Gas doesn't have a size. Gas atoms do. Helium is famous for outgasing. While you can have a neon tube and fifty years later find that it still has "all" of the neon in it, a helium laser tube will leak the helium right through the walls of the laser tube in a year or so. It would be nice to prevent this, as it's the primary cause of failure of expensive laser tubes, but it just isn't pratical to make a helium laser tube that will not outgas.
Years ago (in the 70's) I worked on a hard disk drive that was filled with helium, both because it was inert and because the helium let the heads fly closer to the surface than other gasses would. But the damn thing required a spare heluim tank and frequent checks of the pressure to be sure it stayed in range; and you can bet that the drive was as well sealed as could be.
Hydrogen presents the same problems, except to a greater extent. An atom gets really tiny when it can give up an electron and become just a proton with no electron shell at all.
Hardly a problem. You could easily leak well over 20% of hydrogen in a car's tank into the atmosphere over say a one week period without ever having anywhere near an explosive concentration.
SCO is still hiding the claims behind NDO's and only showing the claimed 80 lines of copied code with comments to people who will sign the NDO's. Why? 80 lines of code hardly would compromise SCO intellectual property in any way. Could it be that are more concerned that if the openly disclosed the 80 lines of code with comments, the actual author who wrote them might see them and recognize them, and be able to show that they were stolen into SCO UNIX rather than stolen from SCO Unix?
..and with Hydrogen, which is expensive, you can bet your last dollar that the infrastructure in place will not tolerate even 2% leakage.
Companies will not have the tolerance for leaking Hydrogen like they currently do with fossil fuels, which are cheap and easily replaceable.
Gee, where to start with a statement like this?
fossil fules are cheap and easily replaceable while hydrogen is not? Costs will depend on how it is produced, but hydrogen is certainly easily replaceable, far more so than fossil fules. What's more, leak a fossil fuel and you have polution and cleanup issues; leak hydrogen and it just goes up and destroys the ozone layer but leaves no trace at the point of the leak.
Infrastructure will not tolerate it? Why do they tolerate leaks of fossil fuel? But more importantly, much of the leak is likely to be at the end-users point, mostly the hydrogen run cars and SUVs. The infrastructure will not only tolerate that, but will likely cut corners so much that they greatly contribute to it. Will they add extra cost and weight to avoid the loss? Hardly likely in view of all past history.
But it's also important to realize that some of that gas is simply going to get away. Ever work with containment of hydrogen and helium? The damn stuff is tiny. It leaks right out through solid metal containers. Thick walled tanks, of course, hold it better than devices that have to have complex design and seals designed to retain the gas, but fuel cells and similar devices are going to leak, by the very nature of the gas they are working with. The small nature of the hydrogen atom, particularly when it's electron slips off into a metal, is exactly why fuel cells can work; the lone protron is able to pass through the fuel cell barrier. You're not going to be able to work with such tiny atoms and not have a significant loss in conditions that are reasonable for a car.
From what I can see right now, these allegations have about as much chance of being true as SCO's claims.
Perhaps a lot more. Anyone stealing code from SCO would likely at least change the comments, as they know the source code is going to be public. On the other hand, anyone doing code for SCO knows that the code is not open source, and likely never expects anyone who could match it to Linux code to see it. Might have even been done by a coder who wanted a quick fix without the knowledge of the management of SCO (or Caldera or whatever name the software was done under at the time). Then later someone at SCO finds the matching code. What is their first impulse? To say "Oh, we may be stealing code"? Or to say "Our code matches code in Linux so IBM must have stolen our code".
I still like Cringley's explination best, that SCO did exactly what they openly said they were doing and merged Linux with Unix. But assuming they didn't make this up completely and indeed there is some code in Unix that matchs code in Linux down to the comments, it seems much more likely that some of the widely available open source Linux code was improperly put into Unix than some of the closely protected source code for Unix was put into Linux.
I've not followed this issue so I don't know which two states have adopted this, but I can guess...
