The argument against the straw horse of expansion into space as a hedge against limits on growth is not of much interest, because no one with half a brain believes the premise anyway. It may allow some minor further growth at enormous expense, but that's not what space is for.
Space is a hedge against extinction, and a challenge to the human urge to explore new places and try new things. If self-supporting colonies exist on other celestial bodies and on artificial constructions in space, the inevitable destructive hit to earth sooner or later by a large comet, large asteroid, or high percentile megacaldera eruption will not be able to terminate the entire human race. 50%, or 90%, or 99% of the race might be extinguished, but there would be survivors in an intact setting in any scenario.
Conceivably multiple underground redoubts on earth with self-contained vast reserves of energy could provide the same assurance, but they can't satisfy the other need. That is the need to explore and settle new territory and rise to new challenges. A human race that had that snuffed out would not be recognizable as human, and would be no great loss if it DID become extinct. Also, if we do make contact with members of other races in space, we won't have to apologize for being satisfied huddled exclusively on the surface of our birthplace.
Yeah, that free market sure is working good, isn't it. In any other context that is labeled fucking opportunism and is an invitation to an ass-kicking.
You are correct that "sweat of the brow" is not the determinant. I was pointing out that calling time zone data "without a doubt unoriginal" is anything but a "no-brainer." Feist v. Rural concerned copying a telephone directory. The ruling by O'Connor stated that information is not copyrightable, but collections of information may be. The required degree of creativity to gain protection for collections of information is not high; just higher than a telephone directory. The choice of what data to include and exclude, and the order and style with which the information is presented can make the required spark of creativity. So while the sweat of the brow in compiling a telephone directory does not confer blanket copyright protection, the research involved in finding the true facts of time data, identifying the incorrect items, and presenting the rules could be an entirely different matter.
Every telephone subscriber has a telephone number. There is no dispute what that number is. It is a simple one-to-one relationship. Time zones are a different matter. Quick, what collection of sources do you call to find time zone information? What geography determines the time zones? It's not a simple matter of countries, districts, or towns. It's complicated. When does daylight savings time start and stop? It's different for each location. Not every location in zone X starts and stops daylight savings on the same day. Some locations in zone X do not even observe daylight savings at all. All these particulars change repeatedly over the years, in indiosyncratic ways. Do the rules in the timezone database correspond closely with the way the book presents the data? I don't know, but I do know that it's not an open-and-shut "by" for the database.
You know what's instructive? To contemplate the roll of human beings who Christians have burned at the stake, drowned, beheaded, tortured, and otherwise grievously harmed, then repeat the exercise for other religions, then finally point me to a case where astrologers have done that to anyone.
You know that, do you? I rather doubt it myself. The authors of the book on which much of the data in the database is based did a lot of research in the course of authoring it. There is data for many, and not a few obscure, locales at various times in history. You can't just call up the Time Czar and say "gimme all the information," you know. The linux time engine is not just for the present moment. It deals with historical time with its many local quirks too, AFAIK back to some time late in 1901 (1970-01-01 minus 2^31 seconds) - at least on a lot of systems time_t is a signed 32-bit count of seconds. There is certainly data for that period in the timezone database. I really suggest examining the files in tzdata.tar.gz. It certainly opened my eyes.
The builders of that time database were not idiots to go to astrological sources for some of their information. Whether you believe in it or not, astrologers don't just pull things out of their hat. It shouldn't surprise anyone, considering their methodology, that one of their prime concerns is time (together with calculations of the positions of celestial objects). They have done a lot of work in these areas which is extremely useful.
The source code itself states "Except where otherwise noted, Shanks & Pottenger is the source for entries through 1991, and IATA SSIM is the source for entries afterwards." It also claims "This file is in the public domain" with no restriction on its use.
I would suggest before closing one's mind, we should ask a question which AFAIK no one has asked yet. What do the authors want? Do they want a trillion dollars, do they want a limitation on purposes for which the database can be used, or do they want simple recognition and attribution? Not just now, but before the dispute arose. The source does does not appear to be marked GPL, so there is room to accommodate and negotiate.
