Im not sure how liability works with a bank, but Im fairly certain that if you
make a ruckus in their lobby they are free to tell you to leave the premises
and deny you the use of their services.
Unless you provide a Youtube video of Assange creating a ruckus in the lobbies
of both Visa and MasterCard then it didn't happpen.
In my opinion the same should apply to financial institutions. Visa and
MasterCard should be allowed to block payments if they like, but if they do
discriminate then they should be held liable when they do let illegal
transactions get processed.
[...] I can assure you that banks, foreign exchange brokers and
payment processors such as Visa and MasterCard are regulated by government
agencies which can impose huge fines for sending a payment to any person or
organization on the OFAC of FINCEN lists.
This is an unrelated issue. Obeying the government's blacklist is an entirely
different thing from being liable for illegal transactions with people/groups
that are not on the blacklist.
The point the grand-parent was referring to is once companies start to
discriminate who they do business with they are then legally liable for
their choice of who they do business with. Visa and MasterCard (and
the government that pressured them) want to have it both ways. They
want to be able to deny service to people they don't like but they
also want to be totally free of any responsibility for who they do
choose to deal with.
You could also run Grub from a LiveCD or a LiveUSB. If you are worried about
the botware modifying the programs you use to create these then you could
donate a few dollars to a distro you want to support and have them send you a
LiveCD.
There is strength in this simple modularity as well as in diversity.
now that i think of it, perhaps Windows becoming 'diverse' is a way to prevent
some of this junk from happening.
What better way to make Windows both diverse and modular than to make
it open source?
There is just no way that the dumbed-down, "safe" fireworks allowed to be sold
here are going to start a fire in the average neighborhood. And I guess you
never thought about standing by with a fire extinguisher when you set some off
(I do).
If everyone acted responsibly in all situations then there would be little need
for laws. OTOH, if the irresponsible actions of a few threaten to destroy an
entire community then ISTM that those actions should be banned.
The problem is exacerbated by something like the Dunning Kruger_effect where
people who are not responsible don't realize they are not responsible.
If children see many "responsible" adults setting off "safe" fireworks
in a safe manner some of those children will set off unsafe fireworks
in an unsafe manner because they simply don't know any better and
don't make the fine distinctions that you do.
My point was not that we must outlaw everything dangerous. My point was that
in this particular situation our laws are out of kilter. For example, there
are many laws that are meant to protect me from my own stupidity. Drug laws
and seatbelt laws come to mind. Banning the sale and use of fireworks when we
are in the most extreme fire danger we've had in many years will protect the
many from irresponsible acts of a few.
ISTM that asking people to use fireworks responsibly is rather ineffective
because the people who will heed such as message are already responsible
and don't really need the warning. Some irresponsible people won't heed
the warning, and will probably think all fireworks are safe since the
sale and use of fireworks is allowed. Of course, there will be a few
people who will set of unsafe fireworks whether they are banned or not.
IMO a complete ban of the use and sale of fireworks during this time of
extreme danger sends a simple message to those that need it the most.
ISTM that your fireworks activities are unlikely to directly cause
a fire that would damage your community. But your attitude and
the example you set certainly put your community, and mine, at
a much greater risk that is totally unnecessary.
If the risk from your actions was only to your own life and your
own house then I would say "party on" but the risk is to the
lives and property of everyone, including me. ISTM that my
right to life and property trumps your right to set off fireworks
at the very worst time of year.
The fire danger has never been higher. Some places make it against the law to
even smoke outside. Over the past month there have been days when we've been
inundated with smoke from the wildfires in Arizona. It is hot, dry, and windy.
You would think that selling and setting off fireworks would also be illegal
this year (it is usually allowed for a week before and after July 4th, but this
hasn't stopped people from lauching fireworks whenever they want to) yet
there are huge tents in the parking lots of all the grocery stores selling
fireworks. The reason is that in New Mexico there is a state law that makes
it illegal for communities to ban the sale and use of fireworks. Instead of
working to fix this crazy law, the governor asked New Mexicans to "exercise
caution and restraint when it comes to using fireworks."
This is why I think their ruling is total BS. It was the COURTS
not Congress that made patent law so lopsided. Why can't the
court clean up the mess they themselves created?
