My wife recently had an MRI done (She's fine). The thing that struck me was this: On the way out to the waiting room they told her to wait a minute while they made her CD. They handed us a CD containing all the slice images (DICOM) and an auto-run (yea windows) program for viewing them. I always thought it would be cool if you could get your scan data, but here we didn't even have to ask - they just hand it out. I figured the hospital would be afraid of some perceived threat of getting sued. I also wonder if they still hand it out if there's a big obvious tumor in there. You know 'cause the tech isn't supposed to tell you anything - that's the radiologists job. Don't want the patient to go home and look and freak-out without having someone to explain. OTOH, if you know the policy is to give it out unless there's something wrong, and they don't give it to you...
I hope this becomes the norm. er - giving out the data, not my wife needing an MRI.
I recall reading one guys work on galactic dynamics where he suggested that our solar system "orbits" or oscillates (planar) through one of the arms (dense areas - we're not a pinwheel) of the galaxy. He suggested that as we pass through the middle, we're more likely to be hit by other objects. This was his explanation for the extinctions. Now we see that someone has concluded such an oscillation is really happening, however they suggest the a different phase relationship. The guy I was talking about would have the extinctions happen at the time of lowest cosmic ray flux. I guess he got the oscillation part right and the cause of the extinctions wrong. Too bad I can remember where I read that...
Now I'm dreaming of OpenSolaris under the GPLv3. Goodbye Linux, Redhat, Novell and their err... strange deals.
1) You are dreaming
2) It's lacking a huge (I mean HUGE) number of device drivers.
3) I don't think it's got ports to all the architectures Linux runs on.
Each of those things could change of course, but it would take time. I think it would be nice if there was a viable kernel under GPLv3. One correction: Redhat hasn't signed one of those strange deals like Novell.
First, please stop confusing ODF (file format) with OpenOffice.org (software). Now to get to the point. OpenOffice.org has 2 very nice features that MS office is lacking:
1) Save as PDF.
2) Price - it's free
I have convinced several people to try OOo and they all seem to think it's better than paying hundreds of dollars for MS Office. The ones buying new PCs all plan to just use OOo - at least until they see a tangible need to buy MS. The PDF export is actually viewed as a really great feature by more people than I ever thought would care.
I use gcc but I'm not so sure its history would be that interesting to me.
I'm no historian, but I think the origin of GCC is very interesting. When RMS started the GNU project, he was not a compiler guy. He had written system tools, but never a compiler. He recognized that any free operating system (GNU in particular) would require a free compiler and that this was a requirement, not an option. So he sat down and wrote the first GCC himself. It wasn't something he wanted to do, but it was fundamental to his vision so he did it anyway. That speaks to his insight, ability, and dedication. Most important was the insight. Imagine where GNU/Linux would be today if it had to rely on commercial compilers. Yep, that's right - it wouldn't exist.
Also, there is much discussion about GCC transitioning to GPLv3 license. Apparently once the 4.3 branch is released, 4.2 will no longer be maintained under GPLv2. I believe this is because the FSF knows the compiler is fundamental and the license change is so important they don't really want patches contributing to the version under the old license.
He is talking about an issue I've raised before - there is no way to tell the difference between a particle whose entangled twin has been "measured" and one that has not. If you can tell the difference, this would allow faster than light communication. I contend there is no difference - physics has a lot to explain here. But he claims to have an experiment to confirm it - great. However:
Where do you get a laser that produces entangled pairs with the ability to separate the pairs into 2 coherent beams?
Then from TFA we have this:
Now brace yourself for the backward-causality part: Because Signal B followed a shorter route to its detector, the fiddling in Signal A could theoretically show up in Signal B before Cramer actually fiddles with Signal A. It would be as if Cramer's actions had an effect that worked backward in time.
This guy doesn't think that the detector for B will "fiddle" with the photons at A before they reach their fiddler?
He also seems to be getting money from people who believe his BS. Not to mention publicity.
If someone honestly believed they could send information back in time, the logical thing to do is fund the experiment any way you can while keeping it secret. You recover the funds by playing the stock market using future data (minutes to hours is the required time frame here). You keep it secret so "they" don't come after you - for whatever "they" you may be concerned about.
Using another example from cryptography: Which is more secure, public or private key systems? The answer is of course private keys. Why? Let's rephrase the question: Which is more secure, a public key system or a public key system where the keys are kept secret? Obviously the later. Hard as it is with a known key, you absolutely cannot (for example) factor an RSA key you don't have. This of course has little to do with what the FCC says.
And the software on-board was written in Ada. That's why military projects must use Ada - if we switched to something else, then by definition the technology of the future gets developed by someone else. Because time travelers are known to use Ada, and we're the only ones using it, they must be us.