You've not only not been following it, but you also don't bother to read the article before you post. But why bother, when people will just tell you and others will call you insightful.
I worked for a company where a software company (I won't name, but lets just say it bundles installer software that can apparently be used to
install your product anywhere;) ) did this to us.
Not naming this company is pretty gutless and does a disservice to us all. And it's not only a 127.0.0.1 address (clearly the software's own fault) that might do this to you - if you're a small developer and have a provider that doesn't give you a dedicated IP address, but rather assigns one each time you connect, or even changes it every few months, then you are extremely likely to be caught by this foolishnes
Don't think for a minute that this means this guy is broke. He's likely just using the bankruptcy laws to shield himself from paying his obligation. The guy apparently abuses the legal system to sue everyone he can to make a buck, then when a law suit catches up with him he does this to not pay on the judgement against him. Pretty typical.
If the code on the Lynksys needs to be released under the terms of the Linux license, then replacing that code with Cisco code in future releases would not change their obligation to release the code for a current product. Rather, it would be an admission that they did indeed have an obligation to release the current code, an would leave them with an inferior produvct while not removing that obligation to release the source for the good code.
Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.
The code with comments would be a strong indication that Unix code found it's way into Linux, but not that it was stolen or that IBM did it. Read the Cringley column for a much more reasonable explination and history of how these changes likely got into Linux, by a company that openly stated they were Unifying Unix with Linux for Business , SCO itself! Now they are trying to blame IBM with absolutely no proof at all (those 80 lines do not indicate they were added by IBM) and are already making a profit by threatening to sick lawyers on major Linux users if they don't pay SCO a license fee.
After you read the referenced article, see if you still think those 80 lines are proof that the code is ripped off.
Oh my god! The FCC is actually saying this!!! Having already given the cable monopolies the right to gouge the public to extreeme excess and also letting the a large cable interest (Time Owner) have ownership of one of the major satellite systems, they now suggest that there should be no free alternative, even if it is only a few channels? And what better use could there be for this spectrum? Putting it all in the hands of fat cats who can over charge for it like they already do for cable TV!
Copyright is so fundamental that it's clearly provided for in the U.S. Constitution. That document also talks about the reason for copyright. It's NOT to make more money for Disney. It's "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries". Specifically, in return for the legal protection of copyrights and patents for a limited time, the public is promised that these works will eventually become public property.
This legal concept is being completely perverted in two different ways, and there is an IMMINENT, PRESSING NEED to correct this. The first problem is, of course, that our own lawmakers are giving the special interests longer and longer extensions on these rights. Some have even openly stated an intention to continue to extend copyrights perpetually so that any current copyright would never expire. This needs to be stopped to prevent even further erosion of the constitution. The second is DRM technology. In extreme cases DRM technology can give the publisher so much control that it would be unreasonable to expect a work to ever pass into the public domain. Imagine for example a movie released only to a digital rights managed medium that can not be re-recorded and must be authorized by the publisher for every single viewing (and be confident that work is progressing towards this end). While such a company would enjoy all the protection of copyright laws (even the excesses of the DMCA), they might never pass their protected works on to public ownership, even if copyright extension creep is stopped. Even if they are still around when the copyright expires, there is no provision in the law that would compel them to activity take actions to turn over digital rights keys or other technology that could be needed to avail the public of their eventual ownership of previously protected works.
Look at patents - in this case a patent is granted in return for disclosure on how the invention works. You are not required to patent an invention. You could, for example, make some invention a trade secret, and never disclose it's secrets outside of your organization. In such a case others are free to try to invent it also, but if no one legitimately can duplicate your invention you might well have complete use of it for more than the term of a patent. But if you do want patent protection, you must disclose it so that it will be owned by the public after the patent expires in exchange for your exclusive patent monopoly for the term of the patent. DRM presents the danger that a corporation can get the legal protections of a copyright but also keep private the work as if it were a trade secret. The need to correct this problem is indeed IMMINENT and PRESSING now, before it becomes widespread.