I don't have any large issue with DiCaprio playing Turing. He is versatile, capable, and very hard working. However, the part should go to Jeremy Northam. It would have been a better age match if they tapped him 20 years ago, but there are other factors to consider than matching the actor's age to the character in his prime. I didn't know Turing, so it's just an impression, but I think Jeremy Northam would do a superb job. See The Winslow Boy and tell me I'm wrong.
Well, Ubuntu committed suicide as a serious distro when it got the pinhead Unity religion. No serious reviewer is going to find it worthwhile in its default form any more, and it is only natural to point out another distro not suffering from the disease of STUPID.
Bullshit. Gnome2 was a very advanced UI, comprehensively customizable with many settings. As long as Ubuntu used Gnome2 it was eminently suitable for development. I preferred Fedora, but I would have been perfectly happy with Ubuntu. Now both these distros have been fucked up literally beyond recognition.
1080p video is far from 0.05 Gbps. 1080p/60 as transmitted over HDMI1.0 to 1.2 is 3.96 Gbps. HDMI 1.3 with deep color goes up to 10.2 Gbps (hmmm... the same as Thunderbolt... not surprising considering that is one of the interconnects that Thunderbolt is supposed to be able to do).
If you mean a compressed data stream encoding a 1080p video content, as transmitted over the air or via satellite or cable, that is much lower; somewhere under 20 Mbps. However, an hour of 720p or 1080i HD content, even compressed to hell using H.264, is somewhere around 1 GB. I know I sure spend a lot of time twiddling my thumbs slinging those files over either gigabit ethernet or USB 2.0 as I have to do presently. The difference between 4.8 Gbps and 10.2 Gbps for transferring an hour of 1080p is something like 2 minutes vs 1 minute. Sounds worthwhile to me, if I have, say 100 or 1000 hours of 1080p to transfer.
I believe your understanding is incorrect. According to this whitepaper, the transfer speed is individually negotiated between each connection point, and the hub buffers data and matches speed as required. In other words, as I read it, every device attached to that hub operates at its individual negotiated data rate, and the upstream data rate of the hub is always the maximum it negotiates with the host. A slow device does not handicap a fast device, even on the same hub.
This whitepaper only covers USB 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, so I suppose the case with USB 3.0 may possibly differ, but I tend to doubt it given the established USB philosophy.
Both the article and the summary don't seem to get it. This sounds like C#.NET take two, with the added trick that until browser support for the real Dart is there, you can deploy by translating your client side Dart code to JavaScript.
Nobody with any sense suggests it may be infinite (the Earth is finite), but some consider that it may be a lot more than supposed, and a lot of it may be coming from other processes than supposed.
I don't think it enhances your position to label those who look at data you reject out of hand, and/or who interpret data differently, as "wackos." I submit that it is indicative of religious nuttery to so label those with whom one disagrees. It is in any case the mark of a weak debating position and an enemy of the scientific method. It is not known to a certainty that abiogenic oil is either completely fallacious, or does not contribute any component at all to the supply.
Some others of your suppositions are clearly suspect. For example why do you suppose all of the markup in oil from well to pump is multiplicative and none of it additive? In general, there are always both multiplicative and additive components to any markup. And even $5/gallon gasoline beats any known alternative to gasoline. In fact, worldwide data shows that consumers will pay closer to $10/gallon if need be. That doesn't necessarily mean shale oil is The One And True Answer, but it means that it needs to be seriously investigated as a national imperative, not to say a world imperative.
The proved petroleum reserves of the U.S. are about 21 billion barrels (and 263 billion for Saudi Arabia). It is estimated that 1.5-2.6 TRILLION barrels of shale oil reserves can be added for the U.S. alone. We don't know yet what it would cost to produce from those reserves because no one has seriously tried on any significant scale. It is apparent that it would be worth a large investment to find out. At some price level, those reserves become economically justified to exploit. That is simple economics. The need is to obtain an informed estimate of what that point might be, without preconceptions.