Even if we grant their premise that it was acts of Congress that
made patent law such an impediment to progress, the Court could
still remedy the situation by declaring those laws unconstitutional
since they clearly violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
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.
The sorry fact is that this is not about right or wrong, legal or illegal,
constitutional or unconstitutional. It is about funneling as much money as
possible into the overflowing coffers of mega-corporations to the detriment of
us all. It is like the fable of the Frog and the Scorpion. If you ask the
SCOTUS why they are joining the other branches of government and flushing the
US down the toilet, their response would be:
Don't blame MS for playing the game, blame the government for making the rules
so retarded.
In case you haven't noticed, for the past few decades at least, "the game" has
been for giant corporations to purchase whatever retarded rules they want
directly from whichever politicians are in power. According to the Supreme
Court of the United States of America, such purchases are a fundamental
Constitutional right.
Xoom is a "Google experience device"[**]. It ships stock Google software,
not modified by manufacturer.
Ah. I finally understand your complaint now. You are pissed because
Google didn't give Motorola any Honeycomb source code, they
only gave Motorola binaries. I would be pissed too. If that is the
case then it is a bloody miracle the Xoom works at all and it is
completely explains the sub-optimal user experience.
Boy oh boy Motorola must be really ticked off at Google over this.
If what you say is true then I would be very surprised if Motorola
every uses Google software again in any device. This must be a
huge coup for Apple and Microsoft. With this completely bone-headed
maneuver, Google just ruined all the hard work they've done on
Android.
I will gladly join forces with you and demand that Google give
Motorola the source code they need in order to tune Honeycomb
to work with the Xoom.
** BTW: a
Google Experience Device has nothing to do with source code,
it has everything to do with what apps are installed and whether
to UI conforms to certain standards. It would probably be impossible
for anyone to make a Google Experience Device without access to the
source code that you wildly speculate was withheld.
IMO the problem is entirely with the manufacturers. I think it is a
minor miracle that Google got them to go the open source route at all
even though it is in the current limited fashion. You've got to walk
before you start flying to other planets.
I was not privy to their discussions but it seems pretty clear the
manufacturers were not ready to accept a GPL style license that
required them to divulge the changes they had made. The ASL is
clearly a compromise. This is a reflection of the age-old debate
between "open source" versus "Free software".
You claim that Google is getting a lot of mileage out of appearing
to be cool and open. It cuts both ways. Open source software
is getting a lot of the same sort of mileage for powering the
most popular smartphone OS on the planet. It was certainly within
Google's power to have made Android Free and open source, exactly
the way you seem to think it should be. The problem is that
the manufacturers would baulk at having to comply with a truly
Free license. In which case we wouldn't be having this discussion
because Android wouldn't be even close to threatening the major
players.
Is the Android licensing situation my ideal? No, but IMO we are much
better off with Android licensed the way it is then we would have been
with a different license such as the GPLv3 because in that case
Android would have no significant user base.
I actually think Google deserves the credit for being
cool and open that you want to begrudge them. Is Android
as free and open as possible? No, but it is a hell of a lot
more free and open than every other major phone OS on the market.
IMO, more than anything else, Android is a demonstration that
Linux and open source really are ready for prime time and are not
just for hobbyists and techies. I'm still totally stoked about
Android. As far as the big picture is concerned, it was a
giant leap forward for Free and open source software.
Those binaries are created and released by the manufacturer,
not by Google. They are tailored by each manufacturer for their
particular device. This is one of the reasons why Android has
been sweeping the industry: each manufacturer has total control
over the source code they put on their phones.
Your gripe, (whether legitimate or not) is with the manufacturer
who sold you the device, not with Google. Since your complaint
seems to be that the manufacturer (horror of horrors) is actually
abiding by the terms of the licenses of the software they are using,
it seems to lack much legitimacy. Insisting on blaming Google for
this is complete FUD.
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source
contributor, you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work
and contributing nothing back.
That is absolutely not true. I gave myself as an example. Just
because a project is open source doesn't mean I have to release
all my work all the time. As I said before, AFAIK, Google is
not releasing binaries. If you're not releasing binaries then
there is nothing wrong with not releasing source.
If the code "isn't ready", then they shouldn't be releasing it at all,
much less as part of a tablet that's being sold for $500,...
