Oil shale is not petroleum. It can be processed into fuel, but so can coal and natural gas. Shale is not processed more because it is expensive and environmentally harmful to to convert. Even tar sands are cheaper.
Here is what you probably don't know: Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s.
Gaining weight is reasonably easy. Eat hard cheeses (e.g. cheddar), put chantilly in your fruit salad and coffee, put chocolate in your milk, and you will see the gains in a month or two. Make your snacks bread, cheese, and butter sandwiches.
If you lost several pounds a day from spending 30 minutes on a treadmill, how many pounds would a Middle Ages farm worker carrying buckets of water and plowing a field from dawn to dusk spend? His entire weight x 3? The amount of exercise people usually do in a gym is hardly enough to lose weight. Neither intensive enough, nor for enough time to do a damn. You should also note that those Middle Ages farm workers did all that exercise having less to eat than you do.
You should do exercise to improve your fitness (muscle mass, heart condition). If you want to lose weight the fastest way to do it is to eat less.
Try reading the article (yeah I know people in Slashdot don't read articles, but still...) It is not just the method name. The code for the method implementation is identical as well. There is more than one way of writing that method, so it means both pieces of code have the same origin. Which, is open to speculation.
That isn't Open Source under the OSI definition either. No free redistribution, derived works, or anything. Just because the source code is available doesn't make something open source.
That's not how it works from what I understand. If a judge considers most code was not copied, the infringer just needs to replace those pieces of code. If, however, substantial amounts of code were copied, he will have to make the source available.
AMD actually used to have some of the best fabs in the business. They managed to have good yields and mixed production in the same plant. AMD started using copper before Intel for e.g. That part of the business was spun-off as Global Foundries. But yeah, Intel has the best production research and facilities in the industry. It is just that they don't share their fabs with anyone else.
NVIDIA also manufactures their GPUs at TSMC. TSMC is the largest foundry, but it has competitors like UMC, Chartered and SMIC. TSMC probably has more revenue than all those combined however...
Eh? No. The Falcon 9 stuff you saw on January was just a photo opportunity. The upper stage was a mockup and they didn't have sound suppressors in the pad, or liquid propellant tanks to fill the vehicle.
The first stage was sent back for more testing. Then they did second stage engine tests without the engine nozzle. Second stage mechanical tests. They should still need to make a second stage engine test with the nozzle on, an integrated second stage fire test, vehicle hold down firing tests. Pad work probably isn't 100% finished either.
If you wanted to do this in the free software stack, in which nearly everything is compiled by GCC, you could probably do it by storing a copy of the GIMPLE intermediate code. Then compile that on installation or application startup. LLVM would probably also help do something like this but I do not know any specifics.
I agree that a system should be designed from the beginning to be easy to use. Adding more layers on top to "fix" that only means there will be cognitive dissonance between the different levels and confuse users. e.g. it is easy to install apps from a software repository, but not everything is in a repository. You should ideally be able to run an application package in any Linux installation without fuss. Drivers same problem. Want to change the system initialization sequence? Same problem. Boot loader? Same problem. X11 is one of the things that has actually gotten easier to use because it now usually autodetects hardware properly and you do not need to mess with configuration files anymore.
I suspect their motives for making software as hard are not an innate sense of elitism however. Making software simple to use is actually really hard and requires permanent attention to detail. Even keeping compatibility can be a lot of work. Check how Linus shrugs the burden of compatibility and testing to the distributions such as Red Hat. It used to be I could compile a Linus kernel and it worked straight out of the box, now the vendors need to apply any number of patches to get it to work widely. He doesn't keep compatibility because it is too much work for him. Legacy compatibility work isn't cool either.
I suspect we will get a free software desktop that will be easy to use, but it won't be Linux based. Maybe Linux compatible, but not Linux based.
No. When people have issues with closed source software they often go to forums as well and get the same lists of useless workarounds for problems you do not have, or berate you for not doing something that has no bearing on the issue you have. Try going to a NVIDIA or Adobe support forum to see what I mean. Occasionally you find a gem in the middle of the rubble.
