, and maybe, just maybe, an Apple or two out of fifty laptops. This has changed to point where 30%-40% of all laptops I see at these conferences are now Apple PowerBooks or iBooks running OS X.
I've never been a huge fan of Apple, but have always grudgingly admitted that their OS has always been better designed from a useability point-of-view than Windows (and, sadly, Linux desktops), and that their aesthetics in hardware and software design are way better than any other company's. And, despite what a few earlier commentors have posted, Apple's hardware is usually quite good (with the exception -- up until the introduction of the G5 -- of their processors which have largely sucked. Thanks Motorola!).
I'm a Linux user at work and at home and will likely be replacing my home computer sometime soon. I had been thinking that I would just build a PC (Windows free) and install linux, and helping my wife and son with the transition. I now think that my next computer will be a Mac. I still don't consider myself a huge Apple fan, but what they offer is way better designed than anything else out there at this time.
I really think that Apple has driven the thin edge of the wedge between some traditionally non-Apple users and the usual Windoze OS/hardware that they would normally buy. Apple has re-invented itself in the past and, I think, innovated way more than many other companies. I think that they just might succeed in driving that wedge in further.
Conicidentally, I'm trying to cut my caffeine addiction, too. I have had very much the same symptoms as you have. If I sleep in a bit on the weekend, I usually wake up with a splitting headache which is only alleviated by a cup of coffee. Once, I went on vacation to a place where I couldn't easily get coffee and suffered from blinding headaches and nauseau for a couple days (then I found a source of coffee...).
I used to drink two or three large (500ml ~ 16oz) cups of strong coffee a day. I switched that to the same amount of half-caffeinated coffee, with little ill effect, for about a month. I then reduced the quantity, then switched to only one half-caffeinated cup a day (and maybe some decaf later in the day). I'm down to a cup of caffeinated tea a day, with maybe a cup of decaf tea or coffee later in the day. When I switched from half-caf coffee to tea, I had mild headaches, but tolerable.
Don't know if my method would work for you, but you either need to go with slow and determined reduction (which avoids the headaches) or cold-turkey (which would probably require you to take a few sick-days off work... =8-P ).
Some people have been commenting that there is no point to sending Cease and Desist letters to SCO.
IANAL, but it seems to me that if you choose not to enforce your copyright when there is such a blatant violation of your license, you implicitly surrender your rights in this case. Just to ensure that your rights can be upheld in court, doesn't it make some sense to lodge a protest with SCO -- also ensuring that the letter of protest is duly recorded elsewhere?
Perhaps one of the FSF lawyers can draft such a letter template, allowing the individual copyright holders to reference their copyrighted code in the letter and demanding that SCO stop distributing the code. A copy to SCO and to FSF should ensure that it would stand up in court (again, IANAL).
Slashdot Mirror
You are deceiving yourself: of course there will be another election in the US in 2008. It will be another joke, and another Republican puppet will be elected. The ruling party needs to maintain the illusion of democracy -- at least for a while -- or there likely will be a public backlash. =8-P
How about having an RFID (yeah, I know there are issues with this) tag implated in the palm of your trigger hand that is read by an emitter in the grip, rather than entering in an 8-digit code each time? This has the added benefit that you'd just have to show someone your implant scar and say "Back-off, I'm encrypted.", rather than actually having to pull out a gun. =;-)
Of course, most people are to frickin' stupid to be allowed to own a gun. Or drive. Or breed. =8-P
I usually hit mute during commercials: my son (five-years old) has even started doing this when he watches cartoons....
Maybe I should patent 'hitting mute to circumvent forced viewing technologies'?
Why is it that every time I read about an 'iPod-killer' the comparisons just make me want to go out and buy an iPod, even when the reviews are pro-'killer' (not this article is)?
My bad.
Before posting my first post, I had skimmed the article, but it appears I skimmed it too quickly. My first impression was that this really was just a modification to MOND, which is itself just a fudge-factor added to Newton's theory. In MOND, Fg(M) is replaced by Fg(M)+a, where a is a very small constant. From my first scan of the article, I thought they were just replacing the constant a with a function a(phi), where phi is the gravitational field strength. Although this is the effect of what they did, they do actually formulate the theory as a vector+scalar modification to Einstein's tensor field. That means that their formulation can actually be used to describe the local curvature.
Translation: oops.
This is not an improvement to Einstein's theory of gravity. It is, however, an improvement to Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): MOND is merely an empirical correction to Newtonian gravity, so this is an improved 'empirical' gravity (well, it's got to survive a few more tests before we know if it's an improvement to MOND).
One big difference between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of gravity is that Newton's theory says what gravity does (ie. it gives us the magnitude and direction of the force of gravity between two objects) whereas Einstein's theory says that and how as well (i.e. mass curves space-time). Einstein's theory improves on Newton's in that it is more accurate and actually provides insight (testable) into how gravity actually works.
