The article talks about about producing carbon nanotubes under lab conditions and how the carbon nanotubes
will still have a one defect;(that cause an average strength loss of 30%). It also suggests that nanotubes that are mass produced;(such as by the spider under less than ideal conditions), would be expected to have so many defects as to render them useless for the carbon nanotube ribbon. Then there is the difficulty of actually replacing carbon nanotubes without adding substantially to either the weight or shape of the ribbon. Remember the spider also must not get in the way ot the lift;(the lift goes all around the ribbon). Also it must get energy when it would likely be spending much of its time space;(due to the fact that a large portion of the damage would likely be occurring in outer space). Also unless you were willing to attempt to keep the spiders repaired you would likely need to mass produce them and send up hundreds at a time;(due to the length of the cable). But how would this affect the weight handling capabilities of the cable?
The first amendment applies to the press and not to lobbyists because it mandates freedom of the press, speech and assembly;(among other things). It does not mandate the freedom to conduct yourself or your interests or your business in any way you want.
Most laws aren't quite as rigid as you make them sound. If they were, you could use something like a very complicated logic table to automatically hand out sentences and judgements without much use for judges and juries.
You try to imply that it is likely that software patents will be brought for another vote sometime soon. How much do you want to bet that they will come up again in the next few decades?
Did anyone notice that he apparently couldn't get more than a 2Mbit connection going on the nintendo ds. this is a very slow top connection speed. Hopefully some of the registers he doesn't know about will allow the nintendo ds to use wifi at much faster speeds.
Your example is pathetic. Scientists may not know exactly how certain cells evolved to their current state. However they know a lot now than 50 years ago. Whats more their investigations of bacterial cells has been most interesting in helping to understand how certain cells could have evolved.
So what? There are plenty of linux companies and other companies with cash that will never have to worry about running out money to fight these so called xml patents;(like IBM). The company that holds the so called xml patents has potentially made a lot powerfull enemies in the linux world alone.
What do you mean by required to provide a fix? Most open source authors are working on their programs in their spare time. typically when they don't have to work their regular job or when they don't have some thing else to do. They often don't make a lot of money from their open source hobby programs; so why should they be required to work harder on their programs to make them secure? Your stupid statement about being required to provide a fix might mean the end for a lot of open source authors.
A lot of people here seem to think that theoretical profits = real profits. That isn't necessarily the case. Simply because a person decides that a song isn't worth paying for, but is worth listening to for free doesn't make it theft. I suspect that a lot of people who complain about the copyright infringment doesn't equal theft arguments would be against public libraries as well! In these places you can read books for free without paying for them.
Some might call that theft but it really isn't. What this really about is that authors and middlemen want to make a fixed calculatable amount of per money per sale of song or program. In the future they will have to accept that a song or program is worth exactly as much as the individual thinks it is. Authors and middlemen will have to rely on people paying willingly for songs or software. This is big part of why linux is seen as such a threat by microsoft and other software companies. Forcing authors and middlemen to rely on donations for survival will certainly lead to big changes in the software and music industries.
It won't lead to the ruination of the economy because a lot of real goods exist that can't be made or copied very cheaply. It will lead to the most ethical way to sell music and software. In which one person or company doesn't decide how much a song or program will be worth. When you hear people or companies saying that they have the right to decide the value of their software or music, they are being arrogant. They can't simply proclaim how much each program or song will be worth to each individual(this is why a lot of programs have been discontinued for lack of profits). The individual will decide how much a song or program is worth.
If you are running a program you haven't paid for it copyright infringement, not theft. As for your other assertion that a piece of software is worth exactly what the company says it is worth; that assertion is ridiculous. In reality the program is worth exactly what the consumer is willing to pay for it! If that were not the case software SALES would not be had! Remember more than one company has went out of business because it thought it had a valuable piece of software, but no one was willing to pay for it!
NO. Giving away the source code is not the same as giving up your intellectual property rights;(IP). "Remember" in giving away the source code you still retain the copywrite to whatever portion of the source code you actually wrote. The requirement of the GPL is that you must give back the source code for any programs that were liscensed under the GPL and that you improved and redistributed. You never lose copywrite;(IP). Instead you are donating your copywrited source code to the public domain for use by the general code writing public. A lot of people donate the improved source back to the public because they understand that in complying with the gpl they are getting distribution rights that are normally reserved under copywrite law to the original author(s). You also never gain copywrite;(IP) for those sections of the source code you didn't personally write.
How about performance? The point was the high priced itanium 2 could match the performance of the much lower priced amd. Could the lower cost itanium 2 do the same?
Probably. They would simply try to offer extended services that the most likely wouldn't be offered by big brother. Aol for instance offers internet service for money that exceeds what you could typically get for free.
Do a search for the two words;nanotubes flash; with a typical search engine. If you had bothered to do this you and a lot of other people would have found an article describing how carbon nanotubes make a loud popping sound and then burn up when exposed to a ordinary camera flash. Do you think they will hold up when exposed to solar flares?
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to use the Metonic calendar.
Apparently the speed with which the quantum ram could be accessed would be limited by physical hardware. Not by quantum physics.
This will probably by solved by using lumens for rating the light output.
There is a better article about COROT over at the new scientist web site. http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns
Is anyone else thinking that running firefox 2 with noscript installed means this vulnerability is no big deal?