It is not an all or nothing proposition. Serious sums need to be spent on proving reserves and methods for exploiting shale oil and other sources of oil, in addition to continuing the effort to make alternatives economically viable. For example, if covering the U.S. desert areas with huge thermal chimney driven windmills would make a significant and economically effective dent in imported energy sources and/or dwindling energy sources, we should have that debate, not necessarily without passion, but at least without summarily ruling out options. And the same for shale oil.
Everybody here is prattling on about whether we can or cannot eliminate reboots by using memristors - completely missing the point of this new technology. We are talking about a 5 nanometer process here! One in which you can build up many layers! One in which parameters can be traded off in various ways to either make a better DRAM than DRAM, a better SRAM than SRAM, or a better flash than flash. The point is not necessarily to replace all of those with a single part. The point is that there is VAST potential to break through barriers. We are talking about a flash replacement with much higher density, lower power, increased endurance, and (speculatively) lower cost. This could be the a damn big breakthrough; a game changer.
A very informative writeup on the copyrightability of facts and even compilations of facts in the U.S. is this.
In particular, note the specific rejection of "sweat of the brow" per se as a basis for copyright protection in matters of databases. The key is whether the database is "arranged and selected in an original manner." I can see this case being decided either way. The White Pages telephone directory is not protected, but on the other hand you cannot copy Webster's Unabridged without consequence. Whether you can copy the gist of a subset of articles in the dictionary is more arguable.
The work in contention clearly entails a whole different level of research than the White Pages, and quite possibly a level comparable in some sense to Webster's Unabridged. These are not obvious facts growing on trees.
However, to receive awards based on damages, you have to show damage! Again, that may or may not be the case here. I would suggest that plaintiff does intend to show damage. I have seen the work in question (heck, it's found on a lot of Unix-like systems and repositories). IMHO attribution is given, but there is no verbiage cautioning the reader that its use should be restricted to its intended mission: i.e., telling time in the course of normal operation of the operating system and common programs running thereon.
It would be unfortunate indeed if it has come to this merely because of a misunderstanding or oversight. I hope it can be rectified happily for all out of court, and that neither party ends up being hit with crippling legal bills. I presume all readers will agree that would benefit no one of positive value to society.
A large majority of users just use the one that comes up by default after a default install, and that is Gnome. A lot of users are surprised that you can install other DE's, or that you can have a bunch of them installed at once.
How about you deal with the science and cut the smug egotism, asshole. Some scientists believe the climate is warming due to human activity released CO2. Some do not. Either say why you believe the first group of scientists, and why you are not bothered by the politics and the lying which have been exposed - or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Your choice. Demonizing those who do not willingly accept force-fed imperatives is not productive. Yeah, I can't force you to do this, any more than you can reach across the internet and tear me apart.
I can think of valid arguments supporting anthropogenic climate change, but I cannot think of a proof. I can also think of both positives and negatives if the change does occur, for WHATEVER reason. What I haven't seen is any indication of is a complete cost benefit analysis of tearing apart the world economy and grossly lowering the standard of living of those most vulnerable. Hey, there may be an analysis which could convince rational people of the advisability of radical action but, like, IT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND DEBATED RATIONALLY.
Passion can be a useful and laudatory thing, but it has to be harnessed. And it ain't easy, believe me. Just look how we both got all worked up now.
A meaningless slogan (the ends justify the means). Some ends justify some means. I know this may shock you. Please note, this is not in reference to any particular means being justified by any particular ends. I'm just tired of the meaningless slogan.
Slashdot Mirror
The argument against the straw horse of expansion into space as a hedge against limits on growth is not of much interest, because no one with half a brain believes the premise anyway. It may allow some minor further growth at enormous expense, but that's not what space is for.