"Us from the future" also explains why they were "here" vs someplace else, why they weren't so advanced as to avoid a crash, etc... The only thing even remotely unreasonable with your option #2 is that physics really seems to preclude time travel, and that's really a bit of a show stopper:-) Unless someone figures it out of course...
So, if it is true that I can't use parallels without being able to swap in my own version of the wine code that parallels uses just because parallels has made material changes to the wine code that are necessary but which they haven't made public, then the LGPL is being violated.
If they are distributing their own variant of LGPLed code, they have to make source code available for their version. The LGPL does not say it's OK not to offer the source as long as the user can substitute another version. If you redistribute an LGPL licensed library, you must offer source code to the version you are distributing - that includes changes if you have made any.
On another note, if they are statically linking then they are supposed to provide source to the entire app.
Could someone count the botnets out there per operating system? I don't care so much about vulnerabilities so much as all the spam I get from compromised machines. Or put another way, it's not the holes but the number of active exploits that we should be counting.
Now that I think of it, the MS/Novell deal apparently has a limited term (5 years?). So that particular deal becomes a non-issue at some point. If there are possible advantages like the other poster suggested (MS distributing Linux...) that would be outweighed by any disadvantages because those go away in 5 years - and a renewal would not be exempt.
It sounds like the process has been compromised. Since the FSF will release future versions of all their stuff under GPLv3, why allow the MS/Novell deal to use the newer code? Perhaps they're worried that those companies actually have the resources to maintain a GPLv2 fork that could come to dominance over their own? Maybe killing SUSE isn't a good idea? What's the tactical reason?
I've also been reading Linus comments on Tivoisation, and I agree with him in principle. However, I see the potential threat that FSF sees too. There will always be ways to lock down hardware unless you require them to provide all development tools - which could include hardware. That sounds unreasonable, so Tivo would probably not use the code. However, that means all projects would have to provide complete development environments to their users on request. I seriously doubt if Tivoization can be stopped by a software license without making the license useless for everyone.
Yep, I was remembering a bit cooler situation that I had read about: SA-6_Gainful
However it remains true that putting a solid fuel rocket motor inside a ramjet is 1970s technology. Putting solid fuel around the outside for solid fuel ramjet operation is newer and I didn't see anything in production. I was trying to stretch the imagination when I suggested ejecting the lower cowling of the ramjet to become this waverider thing:-) I don't doubt it's possible, but I wonder about efficiency - designing the geometry for 2 different modes of operation. An unmanned vehicle could be one-time use which doubles range and also means ejection of part of the system at some point is OK because you don't expect any of it to come back. 3 modes of operation without much redundant mass:-)
Since a ramjet is just a specially shaped chamber, you can load it full of solid rocket fuel to get it going. Once that fuel is spent, you start spraying in the liquid fuel for ramjet operation. I recall reading on Wikipedia that some missiles use this method. Now if you could make the ramjet out of an ejectable cowling under the waverider you would:
1) burn solid fuel inside chamber
2) spray fuel inside chamber
3) continue spraying fuel as you release the underside of the chamber.
4) go really fast.
If you read the license, you'll notice that you are not allowed to use the code for commercial purposes without paying a royalty and getting a different license (this one doesn't allow commercial use). Because of this, it does not qualify as Open Source (OSI definition) or Free (FSF definition) unless you're using another definition for one of these common licensing terms. For once we don't need to debate the merits of one or the other, because this license is neither.
A choice quote: "It's almost inconceivable that nobody else thought of, or acted on this idea, until now." That sure sounds like they think this is obvious. Does that mean they'll skip getting a patent?
Here's the question - is non-gene DNA/machinery/ or/DATA/?
How about this:
The non-gene DNA is software - i.e. the CODE segment.
The gene DNA is data - the DATA segment - and defines how to build specific molecules.
The cell and its internals are the hardware.
All IO is through chemistry - i.e. concentrations of various molecules.
There are more things scanning DNA than the repair devices aren't there? Could some of these things be interpreters of some sort? If they had the ability to "write" a base pair it would be a physical Turing machine;-)
No physicist can tell the difference between an entangled particle in superposition, and one whose wave function has "collapsed". Why? Because there is no difference - all this paradox stuff is nonsense.
It would be nice if the code AND artwork are all licensed in such a way that the game can be bundled with most Linux distributions. I'm not sure if (CC) would be OK with Fedora for example - who are talking about trying to meet the FSF definition of a completely Free OS.
I never saw the last blender movie, but heard the graphics were good and the story was bad. I'd really like to see them take a proven story (public domain like one of Grims fairy tales - poke around Project Gutenberg) and make a movie out of it. If they choose one that Disney has already commercialized that would be even more interesting - and may get some free publicity if they threaten the team.