The article talks about about producing carbon nanotubes under lab conditions and how the carbon nanotubes will still have a one defect;(that cause an average strength loss of 30%). It also suggests that nanotubes that are mass produced;(such as by the spider under less than ideal conditions), would be expected to have so many defects as to render them useless for the carbon nanotube ribbon. Then there is the difficulty of actually replacing carbon nanotubes without adding substantially to either the weight or shape of the ribbon. Remember the spider also must not get in the way ot the lift;(the lift goes all around the ribbon). Also it must get energy when it would likely be spending much of its time space;(due to the fact that a large portion of the damage would likely be occurring in outer space). Also unless you were willing to attempt to keep the spiders repaired you would likely need to mass produce them and send up hundreds at a time;(due to the length of the cable). But how would this affect the weight handling capabilities of the cable?
The first amendment applies to the press and not to lobbyists because it mandates freedom of the press, speech and assembly;(among other things). It does not mandate the freedom to conduct yourself or your interests or your business in any way you want.
Most laws aren't quite as rigid as you make them sound. If they were, you could use something like a very complicated logic table to automatically hand out sentences and judgements without much use for judges and juries.
You try to imply that it is likely that software patents will be brought for another vote sometime soon. How much do you want to bet that they will come up again in the next few decades?
Did anyone notice that he apparently couldn't get more than a 2Mbit connection going on the nintendo ds. this is a very slow top connection speed. Hopefully some of the registers he doesn't know about will allow the nintendo ds to use wifi at much faster speeds.
Your example is pathetic. Scientists may not know exactly how certain cells evolved to their current state. However they know a lot now than 50 years ago. Whats more their investigations of bacterial cells has been most interesting in helping to understand how certain cells could have evolved.
Would you like to bet IBM doesn't have it?
So what? There are plenty of linux companies and other companies with cash that will never have to worry about running out money to fight these so called xml patents;(like IBM). The company that holds the so called xml patents has potentially made a lot powerfull enemies in the linux world alone.
What do you mean by required to provide a fix? Most open source authors are working on their programs in their spare time. typically when they don't have to work their regular job or when they don't have some thing else to do. They often don't make a lot of money from their open source hobby programs; so why should they be required to work harder on their programs to make them secure? Your stupid statement about being required to provide a fix might mean the end for a lot of open source authors.
A lot of people here seem to think that theoretical profits = real profits. That isn't necessarily the case. Simply because a person decides that a song isn't worth paying for, but is worth listening to for free doesn't make it theft. I suspect that a lot of people who complain about the copyright infringment doesn't equal theft arguments would be against public libraries as well! In these places you can read books for free without paying for them. Some might call that theft but it really isn't. What this really about is that authors and middlemen want to make a fixed calculatable amount of per money per sale of song or program. In the future they will have to accept that a song or program is worth exactly as much as the individual thinks it is. Authors and middlemen will have to rely on people paying willingly for songs or software. This is big part of why linux is seen as such a threat by microsoft and other software companies. Forcing authors and middlemen to rely on donations for survival will certainly lead to big changes in the software and music industries. It won't lead to the ruination of the economy because a lot of real goods exist that can't be made or copied very cheaply. It will lead to the most ethical way to sell music and software. In which one person or company doesn't decide how much a song or program will be worth. When you hear people or companies saying that they have the right to decide the value of their software or music, they are being arrogant. They can't simply proclaim how much each program or song will be worth to each individual(this is why a lot of programs have been discontinued for lack of profits). The individual will decide how much a song or program is worth.
I think there are a number of groups that would disagree with you on that point.
If you are running a program you haven't paid for it copyright infringement, not theft. As for your other assertion that a piece of software is worth exactly what the company says it is worth; that assertion is ridiculous. In reality the program is worth exactly what the consumer is willing to pay for it! If that were not the case software SALES would not be had! Remember more than one company has went out of business because it thought it had a valuable piece of software, but no one was willing to pay for it!
NO. Giving away the source code is not the same as giving up your intellectual property rights;(IP). "Remember" in giving away the source code you still retain the copywrite to whatever portion of the source code you actually wrote. The requirement of the GPL is that you must give back the source code for any programs that were liscensed under the GPL and that you improved and redistributed. You never lose copywrite;(IP). Instead you are donating your copywrited source code to the public domain for use by the general code writing public. A lot of people donate the improved source back to the public because they understand that in complying with the gpl they are getting distribution rights that are normally reserved under copywrite law to the original author(s). You also never gain copywrite;(IP) for those sections of the source code you didn't personally write.
How about performance? The point was the high priced itanium 2 could match the performance of the much lower priced amd. Could the lower cost itanium 2 do the same?
Probably. They would simply try to offer extended services that the most likely wouldn't be offered by big brother. Aol for instance offers internet service for money that exceeds what you could typically get for free.
Do a search for the two words ;nanotubes flash; with a typical search engine. If you had bothered to do this you and a lot of other people would have found an article describing how carbon nanotubes make a loud popping sound and then burn up when exposed to a ordinary camera flash. Do you think they will hold up when exposed to solar flares?
In which case the code could be dissasembled back to the source code. Whats more the original author wouldn't be able to do anything about it.