If , as reported, they are selling actual patterns and not copies of same, then McCalls or anyone else has no business in using the DMCA in this, it just doesn't apply. Heck, it doesn't apply anyway, maybe copyright law would (for bogus copies, not for factory originals), but there is no digital security to defeat in any sewing pattern I've ever seen. Sounds like a more extreme abuse of DMCA that has ever been reported before, and there have been some good ones. Only thing they might have a leg to stand on is simply theft of property, but apparently they don't think they can support that. I hope McCalls gets sued real good on this one.
I took E.E. at Purdue in trhe late 60's and early 70's. The students were constantly asking for pratical applications for semester after semester of obscure math they were doing but getting little but promised o "that comes later"..... There was a story told of one Purdue EE grad who went to work and got a job designing military walkie-talkie radios. He designed a circuit that would work fine in theory, but fortunately someone else caught the problem before they started building them. He had done all the math fine, but one of the parts he calculated was needed for the walkie-talkie was a 1 farad 600 vold non-polar capacitor. Having no experience with actually building things, he stuck it in the circuit design and continued on. Back in the days this was done, such a capacitor would have weighed many times more than the soldier who was expected to carry the radio.
You got karma for being funny, but the truth is that this figure is extremely telling - they had to shoot the foam at a completely unrealistic number to get the results they "forced". The foam wasn't falling from very high, and as foam would have an extremely low terminal velocity even if it did. The rocket was just taking off and so wasn't moving very fast, and the foam was moving up at the same speed until it fell.
So why do an experiment with such an insanely high speed for the foam? Sure, they might have been able to damage their mock-up that way, but even a straw can pierce a tree if it has a tornado pushing it. Looks like NASA is up to more of it's old tricks again.
he get fooled into sending real gold to his "victim".:
That was certainly an amusing read. But you believe it? He somehow received gold sent to him? But he clearly pointed out in the series of e-mail exchanges that he was careful not to give the scammer an actual address, even when the scammer wanted to send him the fake documents via DHL.
Time to use the "travelling out of the office" gambit to avoid sending an address........2) I'm travelling between offices this week so finding an office to DHL to forms to is problematical. It would be much simpler and more efficient to email or FAX the forms to me.
This was supposedly after he already had the gold. Maybe he wasn't the only one being scammed! It would have been hard to get that gold with giving an address!
And unlike bypassing subscriptions, it's not something that is going to cost TiVo money,
Stealing subscriptions is one thing, I certainly don't endorse that. Bypassing subscriptions is something else. Just because I might have bought a TiVo, I don't owe TiVo a monthly fee for the rest of my life, or need to pay them a lifetime fee when their lifetime might be much shorter than mine. Who cares if it reduces TiVo's revenue - If I own the box I believe I should be able to bypass the subscription system and simply tell TiVo when and what channel to record. Any "hack" book that censors itself to not provide such information isn't worth squat.
Sure, if there's a last minute program change, I could miss the show. Same thing happens with a VCR; I can get over it. But I find the complete reliance on a subscription the most offensive part of TiVo, and would not consider one unless I could hack past it, either to avoid the costs or to know the hardware will still be of use if the company folds.
seem intent on respecting
TiVo's interest in having hackers stay away from things like subscription theft and video
extraction.
Video extraction is something they will not talk about? How lame! Might as well change the name from TiVo hacking to TiVo case mods, would be more honest even though it likely wouldn't sell as well.
Depends on the size of your incoming pipe. With my ~1.5meg DSL connection I expect my current hardware could keep up with it quite nicely; the hardware ain't where the bottleneck is. If I had some gigabyte fiber coming into the home it might be different, but for now hardware performance will not be a problem.
What I can do with the new technologu is a different matter. Would still like to see more ideas than how to share porn.
Wireless Lan CARD - LAME!
on
YOPY Arrives
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How lame. They promote the wireless nature of the beast, but it comes with a wireless lan card that stick out the end. Not only does that make it easy to break (and other brands of lan card might not work with the provided driver), but it wastes the slot, something you might need for other things when connected.