As I predicted, people bitching about Google not releasing soon enough
are also bitching about Google releasing too soon. It seems pretty
obvious to me that the problems with Honeycomb being not ready for
primetime were discovered when those tablets were released. Google
responded by changing their release policy to be less liberal in
order to prevent such problems in the future.
The idea that I have to release any I code I write whenever you
want me to release it is ridiculous and has nothing whatsoever to do
with whether the code is open source or not. If you have a problem
it is with the manufacturer you bought your tablet from, not
Google. And while you are complaining to them, I suggest you complain
to the manufacturers of your other phones and gadgets and for not
releasing all their source code whenever you want it.
Complaining about Google because manufacturers downstream from them
are actually abiding by the terms of open source licenses on the
software they are using is 100% pure unadulterated FUD.
This seems like more of the same anti-Google FUD that we've been
bombarded with recently. It is a classic political tactic called
"attack your opponent's strength". One of the reasons Android has
taken off like gangbusters is because it really truly is open source
while iOS and WP-7 are certainly not. So the game being played is to
stir up a ruckus about Android not being open. The same tactic was
used recently when people's hair caught on fire because Google had the
ability to nuke malware apps. The story was not "hey, Android is open
and safe", the story was that Google was being evil.
I'm currently working on a GPLv2 (for historical reasons) project
intended to be part of a Linux distro. Guess what? I don't release
the source code until it is ready for alpha and beta testing.
Releasing it before basic functionality is in place simply wastes
everybody's time and energy. I see absolutely nothing wrong with
Google dealing the release of their software until they think it
is the best time to release it. If Google released early instead
then many of the people bitching and moaning now would have been
bitching and moaning about Google releasing code before it was
ready.
These unscrupulous tactics have been around for a long time. I'm
not surprised that they are being used in this context but I
am a little saddened that people seem to keep falling for the
same old malarkey.
The PS3 was sold as a loss leader. It cost more to make than what it
was being sold for. Sony made their profit from licensing fees from
games sold for the PS3. If someone bought a PS3 and only used it for
Linux then Sony lost money on that unit. They lost money on a
thousand units when someone like the US Air Force built a
supercomputer out of a cluster of a thousand PS3s. As production
costs dropped, it is possible that Sony is now turning a profit on PS3
sales but the real money is still in the games.
There is also speculation that the ability to run Linux on cheap,
discounted PS3's was hurting the market for cell processors and
computers based on cell processors.
I don't think there was much development cost or support cost for the
existing OtherOS feature in the PS3. There were extra testing costs
for each firmware release but I think these were very minor when
compared to losses from selling PS3s and revenues from games.
I was just reporting what was said in the Japanese special program
about the accident. Like you, I was wondering why they didn't just
stop with all the water so I payed very close attention when they
gave their reason for it.
Camperslo
posted links to six articles about the details of the accident
above. Each article is rather short so it is a quick read. Those
articles contain the most information I've seen so far on what
exactly went wrong.
Why are they pumping the containment full of water?
Good question. An answer was given in a special on the Fukushima
accident on Japan's NHK World, on the one month anniversary of the
quake. The trade off is to allow the current (comparatively) low
leak off radioactivity in order to minimize the chances of a massive
release of radioactivity (which I presume means on the scale of
Chernobyl). The expert said they needed to keep cooling the
reactors to prevent more fuel rods melting, causing the build up of
more hydrogen. He said they are worried that another large hydrogen
explosion could blow open a containment vessel causing a massive
release of radioactivity.
Are there technical reasons that all the water pumping is beneficial,
or was it just politics, trying to prevent an "OMFG meltdown" when in
reality the contaminated water is actually worse?
Given that the radioactive water leaking out is giving them terrible
PR and is also making the restoration of the cooling systems very
difficult, I believe they are doing the right thing from an
engineering perspective which is to try to minimize the worst
case scenario even if doing so gives them awful PR now.
Why not run nuclear reactors in a nitrogen heavy/oxygen-light
atmosphere all the time?
The hydrogen in the water is required. It acts as a
moderator,
to slow neutrons down to raise the cross section of interacting with
another uranium (or plutonium) nucleus. Hydrogen is a very good
moderator for slowing neutrons because the mass of a hydrogen nucleus
is roughly the same as the mass of an neutron.
