Let's say I sign an NDA to review Solaris source code at my company. Does that mean my nemesis Sam in engineering also needs an NDA even though we don't even use the same physical networks for our development boxes? Hell no!
So what makes you think that if Sam's boss okayed using GPL code internally or in a product that it would have any affect on my work which is unrelated?
Are you saying the GPL wields more power than an NDA backed by Sun's lawyers? That's delusional. It's also unsophisticated FUD.
What they did is build a wrapper around a common core. The wrapper is GPL'd. The core isn't. In fact they go as far to claim that the core is exactly the same on every OS. Now I can't claim as to WHY they did that, but it's interesting because they can release that part as a binary even though it resides in the kernel because clearly "it wasn't written with linux specifically in mind". So that fits right in with Linus' logic.
So how does it feel to be Slashdot's newest and most successful troll?
I've got to hand it to you man, you've spawned more +5 Insightful comments than any other guy I've seen in a long time. Often without getting modded into the floor yourself?
Do you do it for the money? Do you do it for the fame?
the BSD license is better. That's really what you wanted to say, but you twist it around to make the GPL look somehow deficient, in a vaccum.
What the hell?
If the BSD license was used for iptables/netfilter, we wouldn't be seeing this article. On the other hand, if the BSD license was used for iptables/netfilter, the authors wouldn't have the ability to say to Sitecom: either let's work a distribution agreement for our work or you show us the source and your changes.
It's a two way street. I feel that the GPL tends to work for both parties, while the BSD license gives more credence to the "you can't make a living with OSS/OSS == communism/OSS == everything should be free, including rent" stereotype.
I don't even think that last part is true either, but I'm saying it's much easier for someone to draw that conclusion. The BSD license gives you less control to generational usage of your work. If you don't care about that kinda thing, then it's probably good, however.
It'd take no longer than a real pendelum would to stop. Sure the force equations in time would be much more complex, but the total energy removed from the system would decay at the same rate (the amount of energy lost to fricition won't change). Your magnets both pull, ALL THE TIME. They don't just switch on during the approach, they also pull by an equal amount as it recedes (under gravity).
If it takes 2 watts to generate 6 watts, then you can use a simple voltage divider (STATIC DISCRETE COMPONENTS) to derive 2 watts from those 6, negating the need for the wall socket or battery in the first place. You could use a variable potentiometer to go from the battery power source to the internal power source linearly, to avoid any undue fluctuation in the power supply.
Or are you saying that the power requirements are not constant and "lead" the output in such a fashion that the requirements will eventually exceed the output, nessitating an push greater than the output can supply?
he uses in his "procedure" to sound like he "knows what he's talking about".
You can't use vaguely descriptive words to describe such a system, especially when you've never FUCKING BUILT ONE ANYWAY. There's all these supposititions, ZERO MATH, ZERO TESTING.
It's all fantasy mental masturbation by lightweight pseudo academics.
And you can't arrange magnets to create non-linear magnetic fields. It just isn't possible. (IE no matter how hard you try, you will never find a closed countour integral that is non-zero)
all you have to do then is use a resistor-based voltage divider. Measure the output voltage. Pick resistors R_1 and R_2 such that between R_1 and R_2 the voltage V_r is exactly the same as the input voltage V_i. Then you can just route that back, right? And if the current is insufficient, just use a buck converter to cut down voltage in favor of current (use smaller R_1 to compensate), until you match the inputs and outputs.
I'm sure there's at least enough surplus energy to counter the inefficiency in the buck converter, what with 200% + over unity, eh?
I completely apologize for suggesting earlier that it might be possible with magnetic degradation. It's been 5 years since I've had proper E&M.
It's definitely a measurement error. If he can't show perpetual motion + load driving as evidence (qualitative, very simple), then it's all in the numbers. Remember kids, W = V*A, but more precisely, it's the integral of V(t)*A(t) from t_i to t_f divided by t_f - t_i. If V(t) is 0 while A(t) is non-zero at some time t, and vice versa, your total power is 0, even if average(V(t)) over all t is non-zero, and average(A(t)) over all t is non-zero.
A table, right? So is the table doing any work, keeping the bottom magnet off the floor. Is the floor doing any work, keeping the table from plummeting into the center of the earth?