It sounds to me like they are patenting a specific organism, not the concept of building one from scratch. I could be wrong about that, but that's how I read it. While it it is derived from a natural organism with much stuff removed, it seems more palatable to me than patenting regular food with one or two features added. I don't like either practice, but this seems less bad than what Monsanto is doing.
If they are patenting the "organism from scratch" concept, then the problem doesn't seem to be ethical, it's that people are upset that they'll be locked out of a new field for 20 years. Those don't come along very often, but they do come along and people do get patents on them. The one very far reaching one that comes to my mind is the one on controlling an airplane. Sure, the guys had a lock on a revolutionary new industry for some time. Then like all good "IP" it expired.
Don't give me credit, I was just a cog in the engineering machine. Granted, I was a control software guy:-) And yes, the Ibot is a cousin of the Segway. I'm not certain which came first. Both are really cool, but I'd prefer to sit down if riding a lot. Besides, I'm not sure how the Segway handles curbs - the Ibot handles them just fine (up and down).
The Ibot is already available today. I did some development on it for a while and can tell you it's more comfortable than any powered device you've ever ridden. It can do stairs too.
The FCC mandates the so-called V-chip in most larger HDTVs. Why not allow anything on TV? Just mandate parental controls on all sets and require broadcasters to follow the rating system. Then everyone can filter out the shows they personally find unacceptable to themselves and their children. Of course this would take away the exclusivity of profanity and boobs that pay channels currently enjoy, so I don't really expect it to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope this becomes the norm. er - giving out the data, not my wife needing an MRI.
I recall reading one guys work on galactic dynamics where he suggested that our solar system "orbits" or oscillates (planar) through one of the arms (dense areas - we're not a pinwheel) of the galaxy. He suggested that as we pass through the middle, we're more likely to be hit by other objects. This was his explanation for the extinctions. Now we see that someone has concluded such an oscillation is really happening, however they suggest the a different phase relationship. The guy I was talking about would have the extinctions happen at the time of lowest cosmic ray flux. I guess he got the oscillation part right and the cause of the extinctions wrong. Too bad I can remember where I read that...
1) You are dreaming
2) It's lacking a huge (I mean HUGE) number of device drivers.
3) I don't think it's got ports to all the architectures Linux runs on.
Each of those things could change of course, but it would take time. I think it would be nice if there was a viable kernel under GPLv3. One correction: Redhat hasn't signed one of those strange deals like Novell.
1) Save as PDF.
2) Price - it's free
I have convinced several people to try OOo and they all seem to think it's better than paying hundreds of dollars for MS Office. The ones buying new PCs all plan to just use OOo - at least until they see a tangible need to buy MS. The PDF export is actually viewed as a really great feature by more people than I ever thought would care.
Also, there is much discussion about GCC transitioning to GPLv3 license. Apparently once the 4.3 branch is released, 4.2 will no longer be maintained under GPLv2. I believe this is because the FSF knows the compiler is fundamental and the license change is so important they don't really want patches contributing to the version under the old license.
Where do you get a laser that produces entangled pairs with the ability to separate the pairs into 2 coherent beams?
Then from TFA we have this:
This guy doesn't think that the detector for B will "fiddle" with the photons at A before they reach their fiddler?He also seems to be getting money from people who believe his BS. Not to mention publicity.
If someone honestly believed they could send information back in time, the logical thing to do is fund the experiment any way you can while keeping it secret. You recover the funds by playing the stock market using future data (minutes to hours is the required time frame here). You keep it secret so "they" don't come after you - for whatever "they" you may be concerned about.
Using another example from cryptography: Which is more secure, public or private key systems? The answer is of course private keys. Why? Let's rephrase the question: Which is more secure, a public key system or a public key system where the keys are kept secret? Obviously the later. Hard as it is with a known key, you absolutely cannot (for example) factor an RSA key you don't have. This of course has little to do with what the FCC says.
Microsoft pushing XPS over PDF
"Us from the future" also explains why they were "here" vs someplace else, why they weren't so advanced as to avoid a crash, etc... The only thing even remotely unreasonable with your option #2 is that physics really seems to preclude time travel, and that's really a bit of a show stopper :-) Unless someone figures it out of course...
On another note, if they are statically linking then they are supposed to provide source to the entire app.
Could someone count the botnets out there per operating system? I don't care so much about vulnerabilities so much as all the spam I get from compromised machines. Or put another way, it's not the holes but the number of active exploits that we should be counting.
Now that I think of it, the MS/Novell deal apparently has a limited term (5 years?). So that particular deal becomes a non-issue at some point. If there are possible advantages like the other poster suggested (MS distributing Linux...) that would be outweighed by any disadvantages because those go away in 5 years - and a renewal would not be exempt.