This was supposed to be a safety feature, and in many ways it ways.
The idea is that if there is no water then the chain-reaction stops.
AFAWK, the chain reaction has stopped in all the damaged
reactors. The problem they've been wrestling with this past month is
getting rid of the heat generated by the residual radioactivity that
remains in the fuel rods. If the chain reactions had continued, they
would have had to contend with 10 times the amount of heat.
I had been limping long with the Advanced Bash Scripting Guide and
Google searches for a while. The Wooledge guide looks like a
vast improvement. Thanks.
I was wrong about iodine-131. Thank you for the correction.
OTOH, there has been a lot of cesium-137 from Fukushima detected. The
levels generally track the levels of iodine-131 when both are
measured. For example,
the IAEA said:
On 12th April, deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 was
detected in 7 and 6 prefectures respectively. The values reported for
iodine-131 ranged from 1.6 to 460 Bq/m2 and for cesium-137 from 31 to
700 Bq/m2. The highest deposition was observed in the Ibaraki
prefecture.
There is also concern about radioactive cesium in
mushrooms and in
fish although I have not been able to confirm how much of
this is cesium-137. In fact, trace amounts of cesium-137,
assumed to be from Fukushima, have been found in milk in
Hawaii and Vermont.
The early estimate for fuel material released to the environment was 3
± 1.5% (IA86). This estimate was later revised to 3.5 ± 0.5% (Be91).
This corresponds to the emission of 6 t of fragmented fuel.
I suppose it is possible that all the fuel was sent into the
atmosphere for a moment and then 96.5% fell back down and was
later covered with concrete.
After the Chernobyl accident we were assured by the nuclear industry
and regulators/promoters that BWRs such as the ones at Fukushima would
never release radioactivity into the environment on the scale of the
Chernobyl accident because of the containment vessel. TEPCO said the
Fukushima release might surpass the
release at Chernobyl.
I believe the post-Chernobyl reassurances were given earnestly but
it is clear now they were completely wrong.
I agree with you that a major difference between Chernobyl and
Fukushima is that at Chernobyl the release was almost entirely
airborne while at Fukushima it is likely that a lot of the
radioactivity released is leaching into the water they are pouring on
to keep the reactors cool (to prevent further meltdowns and possible
catastrophic hydrogen explosions). I was actually warning people
about this difference over a week ago, well before the direct leak
into the ocean was detected.
... the water level of radiation-contaminated water in the tunnel-like
trench at Unit 2 dropped by 4.3 cm Wednesday morning after Tepco
started pumping lethally radioactive water from its flooded turbine
room...
If this is true then it is extremely troubling. It means not only
that the tunnel and turbine building are connected hydrologically, it
is quite possible that there has been a constant flow of highly
radioactive water (HRW) from the reactor building to the turbine
building to the tunnel and then into the ground. Draining the turbine
building stopped the flow into the tunnel and the rate the tunnel is
emptying is the rate the HRW has been constantly leaking into the
ground from that tunnel.
My point is that the upward dispersal at Chernobyl made it relatively
easy to assess the total amount of radioactivity released while at
Fukushima, it is hard to get a reasonable upper bound on the release
because they simply don't know how much HRW is leaking directly (or
indirectly) into the ground nor do they know its concentration.
At the very least, I imagine one would have to carefully study the
hydrology of the land under the reactors and drill a bunch of core
samples. It's a tough problem.
BTW the Japan Times article I linked to gave the most detailed
information (I have found) about what is happening in the reactor
buildings to date.
Another concern is all the radioactivity getting into the ocean.
Once again, it is difficult to get a good estimate of the total
amount. It was
reported that fish were caught 35 km from Fukushima that
had levels of radioactive Cesium 25 times above the legal
limit. For humans, (and other animals), Cesium is the nasty one,
especially Cesium-137.
While radioactive isotopes from Chernobyl did make it into the ocean,
it was never at this level. In fact, the Chernobyl release
allowed us to measure the time delay between the peak of Chernobyl
radioactivity in the ocean and the peak in the fish populations. For
fish high on the food chain the delay was six months. So even if
Fukushima instantly stopped leaking, we would still have to wait
another five or six months before the radioactivity in important fish
populations peaked.