No matter how many fixed magnets you align, the total magnetic flux through a closed loop of the system is exactly zero. You can't cleverly align the magnets in a such a way to have a magnet in between them "keep spinning". You can give it an initial angular mometum and if the system is carefully designed it might not impede on it but you can't keep giving a push. The fields will exhibit equal push and pull on some part of a moving object through a fixed path. If you using a changing electric field on the non fixed part, you still will have counter EMF.
It's gotta be a crock. All he has to do is connect his device TO ITSELF through a lightbulb or resistor and I'll be happy.
demagnetizing the permanent magnet, milking it like a charged inductor. Perhaps by melting it due to internal heating rapidly changing EM fields. (that tends to demagntize stuff...;-P )
If you attempt to hook these up into a feedback loop:
1) Counter-EMF would cause the fixed parts (magnets) or the bearings to heat up as the system accelerated and become distorted or destroyed.
2) The system would ramp up until internal friction (air, bearings) was equal to the energy amplification, and then it would slow down as the magnets rapidly demagnitzied.
3) Wires would melt, arcing would result. (Possibly could happen in either case)
Could be the basis of a starter motor or something though.
I would really have to argue that... clearly you've never programmed against ALSA or OpenGL in Linux with properly supported hardware (which is a good slice of stuff available today, if you're willing to support the occaisional binary driver). There really isn't a difference, just familiarity with the APIs.
Hell, demoscene coders would have killed for something like ALSA 6 years ago. Thank god for Sahara Surfers, if you know what I mean.
The demoscene loved the Amiga. Now they love the PC. TBL managed to get their demo engine working on Linux and Windows (which is quite impressive). So what evidence do you have to support your opinion?
(and I'm not expecting that anyone write a 3d demo in Linux, especially if they want a wide audience of gawkers... but IMHO it's much easier to write a 64k demo (especially if it eschews 3d in an old school stylee) in linux with the simple APIs than it is with Windows and DirectX. I can see myself doing the former, but I'd struggle with the latter.)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but when this much bullshit plagues a company before launching a product or service, you can pretty much set your watch for total implosion.
What the hell did bittorrent ever do to you?
on
Kernel 2.4.26 Out
·
· Score: 1
I mean what the hell is this bittorrent sucks meme anyway? Have you ever used it?
if water evaporates completely on a very hot surface it ceases to effectively cool the surface because it becomes an insulator (due to the large drop in heat capacity and the inability for the gas to easily escape). With this liquid the different in heat capacities between phases is close to parity so as long as the medium is kept moving, there shouldn't be as extreme a failure condition when things get unexpectedly hot.
Set up a port that pretends to run XYZ service. Keep it open by a dummy daemon that doesn't do anything except act like a tarpit to slow down scanners. Maybe it even tries to fake the initial phases of the protocol.
So you port knock... then just signal the daemon to release that port and have it claimed by the real deal. A port scan might not turn up anything that looks different, until they try connecting to the service.
But the parent managed to post essentially the exact same thing (a link to linuxsecurity and a snide comment) at least FIVE TIMES in that article's comments.
And examining his posting history, he's done it a few other times too.
And I've seen some other anti-slashbots (if that's what you call them) doing the exact same thing, with mostly the exact same advisories.
HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER SLASHDOT BULLSHIT?
Hur hur... I posted a link to a LUNIX advistory. Take that micheal HUR HUR! Oh wow, I just came all over myself. HUR HUR.
When water converts to steam, steam loses about 1/2 it's heat capacity. Most of the energy is absorbed by evaporation during conversion. It also means water is a better at exchanging heat to the environment after it's condensed into liquid phase.
This liquid has an almost identical heat capacity as gas or liquid. The bubbles can carry more heat away directly. OTH the heat capacity of the steam is about 40% less than water vapor, and the liquid is 60% denser.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me ask you a dumb question.
Let's say I sign an NDA to review Solaris source code at my company. Does that mean my nemesis Sam in engineering also needs an NDA even though we don't even use the same physical networks for our development boxes? Hell no!
So what makes you think that if Sam's boss okayed using GPL code internally or in a product that it would have any affect on my work which is unrelated?
Are you saying the GPL wields more power than an NDA backed by Sun's lawyers? That's delusional. It's also unsophisticated FUD.