Space is a hedge against extinction, and a challenge to the human urge to explore new places and try new things. If self-supporting colonies exist on other celestial bodies and on artificial constructions in space, the inevitable destructive hit to earth sooner or later by a large comet, large asteroid, or high percentile megacaldera eruption will not be able to terminate the entire human race. 50%, or 90%, or 99% of the race might be extinguished, but there would be survivors in an intact setting in any scenario.
Conceivably multiple underground redoubts on earth with self-contained vast reserves of energy could provide the same assurance, but they can't satisfy the other need. That is the need to explore and settle new territory and rise to new challenges. A human race that had that snuffed out would not be recognizable as human, and would be no great loss if it DID become extinct. Also, if we do make contact with members of other races in space, we won't have to apologize for being satisfied huddled exclusively on the surface of our birthplace.
Yeah, that free market sure is working good, isn't it. In any other context that is labeled fucking opportunism and is an invitation to an ass-kicking.
Oh, well that's different then. It's only 104,858 times as much RAM, not 209,517 times. Sure does make it a serious contender now.
You are correct that "sweat of the brow" is not the determinant. I was pointing out that calling time zone data "without a doubt unoriginal" is anything but a "no-brainer." Feist v. Rural concerned copying a telephone directory. The ruling by O'Connor stated that information is not copyrightable, but collections of information may be. The required degree of creativity to gain protection for collections of information is not high; just higher than a telephone directory. The choice of what data to include and exclude, and the order and style with which the information is presented can make the required spark of creativity. So while the sweat of the brow in compiling a telephone directory does not confer blanket copyright protection, the research involved in finding the true facts of time data, identifying the incorrect items, and presenting the rules could be an entirely different matter.
Every telephone subscriber has a telephone number. There is no dispute what that number is. It is a simple one-to-one relationship. Time zones are a different matter. Quick, what collection of sources do you call to find time zone information? What geography determines the time zones? It's not a simple matter of countries, districts, or towns. It's complicated. When does daylight savings time start and stop? It's different for each location. Not every location in zone X starts and stops daylight savings on the same day. Some locations in zone X do not even observe daylight savings at all. All these particulars change repeatedly over the years, in indiosyncratic ways. Do the rules in the timezone database correspond closely with the way the book presents the data? I don't know, but I do know that it's not an open-and-shut "by" for the database.
Hopefully never more in a world in which I live.
You know what's instructive? To contemplate the roll of human beings who Christians have burned at the stake, drowned, beheaded, tortured, and otherwise grievously harmed, then repeat the exercise for other religions, then finally point me to a case where astrologers have done that to anyone.
It would seem that rather obvious point is beyond the intellect of many to realize.
You know that, do you? I rather doubt it myself. The authors of the book on which much of the data in the database is based did a lot of research in the course of authoring it. There is data for many, and not a few obscure, locales at various times in history. You can't just call up the Time Czar and say "gimme all the information," you know. The linux time engine is not just for the present moment. It deals with historical time with its many local quirks too, AFAIK back to some time late in 1901 (1970-01-01 minus 2^31 seconds) - at least on a lot of systems time_t is a signed 32-bit count of seconds. There is certainly data for that period in the timezone database. I really suggest examining the files in tzdata.tar.gz. It certainly opened my eyes.
The builders of that time database were not idiots to go to astrological sources for some of their information. Whether you believe in it or not, astrologers don't just pull things out of their hat. It shouldn't surprise anyone, considering their methodology, that one of their prime concerns is time (together with calculations of the positions of celestial objects). They have done a lot of work in these areas which is extremely useful.
The source code itself states "Except where otherwise noted, Shanks & Pottenger is the source for entries through 1991, and IATA SSIM is the source for entries afterwards." It also claims "This file is in the public domain" with no restriction on its use.
I would suggest before closing one's mind, we should ask a question which AFAIK no one has asked yet. What do the authors want? Do they want a trillion dollars, do they want a limitation on purposes for which the database can be used, or do they want simple recognition and attribution? Not just now, but before the dispute arose. The source does does not appear to be marked GPL, so there is room to accommodate and negotiate.