IOW, I agree that Fukushima is a whole different ballgame compared
to Chernobyl but I think it is way too early to know wh
Slashdot Mirror
Especially those trans-continental trips!
Im not sure how liability works with a bank, but Im fairly certain that if you make a ruckus in their lobby they are free to tell you to leave the premises and deny you the use of their services.
Unless you provide a Youtube video of Assange creating a ruckus in the lobbies of both Visa and MasterCard then it didn't happpen.
In my opinion the same should apply to financial institutions. Visa and MasterCard should be allowed to block payments if they like, but if they do discriminate then they should be held liable when they do let illegal transactions get processed.
[...] I can assure you that banks, foreign exchange brokers and payment processors such as Visa and MasterCard are regulated by government agencies which can impose huge fines for sending a payment to any person or organization on the OFAC of FINCEN lists.
This is an unrelated issue. Obeying the government's blacklist is an entirely different thing from being liable for illegal transactions with people/groups that are not on the blacklist.
The point the grand-parent was referring to is once companies start to discriminate who they do business with they are then legally liable for their choice of who they do business with. Visa and MasterCard (and the government that pressured them) want to have it both ways. They want to be able to deny service to people they don't like but they also want to be totally free of any responsibility for who they do choose to deal with.
You could also run Grub from a LiveCD or a LiveUSB. If you are worried about the botware modifying the programs you use to create these then you could donate a few dollars to a distro you want to support and have them send you a LiveCD.
There is strength in this simple modularity as well as in diversity.
now that i think of it, perhaps Windows becoming 'diverse' is a way to prevent some of this junk from happening.
What better way to make Windows both diverse and modular than to make it open source?
Or we could, you know, just use more secure operating systems.
Does it run Linux?
There is just no way that the dumbed-down, "safe" fireworks allowed to be sold here are going to start a fire in the average neighborhood. And I guess you never thought about standing by with a fire extinguisher when you set some off (I do).
If everyone acted responsibly in all situations then there would be little need for laws. OTOH, if the irresponsible actions of a few threaten to destroy an entire community then ISTM that those actions should be banned.
The problem is exacerbated by something like the Dunning Kruger_effect where people who are not responsible don't realize they are not responsible. If children see many "responsible" adults setting off "safe" fireworks in a safe manner some of those children will set off unsafe fireworks in an unsafe manner because they simply don't know any better and don't make the fine distinctions that you do.
My point was not that we must outlaw everything dangerous. My point was that in this particular situation our laws are out of kilter. For example, there are many laws that are meant to protect me from my own stupidity. Drug laws and seatbelt laws come to mind. Banning the sale and use of fireworks when we are in the most extreme fire danger we've had in many years will protect the many from irresponsible acts of a few.
ISTM that asking people to use fireworks responsibly is rather ineffective because the people who will heed such as message are already responsible and don't really need the warning. Some irresponsible people won't heed the warning, and will probably think all fireworks are safe since the sale and use of fireworks is allowed. Of course, there will be a few people who will set of unsafe fireworks whether they are banned or not. IMO a complete ban of the use and sale of fireworks during this time of extreme danger sends a simple message to those that need it the most.
ISTM that your fireworks activities are unlikely to directly cause a fire that would damage your community. But your attitude and the example you set certainly put your community, and mine, at a much greater risk that is totally unnecessary.
If the risk from your actions was only to your own life and your own house then I would say "party on" but the risk is to the lives and property of everyone, including me. ISTM that my right to life and property trumps your right to set off fireworks at the very worst time of year.
The fire danger has never been higher. Some places make it against the law to even smoke outside. Over the past month there have been days when we've been inundated with smoke from the wildfires in Arizona. It is hot, dry, and windy.
You would think that selling and setting off fireworks would also be illegal this year (it is usually allowed for a week before and after July 4th, but this hasn't stopped people from lauching fireworks whenever they want to) yet there are huge tents in the parking lots of all the grocery stores selling fireworks. The reason is that in New Mexico there is a state law that makes it illegal for communities to ban the sale and use of fireworks. Instead of working to fix this crazy law, the governor asked New Mexicans to "exercise caution and restraint when it comes to using fireworks."
Is this a great state or what?
This is why I think their ruling is total BS. It was the COURTS not Congress that made patent law so lopsided. Why can't the court clean up the mess they themselves created?