What they did is build a wrapper around a common core. The wrapper is GPL'd. The core isn't. In fact they go as far to claim that the core is exactly the same on every OS. Now I can't claim as to WHY they did that, but it's interesting because they can release that part as a binary even though it resides in the kernel because clearly "it wasn't written with linux specifically in mind". So that fits right in with Linus' logic.
I think it's great.
So how does it feel to be Slashdot's newest and most successful troll?
I've got to hand it to you man, you've spawned more +5 Insightful comments than any other guy I've seen in a long time. Often without getting modded into the floor yourself?
Do you do it for the money? Do you do it for the fame?
the BSD license is better. That's really what you wanted to say, but you twist it around to make the GPL look somehow deficient, in a vaccum.
What the hell?
If the BSD license was used for iptables/netfilter, we wouldn't be seeing this article. On the other hand, if the BSD license was used for iptables/netfilter, the authors wouldn't have the ability to say to Sitecom: either let's work a distribution agreement for our work or you show us the source and your changes.
It's a two way street. I feel that the GPL tends to work for both parties, while the BSD license gives more credence to the "you can't make a living with OSS/OSS == communism/OSS == everything should be free, including rent" stereotype.
I don't even think that last part is true either, but I'm saying it's much easier for someone to draw that conclusion. The BSD license gives you less control to generational usage of your work. If you don't care about that kinda thing, then it's probably good, however.
Of particular merit is the one that shows Minato on CNN... and you can clearly see his arm doing the "work" of keeping that wheel moving.
It'd take no longer than a real pendelum would to stop. Sure the force equations in time would be much more complex, but the total energy removed from the system would decay at the same rate (the amount of energy lost to fricition won't change). Your magnets both pull, ALL THE TIME. They don't just switch on during the approach, they also pull by an equal amount as it recedes (under gravity).
Hmmm, no wonder it sounds familiar. Oh, wait, it's a crock of shit. SUPRISE!
Ever build one yourself? Did those storage batteries last as long as you thought they would? And what math do you speak of?
I said:
If it takes 2 watts to generate 6 watts, then you can use a simple voltage divider (STATIC DISCRETE COMPONENTS) to derive 2 watts from those 6, negating the need for the wall socket or battery in the first place. You could use a variable potentiometer to go from the battery power source to the internal power source linearly, to avoid any undue fluctuation in the power supply.
Or are you saying that the power requirements are not constant and "lead" the output in such a fashion that the requirements will eventually exceed the output, nessitating an push greater than the output can supply?
he uses in his "procedure" to sound like he "knows what he's talking about".
You can't use vaguely descriptive words to describe such a system, especially when you've never FUCKING BUILT ONE ANYWAY. There's all these supposititions, ZERO MATH, ZERO TESTING.
It's all fantasy mental masturbation by lightweight pseudo academics.
Arrrgh. You shouldn't have shown me that site.
Permanent magnets do not wear out.
And you can't arrange magnets to create non-linear magnetic fields. It just isn't possible. (IE no matter how hard you try, you will never find a closed countour integral that is non-zero)
all you have to do then is use a resistor-based voltage divider. Measure the output voltage. Pick resistors R_1 and R_2 such that between R_1 and R_2 the voltage V_r is exactly the same as the input voltage V_i. Then you can just route that back, right?
And if the current is insufficient, just use a buck converter to cut down voltage in favor of current (use smaller R_1 to compensate), until you match the inputs and outputs.
I'm sure there's at least enough surplus energy to counter the inefficiency in the buck converter, what with 200% + over unity, eh?
I completely apologize for suggesting earlier that it might be possible with magnetic degradation. It's been 5 years since I've had proper E&M.
It's definitely a measurement error. If he can't show perpetual motion + load driving as evidence (qualitative, very simple), then it's all in the numbers. Remember kids, W = V*A, but more precisely, it's the integral of V(t)*A(t) from t_i to t_f divided by t_f - t_i. If V(t) is 0 while A(t) is non-zero at some time t, and vice versa, your total power is 0, even if average(V(t)) over all t is non-zero, and average(A(t)) over all t is non-zero.
Oops.
A table, right? So is the table doing any work, keeping the bottom magnet off the floor. Is the floor doing any work, keeping the table from plummeting into the center of the earth?
No.