It looks to me like there is a mistake in the 34,518,296,721th digit. Could you repeat and compare please?
Sounds to me like you're thinking of Aurthur C. Clarke's The Nine Billion Names Of God .
I don't have any large issue with DiCaprio playing Turing. He is versatile, capable, and very hard working. However, the part should go to Jeremy Northam. It would have been a better age match if they tapped him 20 years ago, but there are other factors to consider than matching the actor's age to the character in his prime. I didn't know Turing, so it's just an impression, but I think Jeremy Northam would do a superb job. See The Winslow Boy and tell me I'm wrong.
Well, Ubuntu committed suicide as a serious distro when it got the pinhead Unity religion. No serious reviewer is going to find it worthwhile in its default form any more, and it is only natural to point out another distro not suffering from the disease of STUPID.
Bullshit. Gnome2 was a very advanced UI, comprehensively customizable with many settings. As long as Ubuntu used Gnome2 it was eminently suitable for development. I preferred Fedora, but I would have been perfectly happy with Ubuntu. Now both these distros have been fucked up literally beyond recognition.
Yes. for that reason Fedora would be OUT, except that it's trivial to run KDE or Xfce on it.
For whatever reason they are always called hubs; not like ethernet.
1080p video is far from 0.05 Gbps. 1080p/60 as transmitted over HDMI1.0 to 1.2 is 3.96 Gbps. HDMI 1.3 with deep color goes up to 10.2 Gbps (hmmm ... the same as Thunderbolt ... not surprising considering that is one of the interconnects that Thunderbolt is supposed to be able to do).
If you mean a compressed data stream encoding a 1080p video content, as transmitted over the air or via satellite or cable, that is much lower; somewhere under 20 Mbps. However, an hour of 720p or 1080i HD content, even compressed to hell using H.264, is somewhere around 1 GB. I know I sure spend a lot of time twiddling my thumbs slinging those files over either gigabit ethernet or USB 2.0 as I have to do presently. The difference between 4.8 Gbps and 10.2 Gbps for transferring an hour of 1080p is something like 2 minutes vs 1 minute. Sounds worthwhile to me, if I have, say 100 or 1000 hours of 1080p to transfer.
I believe your understanding is incorrect. According to this whitepaper, the transfer speed is individually negotiated between each connection point, and the hub buffers data and matches speed as required. In other words, as I read it, every device attached to that hub operates at its individual negotiated data rate, and the upstream data rate of the hub is always the maximum it negotiates with the host. A slow device does not handicap a fast device, even on the same hub.
This whitepaper only covers USB 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0, so I suppose the case with USB 3.0 may possibly differ, but I tend to doubt it given the established USB philosophy.
Both the article and the summary don't seem to get it. This sounds like C#.NET take two, with the added trick that until browser support for the real Dart is there, you can deploy by translating your client side Dart code to JavaScript.
Thank for thoroughly making my case.
Nobody with any sense suggests it may be infinite (the Earth is finite), but some consider that it may be a lot more than supposed, and a lot of it may be coming from other processes than supposed.
I don't think it enhances your position to label those who look at data you reject out of hand, and/or who interpret data differently, as "wackos." I submit that it is indicative of religious nuttery to so label those with whom one disagrees. It is in any case the mark of a weak debating position and an enemy of the scientific method. It is not known to a certainty that abiogenic oil is either completely fallacious, or does not contribute any component at all to the supply.
Some others of your suppositions are clearly suspect. For example why do you suppose all of the markup in oil from well to pump is multiplicative and none of it additive? In general, there are always both multiplicative and additive components to any markup. And even $5/gallon gasoline beats any known alternative to gasoline. In fact, worldwide data shows that consumers will pay closer to $10/gallon if need be. That doesn't necessarily mean shale oil is The One And True Answer, but it means that it needs to be seriously investigated as a national imperative, not to say a world imperative.