Even if we grant their premise that it was acts of Congress that made patent law such an impediment to progress, the Court could still remedy the situation by declaring those laws unconstitutional since they clearly violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
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.
The sorry fact is that this is not about right or wrong, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. It is about funneling as much money as possible into the overflowing coffers of mega-corporations to the detriment of us all. It is like the fable of the Frog and the Scorpion. If you ask the SCOTUS why they are joining the other branches of government and flushing the US down the toilet, their response would be:
We can't help it. It's in our nature.
... it's not entirely clear to me why persecution of Anonymous is sought.
This is just a guess but I suspect it may be part of an effort, outside of any laws, to destroy Wikileaks and anyone who might defend them.
The power structure is threatened. The power structure Strikes Back.
Don't blame MS for playing the game, blame the government for making the rules so retarded.
In case you haven't noticed, for the past few decades at least, "the game" has been for giant corporations to purchase whatever retarded rules they want directly from whichever politicians are in power. According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, such purchases are a fundamental Constitutional right.
Xoom is a "Google experience device"[**]. It ships stock Google software, not modified by manufacturer.
Ah. I finally understand your complaint now. You are pissed because Google didn't give Motorola any Honeycomb source code, they only gave Motorola binaries. I would be pissed too. If that is the case then it is a bloody miracle the Xoom works at all and it is completely explains the sub-optimal user experience.
Boy oh boy Motorola must be really ticked off at Google over this. If what you say is true then I would be very surprised if Motorola every uses Google software again in any device. This must be a huge coup for Apple and Microsoft. With this completely bone-headed maneuver, Google just ruined all the hard work they've done on Android.
I will gladly join forces with you and demand that Google give Motorola the source code they need in order to tune Honeycomb to work with the Xoom.
** BTW: a Google Experience Device has nothing to do with source code, it has everything to do with what apps are installed and whether to UI conforms to certain standards. It would probably be impossible for anyone to make a Google Experience Device without access to the source code that you wildly speculate was withheld.
IMO the problem is entirely with the manufacturers. I think it is a minor miracle that Google got them to go the open source route at all even though it is in the current limited fashion. You've got to walk before you start flying to other planets.
I was not privy to their discussions but it seems pretty clear the manufacturers were not ready to accept a GPL style license that required them to divulge the changes they had made. The ASL is clearly a compromise. This is a reflection of the age-old debate between "open source" versus "Free software".
You claim that Google is getting a lot of mileage out of appearing to be cool and open. It cuts both ways. Open source software is getting a lot of the same sort of mileage for powering the most popular smartphone OS on the planet. It was certainly within Google's power to have made Android Free and open source, exactly the way you seem to think it should be. The problem is that the manufacturers would baulk at having to comply with a truly Free license. In which case we wouldn't be having this discussion because Android wouldn't be even close to threatening the major players.
Is the Android licensing situation my ideal? No, but IMO we are much better off with Android licensed the way it is then we would have been with a different license such as the GPLv3 because in that case Android would have no significant user base.
I actually think Google deserves the credit for being cool and open that you want to begrudge them. Is Android as free and open as possible? No, but it is a hell of a lot more free and open than every other major phone OS on the market.
IMO, more than anything else, Android is a demonstration that Linux and open source really are ready for prime time and are not just for hobbyists and techies. I'm still totally stoked about Android. As far as the big picture is concerned, it was a giant leap forward for Free and open source software.
Those binaries are created and released by the manufacturer, not by Google. They are tailored by each manufacturer for their particular device. This is one of the reasons why Android has been sweeping the industry: each manufacturer has total control over the source code they put on their phones.
Your gripe, (whether legitimate or not) is with the manufacturer who sold you the device, not with Google. Since your complaint seems to be that the manufacturer (horror of horrors) is actually abiding by the terms of the licenses of the software they are using, it seems to lack much legitimacy. Insisting on blaming Google for this is complete FUD.
It's not FUD. Release the source, or you're not an open source contributor, you're an asshole taking advantage of other people's work and contributing nothing back.
That is absolutely not true. I gave myself as an example. Just because a project is open source doesn't mean I have to release all my work all the time. As I said before, AFAIK, Google is not releasing binaries. If you're not releasing binaries then there is nothing wrong with not releasing source.