OK, I read the article and have a new Maxtor that seems to fit the parameters. It works OK now, but this is of concern, particularly since they recently dropped the warranty period from 3 years to 1 year. What option do I have? Is there really a recall in progress, or is it just that there should be?
Slashdot Mirror
Gas doesn't have a size. Gas atoms do. Helium is famous for outgasing. While you can have a neon tube and fifty years later find that it still has "all" of the neon in it, a helium laser tube will leak the helium right through the walls of the laser tube in a year or so. It would be nice to prevent this, as it's the primary cause of failure of expensive laser tubes, but it just isn't pratical to make a helium laser tube that will not outgas.
Years ago (in the 70's) I worked on a hard disk drive that was filled with helium, both because it was inert and because the helium let the heads fly closer to the surface than other gasses would. But the damn thing required a spare heluim tank and frequent checks of the pressure to be sure it stayed in range; and you can bet that the drive was as well sealed as could be.
Hydrogen presents the same problems, except to a greater extent. An atom gets really tiny when it can give up an electron and become just a proton with no electron shell at all.
OK, I read the article. What the hell are they talking about?
Hardly a problem. You could easily leak well over 20% of hydrogen in a car's tank into the atmosphere over say a one week period without ever having anywhere near an explosive concentration.
SCO is still hiding the claims behind NDO's and only showing the claimed 80 lines of copied code with comments to people who will sign the NDO's. Why? 80 lines of code hardly would compromise SCO intellectual property in any way. Could it be that are more concerned that if the openly disclosed the 80 lines of code with comments, the actual author who wrote them might see them and recognize them, and be able to show that they were stolen into SCO UNIX rather than stolen from SCO Unix?
Gee, where to start with a statement like this? fossil fules are cheap and easily replaceable while hydrogen is not? Costs will depend on how it is produced, but hydrogen is certainly easily replaceable, far more so than fossil fules. What's more, leak a fossil fuel and you have polution and cleanup issues; leak hydrogen and it just goes up and destroys the ozone layer but leaves no trace at the point of the leak.
Infrastructure will not tolerate it? Why do they tolerate leaks of fossil fuel? But more importantly, much of the leak is likely to be at the end-users point, mostly the hydrogen run cars and SUVs. The infrastructure will not only tolerate that, but will likely cut corners so much that they greatly contribute to it. Will they add extra cost and weight to avoid the loss? Hardly likely in view of all past history.
But it's also important to realize that some of that gas is simply going to get away. Ever work with containment of hydrogen and helium? The damn stuff is tiny . It leaks right out through solid metal containers. Thick walled tanks, of course, hold it better than devices that have to have complex design and seals designed to retain the gas, but fuel cells and similar devices are going to leak, by the very nature of the gas they are working with. The small nature of the hydrogen atom, particularly when it's electron slips off into a metal, is exactly why fuel cells can work; the lone protron is able to pass through the fuel cell barrier. You're not going to be able to work with such tiny atoms and not have a significant loss in conditions that are reasonable for a car.
Perhaps a lot more. Anyone stealing code from SCO would likely at least change the comments, as they know the source code is going to be public. On the other hand, anyone doing code for SCO knows that the code is not open source, and likely never expects anyone who could match it to Linux code to see it. Might have even been done by a coder who wanted a quick fix without the knowledge of the management of SCO (or Caldera or whatever name the software was done under at the time). Then later someone at SCO finds the matching code. What is their first impulse? To say "Oh, we may be stealing code"? Or to say "Our code matches code in Linux so IBM must have stolen our code".
I still like Cringley's explination best, that SCO did exactly what they openly said they were doing and merged Linux with Unix. But assuming they didn't make this up completely and indeed there is some code in Unix that matchs code in Linux down to the comments, it seems much more likely that some of the widely available open source Linux code was improperly put into Unix than some of the closely protected source code for Unix was put into Linux.
You've not only not been following it, but you also don't bother to read the article before you post. But why bother, when people will just tell you and others will call you insightful.