Going to official phone support lines is often even more useless because you get someone with a canned response list trying to go through the same routine. It is just that it takes even longer to do it over the phone. To get real developer support you need to be a *very* important customer. Luckily for me, the client I was working for at the time was one such customer, and they sent their suits to persuade the closed-software vendor to fix the issue, which they originally repeatedly denied was even an issue at all... If you have that kind of money, you could probably hire a programmer to fix the issue in the free software in the first place.
I agree that this is the best option. This one of the major reasons Java and.NET get so much exposure. You shouldn't need to use a special language to have this facility, you should be able to code in any language including C, which is the language most free software is written in.
So one of the developers in the project tracked and found the issue online for free and you think their support sucks? I won't even share my issues with a certain piece of closed-source software here, which required going through many layers of corporate bureaucracy to fix.
I once found a bug in DOSBox which none of the developers cared about. l debugged and read the code myself, made a patch that "fixed" the bug (although my fix made bugs elsewhere), posted it and screenshots showing the game working when it didn't even boot before. This was enough for a couple of people to start talking about it. Next release of DOSBox came guess what, the bug was fixed. Properly.
With closed-source software you are truly stuck because whoever developed the software must necessarily fix it. You cannot fix it yourself even if you could and wanted to. How is that better?
It just shows Ryan isn't used to contributing free software to someone else's project. I once had to wait months before I got my code accepted into a free software project and it wasn't the kernel. If the maintainers add every submission to a project, it will end up in an unstable, unmaintainable mess. Code can last a long time and someone will have to maintain the code even after he's lost interest in it. I am especially leery of code that touches a lot of difference places at the same time, as is undoubtedly the case here.
PS: Oh, yeah, I actually used Debian for a time before switching to Fedora. Releases took forever and the applications grew stale quickly, so I gave up using Debian since. Their GNOME desktop sucked. At the time my network connection was horrible, so constantly having to update packages from debian unstable wasn't for me.
Fedora was actually quite similar to Ubuntu by the time I switched. The Debian like packaging system kinda grew on me and the GNOME desktop from Ubuntu was better than the one from Fedora at that time.
I waited until Nvidia mostly fixed their Vista driver issues and it works mostly ok. I still sometimes get weird issues though e.g. I have to disable shadows in Dawn of War II or else the game crashes Windows.
How is that any different from what happened in the US? I still remember how the US government pushed consolidation in procurement to allegedly reduce costs (yeah right). Remember Vought? Douglas? McDonnell? Rockwell? Grumman? Fairchild? Republic? Boeing gets subsidies to open plants, move their HQ, outsource parts for the 787 basically from everywhere. When they needed to make the Dreamlifter cargo plane they went to a Taiwanese company...
Slashdot Mirror
Here is what you probably don't know: Ronald Reagan stopped funding research on coal to liquids and extraction from oil shale by abolishing the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program in the 80s.
KOTOR II was good IMO. It was more of the same, but more of the same when the original was good isn't bad.
Gaining weight is reasonably easy. Eat hard cheeses (e.g. cheddar), put chantilly in your fruit salad and coffee, put chocolate in your milk, and you will see the gains in a month or two. Make your snacks bread, cheese, and butter sandwiches.
You should do exercise to improve your fitness (muscle mass, heart condition). If you want to lose weight the fastest way to do it is to eat less.
Another high calorie food is hard cheese. E.g. cheddar.
Perhaps he used to drink condensed milk. Meat does not have as many calories as people think. Lean meat has less calories than bread for example...
Try reading the article (yeah I know people in Slashdot don't read articles, but still...) It is not just the method name. The code for the method implementation is identical as well. There is more than one way of writing that method, so it means both pieces of code have the same origin. Which, is open to speculation.
That isn't Open Source under the OSI definition either. No free redistribution, derived works, or anything. Just because the source code is available doesn't make something open source.
IANAL
Here is what I mean by foundry. I guess you aren't used to EE jargon.
NVIDIA's scared enough of Intel and Larabee to be doing stuff like this.
AMD actually used to have some of the best fabs in the business. They managed to have good yields and mixed production in the same plant. AMD started using copper before Intel for e.g. That part of the business was spun-off as Global Foundries. But yeah, Intel has the best production research and facilities in the industry. It is just that they don't share their fabs with anyone else.
NVIDIA also manufactures their GPUs at TSMC. TSMC is the largest foundry, but it has competitors like UMC, Chartered and SMIC. TSMC probably has more revenue than all those combined however...