It is likely that Einstein's theory will be improved upon at some time, and be replaced by a more enlightening theory (quantum gravity? string theory?), but for now it is the best theory of gravity we've got....
The group doing the study on how flamewars get started (posted later than the parent to this) would find some invaluable data here....
My own contributions, probably already stated elsewhere:
Ok, normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'm not quite through my first coffee of the day, so what the heck...
First off, the observations of the CMB and the Hubble flow demonstrate that the Universe was smaller and hotter in the past. It's pretty simple physics, I'm sure you can figure it out without hurting yourself.
Second, you must be channelling Halton Arp: he tends to pull numbers out of his *ss without any data to back them up. He also tends to point at random line-of-sight alignments of objects at different distances and make weird claims about how those objects support his bogus claim of the day.
Third, superluminal motions are a geometric effect and do not show real 'faster than light' motions. This was explained in the 60s.
Fourth, time for more coffee.
Have a nice day!
I hope it is too late in the process for Disney to F**k up 'Cars'.
There are people who follow the original Ten Commandments and there are people who don't. Those who have faith, generally do. Those who have none, generally do not.
Wow, you are naive....
Actions speak louder than words. Faith has shit-all to do with being ethical, or even moral. (I like to think I'm both ethical and moral, but I have no faith in any god whatsoever.)
BTW, is it possible to post a soul on E-Bay? =;-)
Anyone out there have a ruler and an iPod shuffle to verify this?
However, many, many years after high school, I picked up a collegue's copy of that book while waiting at his desk for him to return. After a quick skim, I realized it was an incredibly succinct guide to the (proper) usage of the language. I went and bought a copy later that week.
FWIW, I'll probably give a copy to my son if he has problems with grammar in school. Of course, he starts kindergarten in September, so I think Strunk and White might be a bit much at this point...
Ok, good point - the G4 isn't 64-bit... I still contend that the first Intel-based Apples will be PowerBooks.
However, 'longbottom leaf' -- haven't you ever read Tolkein? Sheesh, kids these days....
Yep - the first Intel-based Apple machines will be PowerBooks.
For all vendors laptops are outselling desktops, and this has been true for Apple for longer than most, I believe. The G4 is starting to suck really badly in comparison with even the slowest Pentium M on the market today: Apple needed that low-power G5 badly, IBM couldn't deliver.
There is one thing the Cringley article really made me think about: what Intel chip is Apple going to use? The Pentium M kinda makes sense, but I don't think that Apple is going to back out of the 64-bit apps (unless they do it really quietly). The EMT64 (or whatever the heck Intel's acronym is for their port of AMD's x86-64 extensions) P4 isn't any better than the G5 when it comes to power consumption and heat-output (or not enough to really base a laptop on). But...
Intel bought the rights to the Alpha architecture (or licensed it: whatever --- all of the Alpha engineers when to work for Intel), what was it, three years ago? The original Alpha was not something you'd ever see in a laptop, but it was the best architecture out there (for what I do, anyway). Perhaps Intel has learned something from those engineers: perhaps Apple will be using an as-yet-unmarketed chip from Intel.
Ok, I'd better stop smoking that Longbottom leaf...
Ok, let me see: a genetic payload designed to disrupt normal cell operations, a coating designed to protect/hide the payload until it is injected into the cell. Isn't that a virus? Is this the first artificial virus? (Excepting the modified natural virii which have been used for decades for medical research).
Nope, I honestly disliked Episodes I and II whatever the marketing-types might say... Episode I would more aptly be named "The Marketing Menace" and II "The Corporate Wars": they were, quite frankly, the biggest budget fucking crap I've ever seen. Lucas should have let someone else write the screen-play and direct.
I'm disillusioned enough that I won't go and see the final movie in the theater: I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD. I wish I had the $10 per movie I paid to see Episodes I and II back, and the four hours of my life...
I'd like to point out that the Roman Catholic church accepts evolution as fact (although it wasn't this most recent pope that made that dogmatic switch). Of course, they just accept it as God's will...
So, I don't think the Pope would have been offended.
Seems to me that the only people who are offended by evolution are a few (well, 51%) Americans...
BTW, handwriting analyis, IMNSHO, is about as useful as phrenology....
...does this mean that the Turion is named after the fastest of all roots, the turnip?
Ok, I haven't read the article yet (mirrors?), but I have read some of the comments.
Don't think of hydrogen as an energy source or a fuel: as has been pointed out many times before (and not just on /.), hydrogen is a rotten fuel since it takes so much energy to harvest it (i.e. from water or hydrocarbons). Instead, think of it as a half-decent battery which can store a *lot* of energy and doesn't have any toxic waste.
After all, what do you do with a battery: you charge it somehow, the energy is stored chemically (notoriously inefficient), and then it is discharged. Some batteries can be recharged and reused but, in the end, there is always a shell laden with noxious stuff left to dispose of.