I've also been reading Linus comments on Tivoisation, and I agree with him in principle. However, I see the potential threat that FSF sees too. There will always be ways to lock down hardware unless you require them to provide all development tools - which could include hardware. That sounds unreasonable, so Tivo would probably not use the code. However, that means all projects would have to provide complete development environments to their users on request. I seriously doubt if Tivoization can be stopped by a software license without making the license useless for everyone.
Yep, I was remembering a bit cooler situation that I had read about: :-) I don't doubt it's possible, but I wonder about efficiency - designing the geometry for 2 different modes of operation. An unmanned vehicle could be one-time use which doubles range and also means ejection of part of the system at some point is OK because you don't expect any of it to come back. 3 modes of operation without much redundant mass :-)
SA-6_Gainful
However it remains true that putting a solid fuel rocket motor inside a ramjet is 1970s technology. Putting solid fuel around the outside for solid fuel ramjet operation is newer and I didn't see anything in production. I was trying to stretch the imagination when I suggested ejecting the lower cowling of the ramjet to become this waverider thing
Since a ramjet is just a specially shaped chamber, you can load it full of solid rocket fuel to get it going. Once that fuel is spent, you start spraying in the liquid fuel for ramjet operation. I recall reading on Wikipedia that some missiles use this method. Now if you could make the ramjet out of an ejectable cowling under the waverider you would:
1) burn solid fuel inside chamber
2) spray fuel inside chamber
3) continue spraying fuel as you release the underside of the chamber.
4) go really fast.
If you read the license, you'll notice that you are not allowed to use the code for commercial purposes without paying a royalty and getting a different license (this one doesn't allow commercial use). Because of this, it does not qualify as Open Source (OSI definition) or Free (FSF definition) unless you're using another definition for one of these common licensing terms. For once we don't need to debate the merits of one or the other, because this license is neither.
A choice quote: "It's almost inconceivable that nobody else thought of, or acted on this idea, until now." That sure sounds like they think this is obvious. Does that mean they'll skip getting a patent?
The non-gene DNA is software - i.e. the CODE segment.
The gene DNA is data - the DATA segment - and defines how to build specific molecules.
The cell and its internals are the hardware.
All IO is through chemistry - i.e. concentrations of various molecules.
There are more things scanning DNA than the repair devices aren't there? Could some of these things be interpreters of some sort? If they had the ability to "write" a base pair it would be a physical Turing machine ;-)
No physicist can tell the difference between an entangled particle in superposition, and one whose wave function has "collapsed". Why? Because there is no difference - all this paradox stuff is nonsense.
It would be nice if the code AND artwork are all licensed in such a way that the game can be bundled with most Linux distributions. I'm not sure if (CC) would be OK with Fedora for example - who are talking about trying to meet the FSF definition of a completely Free OS.
I never saw the last blender movie, but heard the graphics were good and the story was bad. I'd really like to see them take a proven story (public domain like one of Grims fairy tales - poke around Project Gutenberg) and make a movie out of it. If they choose one that Disney has already commercialized that would be even more interesting - and may get some free publicity if they threaten the team.
It sounds to me like they are patenting a specific organism, not the concept of building one from scratch. I could be wrong about that, but that's how I read it. While it it is derived from a natural organism with much stuff removed, it seems more palatable to me than patenting regular food with one or two features added. I don't like either practice, but this seems less bad than what Monsanto is doing.
If they are patenting the "organism from scratch" concept, then the problem doesn't seem to be ethical, it's that people are upset that they'll be locked out of a new field for 20 years. Those don't come along very often, but they do come along and people do get patents on them. The one very far reaching one that comes to my mind is the one on controlling an airplane. Sure, the guys had a lock on a revolutionary new industry for some time. Then like all good "IP" it expired.
Don't give me credit, I was just a cog in the engineering machine. Granted, I was a control software guy :-) And yes, the Ibot is a cousin of the Segway. I'm not certain which came first. Both are really cool, but I'd prefer to sit down if riding a lot. Besides, I'm not sure how the Segway handles curbs - the Ibot handles them just fine (up and down).
The Ibot is already available today. I did some development on it for a while and can tell you it's more comfortable than any powered device you've ever ridden. It can do stairs too.
The FCC mandates the so-called V-chip in most larger HDTVs. Why not allow anything on TV? Just mandate parental controls on all sets and require broadcasters to follow the rating system. Then everyone can filter out the shows they personally find unacceptable to themselves and their children. Of course this would take away the exclusivity of profanity and boobs that pay channels currently enjoy, so I don't really expect it to happen.