The proved petroleum reserves of the U.S. are about 21 billion barrels (and 263 billion for Saudi Arabia). It is estimated that 1.5-2.6 TRILLION barrels of shale oil reserves can be added for the U.S. alone. We don't know yet what it would cost to produce from those reserves because no one has seriously tried on any significant scale. It is apparent that it would be worth a large investment to find out. At some price level, those reserves become economically justified to exploit. That is simple economics. The need is to obtain an informed estimate of what that point might be, without preconceptions.
It is not an all or nothing proposition. Serious sums need to be spent on proving reserves and methods for exploiting shale oil and other sources of oil, in addition to continuing the effort to make alternatives economically viable. For example, if covering the U.S. desert areas with huge thermal chimney driven windmills would make a significant and economically effective dent in imported energy sources and/or dwindling energy sources, we should have that debate, not necessarily without passion, but at least without summarily ruling out options. And the same for shale oil.
Everybody here is prattling on about whether we can or cannot eliminate reboots by using memristors - completely missing the point of this new technology. We are talking about a 5 nanometer process here! One in which you can build up many layers! One in which parameters can be traded off in various ways to either make a better DRAM than DRAM, a better SRAM than SRAM, or a better flash than flash. The point is not necessarily to replace all of those with a single part. The point is that there is VAST potential to break through barriers. We are talking about a flash replacement with much higher density, lower power, increased endurance, and (speculatively) lower cost. This could be the a damn big breakthrough; a game changer.
Note: IANAL (thank god).
A very informative writeup on the copyrightability of facts and even compilations of facts in the U.S. is this.
In particular, note the specific rejection of "sweat of the brow" per se as a basis for copyright protection in matters of databases. The key is whether the database is "arranged and selected in an original manner." I can see this case being decided either way. The White Pages telephone directory is not protected, but on the other hand you cannot copy Webster's Unabridged without consequence. Whether you can copy the gist of a subset of articles in the dictionary is more arguable.
The work in contention clearly entails a whole different level of research than the White Pages, and quite possibly a level comparable in some sense to Webster's Unabridged. These are not obvious facts growing on trees.
However, to receive awards based on damages, you have to show damage! Again, that may or may not be the case here. I would suggest that plaintiff does intend to show damage. I have seen the work in question (heck, it's found on a lot of Unix-like systems and repositories). IMHO attribution is given, but there is no verbiage cautioning the reader that its use should be restricted to its intended mission: i.e., telling time in the course of normal operation of the operating system and common programs running thereon.
It would be unfortunate indeed if it has come to this merely because of a misunderstanding or oversight. I hope it can be rectified happily for all out of court, and that neither party ends up being hit with crippling legal bills. I presume all readers will agree that would benefit no one of positive value to society.
A large majority of users just use the one that comes up by default after a default install, and that is Gnome. A lot of users are surprised that you can install other DE's, or that you can have a bunch of them installed at once.
GRUB2, yay, Fedora. Finally.
How about you deal with the science and cut the smug egotism, asshole. Some scientists believe the climate is warming due to human activity released CO2. Some do not. Either say why you believe the first group of scientists, and why you are not bothered by the politics and the lying which have been exposed - or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Your choice. Demonizing those who do not willingly accept force-fed imperatives is not productive. Yeah, I can't force you to do this, any more than you can reach across the internet and tear me apart.
I can think of valid arguments supporting anthropogenic climate change, but I cannot think of a proof. I can also think of both positives and negatives if the change does occur, for WHATEVER reason. What I haven't seen is any indication of is a complete cost benefit analysis of tearing apart the world economy and grossly lowering the standard of living of those most vulnerable. Hey, there may be an analysis which could convince rational people of the advisability of radical action but, like, IT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND DEBATED RATIONALLY.
Passion can be a useful and laudatory thing, but it has to be harnessed. And it ain't easy, believe me. Just look how we both got all worked up now.
A meaningless slogan (the ends justify the means). Some ends justify some means. I know this may shock you. Please note, this is not in reference to any particular means being justified by any particular ends. I'm just tired of the meaningless slogan.