How does a hyrdogen cell work? You put energy into creating and storing the hydrogen ( think charging a battery), the hydrogen is expended by combining it with oxygen in the air (producing heat and, hence, work to drive an engine or generator). After the cell is discharged, it can very likely be reused or, if not, recycled.
The problem with a hydrogen-based 'energy transport mechanism' (aka battery) is the source of the energy initially required to break the hydrogen from its chemical bonds. Lots of options:
- nuclear (results in some nasty waste, but it is a heck of a lot less stupid than burning fscking coal
- solar
- wind
- bacterial (proposed as a way to break some hydrocarbons)
Some of these mechanisms are made more viable because you're using a more efficient battery to store the energy.My $0.02CDN.
The original paper on the anomolous acceleration came out, I think, in 1997 (I reviewed it in a graduate astrophysics class I was taking around then). The authors did a good job of discussing some of the possible explanations for the discrepancy, including leaks from the craft, dark matter, 'modified newtonian dynamics' (MOND), and others which I can't remember. None of the explanations they came up with really explained the magnitude or direction of the effect that was observed.
A little while after the paper was released a researcher pointed out, in a short, concise, article, that assymmetry in the way radiation from its ever-weakening energy sources (the RTGs mentioned) reflected from the craft, especially from the main communications antenna produced an acceleration of roughly the right magnitude and in the right direction.
It would have been great if MOND had provided the explanation (MOND has been proposed as an alternative to the bulk of the dark matter content in galaxies - not as an alternative to the content in the rest of the universe, though): I like observations which throw a wrench in our usual way of thinking about the universe - it makes things much more exciting. =;-)
I'll confess I haven't read the book but, from reading the comments posted, I think I have an idea of what was said.
Any educational system can produce nobel laureates or complete duds. The local gene pool might be a factor but there are at least two other equally important factors:
Children learn values, ethics, and practical knowledge from their parents and, to a lesser extent, from their teachers. This can be done passively, in which case you never know what your kids are really picking up, or actively. Of course, one or two bad peers can really mess up an otherwise good kid...
To make a long story short (I gotta run for a train), don't make the educational system just another scapegoat and assume that the perfect system is just around the corner (or across the border). Education of practial matters is best done in school (any school, really) and at home; education of religious matters is best done in church (or synagogue, temple, whatever) and...home.
I attend both astronomy and computing conferences regularly. In the last year or two (since Mac OS X and the new line of PowerBooks really started catching on) I have seen a dramatic change in the laptops being used at these conferences. A couple years ago, there would have been a handful of Dells, a few IBMs, some Sonys, and maybe, just maybe, an Apple or two out of fifty laptops. This has changed to point where 30%-40% of all laptops I see at these conferences are now Apple PowerBooks or iBooks running OS X.
I've never been a huge fan of Apple, but have always grudgingly admitted that their OS has always been better designed from a useability point-of-view than Windows (and, sadly, Linux desktops), and that their aesthetics in hardware and software design are way better than any other company's. And, despite what a few earlier commentors have posted, Apple's hardware is usually quite good (with the exception -- up until the introduction of the G5 -- of their processors which have largely sucked. Thanks Motorola!).
I'm a Linux user at work and at home and will likely be replacing my home computer sometime soon. I had been thinking that I would just build a PC (Windows free) and install linux, and helping my wife and son with the transition. I now think that my next computer will be a Mac. I still don't consider myself a huge Apple fan, but what they offer is way better designed than anything else out there at this time.
I really think that Apple has driven the thin edge of the wedge between some traditionally non-Apple users and the usual Windoze OS/hardware that they would normally buy. Apple has re-invented itself in the past and, I think, innovated way more than many other companies. I think that they just might succeed in driving that wedge in further.
I used to drink two or three large (500ml ~ 16oz) cups of strong coffee a day. I switched that to the same amount of half-caffeinated coffee, with little ill effect, for about a month. I then reduced the quantity, then switched to only one half-caffeinated cup a day (and maybe some decaf later in the day). I'm down to a cup of caffeinated tea a day, with maybe a cup of decaf tea or coffee later in the day. When I switched from half-caf coffee to tea, I had mild headaches, but tolerable.
Don't know if my method would work for you, but you either need to go with slow and determined reduction (which avoids the headaches) or cold-turkey (which would probably require you to take a few sick-days off work... =8-P ).
IANAL, but it seems to me that if you choose not to enforce your copyright when there is such a blatant violation of your license, you implicitly surrender your rights in this case. Just to ensure that your rights can be upheld in court, doesn't it make some sense to lodge a protest with SCO -- also ensuring that the letter of protest is duly recorded elsewhere?
Perhaps one of the FSF lawyers can draft such a letter template, allowing the individual copyright holders to reference their copyrighted code in the letter and demanding that SCO stop distributing the code. A copy to SCO and to FSF should ensure that it would stand up in court (again, IANAL).