If the code "isn't ready", then they shouldn't be releasing it at all, much less as part of a tablet that's being sold for $500, ...
As I predicted, people bitching about Google not releasing soon enough are also bitching about Google releasing too soon. It seems pretty obvious to me that the problems with Honeycomb being not ready for primetime were discovered when those tablets were released. Google responded by changing their release policy to be less liberal in order to prevent such problems in the future.
The idea that I have to release any I code I write whenever you want me to release it is ridiculous and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the code is open source or not. If you have a problem it is with the manufacturer you bought your tablet from, not Google. And while you are complaining to them, I suggest you complain to the manufacturers of your other phones and gadgets and for not releasing all their source code whenever you want it.
Complaining about Google because manufacturers downstream from them are actually abiding by the terms of open source licenses on the software they are using is 100% pure unadulterated FUD.
This seems like more of the same anti-Google FUD that we've been bombarded with recently. It is a classic political tactic called "attack your opponent's strength". One of the reasons Android has taken off like gangbusters is because it really truly is open source while iOS and WP-7 are certainly not. So the game being played is to stir up a ruckus about Android not being open. The same tactic was used recently when people's hair caught on fire because Google had the ability to nuke malware apps. The story was not "hey, Android is open and safe", the story was that Google was being evil.
I'm currently working on a GPLv2 (for historical reasons) project intended to be part of a Linux distro. Guess what? I don't release the source code until it is ready for alpha and beta testing. Releasing it before basic functionality is in place simply wastes everybody's time and energy. I see absolutely nothing wrong with Google dealing the release of their software until they think it is the best time to release it. If Google released early instead then many of the people bitching and moaning now would have been bitching and moaning about Google releasing code before it was ready.
These unscrupulous tactics have been around for a long time. I'm not surprised that they are being used in this context but I am a little saddened that people seem to keep falling for the same old malarkey.
The PS3 was sold as a loss leader. It cost more to make than what it was being sold for. Sony made their profit from licensing fees from games sold for the PS3. If someone bought a PS3 and only used it for Linux then Sony lost money on that unit. They lost money on a thousand units when someone like the US Air Force built a supercomputer out of a cluster of a thousand PS3s. As production costs dropped, it is possible that Sony is now turning a profit on PS3 sales but the real money is still in the games.
There is also speculation that the ability to run Linux on cheap, discounted PS3's was hurting the market for cell processors and computers based on cell processors.
I don't think there was much development cost or support cost for the existing OtherOS feature in the PS3. There were extra testing costs for each firmware release but I think these were very minor when compared to losses from selling PS3s and revenues from games.
I was just reporting what was said in the Japanese special program about the accident. Like you, I was wondering why they didn't just stop with all the water so I payed very close attention when they gave their reason for it.
Camperslo posted links to six articles about the details of the accident above. Each article is rather short so it is a quick read. Those articles contain the most information I've seen so far on what exactly went wrong.
I remember hearing that the generators they needed were way too heavy to be lifted even by the largest helicopter.
Why are they pumping the containment full of water?
Good question. An answer was given in a special on the Fukushima accident on Japan's NHK World, on the one month anniversary of the quake. The trade off is to allow the current (comparatively) low leak off radioactivity in order to minimize the chances of a massive release of radioactivity (which I presume means on the scale of Chernobyl). The expert said they needed to keep cooling the reactors to prevent more fuel rods melting, causing the build up of more hydrogen. He said they are worried that another large hydrogen explosion could blow open a containment vessel causing a massive release of radioactivity.
Are there technical reasons that all the water pumping is beneficial, or was it just politics, trying to prevent an "OMFG meltdown" when in reality the contaminated water is actually worse?
Given that the radioactive water leaking out is giving them terrible PR and is also making the restoration of the cooling systems very difficult, I believe they are doing the right thing from an engineering perspective which is to try to minimize the worst case scenario even if doing so gives them awful PR now.
Why not run nuclear reactors in a nitrogen heavy/oxygen-light atmosphere all the time?
The hydrogen in the water is required. It acts as a moderator, to slow neutrons down to raise the cross section of interacting with another uranium (or plutonium) nucleus. Hydrogen is a very good moderator for slowing neutrons because the mass of a hydrogen nucleus is roughly the same as the mass of an neutron.