Not naming this company is pretty gutless and does a disservice to us all. And it's not only a 127.0.0.1 address (clearly the software's own fault) that might do this to you - if you're a small developer and have a provider that doesn't give you a dedicated IP address, but rather assigns one each time you connect, or even changes it every few months, then you are extremely likely to be caught by this foolishnes
Don't think for a minute that this means this guy is broke. He's likely just using the bankruptcy laws to shield himself from paying his obligation. The guy apparently abuses the legal system to sue everyone he can to make a buck, then when a law suit catches up with him he does this to not pay on the judgement against him. Pretty typical.
If the code on the Lynksys needs to be released under the terms of the Linux license, then replacing that code with Cisco code in future releases would not change their obligation to release the code for a current product. Rather, it would be an admission that they did indeed have an obligation to release the current code, an would leave them with an inferior produvct while not removing that obligation to release the source for the good code.
The code with comments would be a strong indication that Unix code found it's way into Linux, but not that it was stolen or that IBM did it. Read the Cringley column for a much more reasonable explination and history of how these changes likely got into Linux, by a company that openly stated they were Unifying Unix with Linux for Business , SCO itself! Now they are trying to blame IBM with absolutely no proof at all (those 80 lines do not indicate they were added by IBM) and are already making a profit by threatening to sick lawyers on major Linux users if they don't pay SCO a license fee.
After you read the referenced article, see if you still think those 80 lines are proof that the code is ripped off.
Oh my god! The FCC is actually saying this!!! Having already given the cable monopolies the right to gouge the public to extreeme excess and also letting the a large cable interest (Time Owner) have ownership of one of the major satellite systems, they now suggest that there should be no free alternative, even if it is only a few channels? And what better use could there be for this spectrum? Putting it all in the hands of fat cats who can over charge for it like they already do for cable TV!
Copyright is so fundamental that it's clearly provided for in the U.S. Constitution. That document also talks about the reason for copyright. It's NOT to make more money for Disney. It's "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". Specifically, in return for the legal protection of copyrights and patents for a limited time, the public is promised that these works will eventually become public property.
This legal concept is being completely perverted in two different ways, and there is an IMMINENT, PRESSING NEED to correct this. The first problem is, of course, that our own lawmakers are giving the special interests longer and longer extensions on these rights. Some have even openly stated an intention to continue to extend copyrights perpetually so that any current copyright would never expire. This needs to be stopped to prevent even further erosion of the constitution. The second is DRM technology. In extreme cases DRM technology can give the publisher so much control that it would be unreasonable to expect a work to ever pass into the public domain. Imagine for example a movie released only to a digital rights managed medium that can not be re-recorded and must be authorized by the publisher for every single viewing (and be confident that work is progressing towards this end). While such a company would enjoy all the protection of copyright laws (even the excesses of the DMCA), they might never pass their protected works on to public ownership, even if copyright extension creep is stopped. Even if they are still around when the copyright expires, there is no provision in the law that would compel them to activity take actions to turn over digital rights keys or other technology that could be needed to avail the public of their eventual ownership of previously protected works.
Look at patents - in this case a patent is granted in return for disclosure on how the invention works. You are not required to patent an invention. You could, for example, make some invention a trade secret, and never disclose it's secrets outside of your organization. In such a case others are free to try to invent it also, but if no one legitimately can duplicate your invention you might well have complete use of it for more than the term of a patent. But if you do want patent protection, you must disclose it so that it will be owned by the public after the patent expires in exchange for your exclusive patent monopoly for the term of the patent. DRM presents the danger that a corporation can get the legal protections of a copyright but also keep private the work as if it were a trade secret. The need to correct this problem is indeed IMMINENT and PRESSING now, before it becomes widespread.
When in doubt, predict that the trend will continue.