I just realized I'm an idiot.
The answer is THE SUPERPOSITION PRINCIPLE.
No matter how many fixed magnets you align, the total magnetic flux through a closed loop of the system is exactly zero. You can't cleverly align the magnets in a such a way to have a magnet in between them "keep spinning". You can give it an initial angular mometum and if the system is carefully designed it might not impede on it but you can't keep giving a push. The fields will exhibit equal push and pull on some part of a moving object through a fixed path. If you using a changing electric field on the non fixed part, you still will have counter EMF.
It's gotta be a crock. All he has to do is connect his device TO ITSELF through a lightbulb or resistor and I'll be happy.
He has not done that yet.
FUCKING LYING PRICK
demagnetizing the permanent magnet, milking it like a charged inductor. Perhaps by melting it due to internal heating rapidly changing EM fields. (that tends to demagntize stuff... ;-P )
If you attempt to hook these up into a feedback loop:
1) Counter-EMF would cause the fixed parts (magnets) or the bearings to heat up as the system accelerated and become distorted or destroyed.
2) The system would ramp up until internal friction (air, bearings) was equal to the energy amplification, and then it would slow down as the magnets rapidly demagnitzied.
3) Wires would melt, arcing would result. (Possibly could happen in either case)
Could be the basis of a starter motor or something though.
I would really have to argue that... clearly you've never programmed against ALSA or OpenGL in Linux with properly supported hardware (which is a good slice of stuff available today, if you're willing to support the occaisional binary driver). There really isn't a difference, just familiarity with the APIs.
Hell, demoscene coders would have killed for something like ALSA 6 years ago. Thank god for Sahara Surfers, if you know what I mean.
The demoscene loved the Amiga. Now they love the PC. TBL managed to get their demo engine working on Linux and Windows (which is quite impressive). So what evidence do you have to support your opinion?
(and I'm not expecting that anyone write a 3d demo in Linux, especially if they want a wide audience of gawkers... but IMHO it's much easier to write a 64k demo (especially if it eschews 3d in an old school stylee) in linux with the simple APIs than it is with Windows and DirectX. I can see myself doing the former, but I'd struggle with the latter.)
No.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but when this much bullshit plagues a company before launching a product or service, you can pretty much set your watch for total implosion.
I mean what the hell is this bittorrent sucks meme anyway? Have you ever used it?
if water evaporates completely on a very hot surface it ceases to effectively cool the surface because it becomes an insulator (due to the large drop in heat capacity and the inability for the gas to easily escape). With this liquid the different in heat capacities between phases is close to parity so as long as the medium is kept moving, there shouldn't be as extreme a failure condition when things get unexpectedly hot.
Set up a port that pretends to run XYZ service. Keep it open by a dummy daemon that doesn't do anything except act like a tarpit to slow down scanners. Maybe it even tries to fake the initial phases of the protocol.
So you port knock... then just signal the daemon to release that port and have it claimed by the real deal. A port scan might not turn up anything that looks different, until they try connecting to the service.
But the parent managed to post essentially the exact same thing (a link to linuxsecurity and a snide comment) at least FIVE TIMES in that article's comments.
And examining his posting history, he's done it a few other times too.
And I've seen some other anti-slashbots (if that's what you call them) doing the exact same thing, with mostly the exact same advisories.
HOW IS THAT ANY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER SLASHDOT BULLSHIT?
Hur hur... I posted a link to a LUNIX advistory. Take that micheal HUR HUR! Oh wow, I just came all over myself. HUR HUR.
Live HTTP Headers
When water converts to steam, steam loses about 1/2 it's heat capacity. Most of the energy is absorbed by evaporation during conversion. It also means water is a better at exchanging heat to the environment after it's condensed into liquid phase.
This liquid has an almost identical heat capacity as gas or liquid. The bubbles can carry more heat away directly. OTH the heat capacity of the steam is about 40% less than water vapor, and the liquid is 60% denser.
necessitates rendering multiple in-between frames per output frame.
How many? Oh about 5 is usually enough information pump an algorithm with what can't be determined by averaging.
And then you need to render at 150 FPS, and, OH WAIT. There you go, you still need that fast video card.
Why not let the eyes do the motion blur like real life? Just updating the screen as fast as possible seems to be the simplest policy.