This was supposed to be a safety feature, and in many ways it ways. The idea is that if there is no water then the chain-reaction stops. AFAWK, the chain reaction has stopped in all the damaged reactors. The problem they've been wrestling with this past month is getting rid of the heat generated by the residual radioactivity that remains in the fuel rods. If the chain reactions had continued, they would have had to contend with 10 times the amount of heat.
I had been limping long with the Advanced Bash Scripting Guide and Google searches for a while. The Wooledge guide looks like a vast improvement. Thanks.
I was wrong about iodine-131. Thank you for the correction.
OTOH, there has been a lot of cesium-137 from Fukushima detected. The levels generally track the levels of iodine-131 when both are measured. For example, the IAEA said:
On 12th April, deposition of both iodine-131 and cesium-137 was detected in 7 and 6 prefectures respectively. The values reported for iodine-131 ranged from 1.6 to 460 Bq/m2 and for cesium-137 from 31 to 700 Bq/m2. The highest deposition was observed in the Ibaraki prefecture.
There is also concern about radioactive cesium in mushrooms and in fish although I have not been able to confirm how much of this is cesium-137. In fact, trace amounts of cesium-137, assumed to be from Fukushima, have been found in milk in Hawaii and Vermont.
The NEA page about Chernobyl I linked to said:
The early estimate for fuel material released to the environment was 3 ± 1.5% (IA86). This estimate was later revised to 3.5 ± 0.5% (Be91). This corresponds to the emission of 6 t of fragmented fuel.
I suppose it is possible that all the fuel was sent into the atmosphere for a moment and then 96.5% fell back down and was later covered with concrete.
After the Chernobyl accident we were assured by the nuclear industry and regulators/promoters that BWRs such as the ones at Fukushima would never release radioactivity into the environment on the scale of the Chernobyl accident because of the containment vessel. TEPCO said the Fukushima release might surpass the release at Chernobyl. I believe the post-Chernobyl reassurances were given earnestly but it is clear now they were completely wrong.
I agree with you that a major difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima is that at Chernobyl the release was almost entirely airborne while at Fukushima it is likely that a lot of the radioactivity released is leaching into the water they are pouring on to keep the reactors cool (to prevent further meltdowns and possible catastrophic hydrogen explosions). I was actually warning people about this difference over a week ago, well before the direct leak into the ocean was detected.
Today it was reported that:
... the water level of radiation-contaminated water in the tunnel-like trench at Unit 2 dropped by 4.3 cm Wednesday morning after Tepco started pumping lethally radioactive water from its flooded turbine room ...
If this is true then it is extremely troubling. It means not only that the tunnel and turbine building are connected hydrologically, it is quite possible that there has been a constant flow of highly radioactive water (HRW) from the reactor building to the turbine building to the tunnel and then into the ground. Draining the turbine building stopped the flow into the tunnel and the rate the tunnel is emptying is the rate the HRW has been constantly leaking into the ground from that tunnel.
My point is that the upward dispersal at Chernobyl made it relatively easy to assess the total amount of radioactivity released while at Fukushima, it is hard to get a reasonable upper bound on the release because they simply don't know how much HRW is leaking directly (or indirectly) into the ground nor do they know its concentration. At the very least, I imagine one would have to carefully study the hydrology of the land under the reactors and drill a bunch of core samples. It's a tough problem.
BTW the Japan Times article I linked to gave the most detailed information (I have found) about what is happening in the reactor buildings to date.
Another concern is all the radioactivity getting into the ocean. Once again, it is difficult to get a good estimate of the total amount. It was reported that fish were caught 35 km from Fukushima that had levels of radioactive Cesium 25 times above the legal limit. For humans, (and other animals), Cesium is the nasty one, especially Cesium-137. While radioactive isotopes from Chernobyl did make it into the ocean, it was never at this level. In fact, the Chernobyl release allowed us to measure the time delay between the peak of Chernobyl radioactivity in the ocean and the peak in the fish populations. For fish high on the food chain the delay was six months. So even if Fukushima instantly stopped leaking, we would still have to wait another five or six months before the radioactivity in important fish populations peaked.
IOW, I agree that Fukushima is a whole different ballgame compared to Chernobyl but I think it is way too early to know wh