If , as reported, they are selling actual patterns and not copies of same, then McCalls or anyone else has no business in using the DMCA in this, it just doesn't apply. Heck, it doesn't apply anyway, maybe copyright law would (for bogus copies, not for factory originals), but there is no digital security to defeat in any sewing pattern I've ever seen. Sounds like a more extreme abuse of DMCA that has ever been reported before, and there have been some good ones. Only thing they might have a leg to stand on is simply theft of property, but apparently they don't think they can support that. I hope McCalls gets sued real good on this one.
I took E.E. at Purdue in trhe late 60's and early 70's. The students were constantly asking for pratical applications for semester after semester of obscure math they were doing but getting little but promised o "that comes later"..... There was a story told of one Purdue EE grad who went to work and got a job designing military walkie-talkie radios. He designed a circuit that would work fine in theory, but fortunately someone else caught the problem before they started building them. He had done all the math fine, but one of the parts he calculated was needed for the walkie-talkie was a 1 farad 600 vold non-polar capacitor. Having no experience with actually building things, he stuck it in the circuit design and continued on. Back in the days this was done, such a capacitor would have weighed many times more than the soldier who was expected to carry the radio.
You got karma for being funny, but the truth is that this figure is extremely telling - they had to shoot the foam at a completely unrealistic number to get the results they "forced". The foam wasn't falling from very high, and as foam would have an extremely low terminal velocity even if it did. The rocket was just taking off and so wasn't moving very fast, and the foam was moving up at the same speed until it fell.
So why do an experiment with such an insanely high speed for the foam? Sure, they might have been able to damage their mock-up that way, but even a straw can pierce a tree if it has a tornado pushing it. Looks like NASA is up to more of it's old tricks again.
That was certainly an amusing read. But you believe it? He somehow received gold sent to him? But he clearly pointed out in the series of e-mail exchanges that he was careful not to give the scammer an actual address, even when the scammer wanted to send him the fake documents via DHL.
Time to use the "travelling out of the office" gambit to avoid sending an address. .......2) I'm travelling between offices this week so finding an office to DHL to forms to is problematical. It would be much simpler and more efficient to email or FAX the forms to me.
This was supposedly after he already had the gold. Maybe he wasn't the only one being scammed! It would have been hard to get that gold with giving an address!
Stealing subscriptions is one thing, I certainly don't endorse that. Bypassing subscriptions is something else. Just because I might have bought a TiVo, I don't owe TiVo a monthly fee for the rest of my life, or need to pay them a lifetime fee when their lifetime might be much shorter than mine. Who cares if it reduces TiVo's revenue - If I own the box I believe I should be able to bypass the subscription system and simply tell TiVo when and what channel to record. Any "hack" book that censors itself to not provide such information isn't worth squat.
Sure, if there's a last minute program change, I could miss the show. Same thing happens with a VCR; I can get over it. But I find the complete reliance on a subscription the most offensive part of TiVo, and would not consider one unless I could hack past it, either to avoid the costs or to know the hardware will still be of use if the company folds.
Video extraction is something they will not talk about? How lame! Might as well change the name from TiVo hacking to TiVo case mods, would be more honest even though it likely wouldn't sell as well.
Depends on the size of your incoming pipe. With my ~1.5meg DSL connection I expect my current hardware could keep up with it quite nicely; the hardware ain't where the bottleneck is. If I had some gigabyte fiber coming into the home it might be different, but for now hardware performance will not be a problem. What I can do with the new technologu is a different matter. Would still like to see more ideas than how to share porn.
How lame. They promote the wireless nature of the beast, but it comes with a wireless lan card that stick out the end. Not only does that make it easy to break (and other brands of lan card might not work with the provided driver), but it wastes the slot, something you might need for other things when connected.
Worries about recently purchased drives are completely founded unless and until we have a list of the affected serial numbers.
OK, I read the article and have a new Maxtor that seems to fit the parameters. It works OK now, but this is of concern, particularly since they recently dropped the warranty period from 3 years to 1 year. What option do I have? Is there really a recall in progress, or is it just that there should be?
Fantastic. Now your pocket can be picked just by someone carrying a bag, purse, or package and passing behind you. Who asked for this?