The first stage was sent back for more testing. Then they did second stage engine tests without the engine nozzle. Second stage mechanical tests. They should still need to make a second stage engine test with the nozzle on, an integrated second stage fire test, vehicle hold down firing tests. Pad work probably isn't 100% finished either.
If you wanted to do this in the free software stack, in which nearly everything is compiled by GCC, you could probably do it by storing a copy of the GIMPLE intermediate code. Then compile that on installation or application startup. LLVM would probably also help do something like this but I do not know any specifics.
I agree that a system should be designed from the beginning to be easy to use. Adding more layers on top to "fix" that only means there will be cognitive dissonance between the different levels and confuse users. e.g. it is easy to install apps from a software repository, but not everything is in a repository. You should ideally be able to run an application package in any Linux installation without fuss. Drivers same problem. Want to change the system initialization sequence? Same problem. Boot loader? Same problem. X11 is one of the things that has actually gotten easier to use because it now usually autodetects hardware properly and you do not need to mess with configuration files anymore.
I suspect their motives for making software as hard are not an innate sense of elitism however. Making software simple to use is actually really hard and requires permanent attention to detail. Even keeping compatibility can be a lot of work. Check how Linus shrugs the burden of compatibility and testing to the distributions such as Red Hat. It used to be I could compile a Linus kernel and it worked straight out of the box, now the vendors need to apply any number of patches to get it to work widely. He doesn't keep compatibility because it is too much work for him. Legacy compatibility work isn't cool either.
I suspect we will get a free software desktop that will be easy to use, but it won't be Linux based. Maybe Linux compatible, but not Linux based.
Going to official phone support lines is often even more useless because you get someone with a canned response list trying to go through the same routine. It is just that it takes even longer to do it over the phone. To get real developer support you need to be a *very* important customer. Luckily for me, the client I was working for at the time was one such customer, and they sent their suits to persuade the closed-software vendor to fix the issue, which they originally repeatedly denied was even an issue at all... If you have that kind of money, you could probably hire a programmer to fix the issue in the free software in the first place.
I agree that this is the best option. This one of the major reasons Java and .NET get so much exposure. You shouldn't need to use a special language to have this facility, you should be able to code in any language including C, which is the language most free software is written in.
I once found a bug in DOSBox which none of the developers cared about. l debugged and read the code myself, made a patch that "fixed" the bug (although my fix made bugs elsewhere), posted it and screenshots showing the game working when it didn't even boot before. This was enough for a couple of people to start talking about it. Next release of DOSBox came guess what, the bug was fixed. Properly.
With closed-source software you are truly stuck because whoever developed the software must necessarily fix it. You cannot fix it yourself even if you could and wanted to. How is that better?
It just shows Ryan isn't used to contributing free software to someone else's project. I once had to wait months before I got my code accepted into a free software project and it wasn't the kernel. If the maintainers add every submission to a project, it will end up in an unstable, unmaintainable mess. Code can last a long time and someone will have to maintain the code even after he's lost interest in it. I am especially leery of code that touches a lot of difference places at the same time, as is undoubtedly the case here.
PS: Oh, yeah, I actually used Debian for a time before switching to Fedora. Releases took forever and the applications grew stale quickly, so I gave up using Debian since. Their GNOME desktop sucked. At the time my network connection was horrible, so constantly having to update packages from debian unstable wasn't for me.
Fedora was actually quite similar to Ubuntu by the time I switched. The Debian like packaging system kinda grew on me and the GNOME desktop from Ubuntu was better than the one from Fedora at that time.
I waited until Nvidia mostly fixed their Vista driver issues and it works mostly ok. I still sometimes get weird issues though e.g. I have to disable shadows in Dawn of War II or else the game crashes Windows.
Ferrari is owned by Fiat.
My guess is they hoped to be bought off by someone. Hey it happened to Nexgen, P.A. Semi, IDT Centaur.
How is that any different from what happened in the US? I still remember how the US government pushed consolidation in procurement to allegedly reduce costs (yeah right). Remember Vought? Douglas? McDonnell? Rockwell? Grumman? Fairchild? Republic? Boeing gets subsidies to open plants, move their HQ, outsource parts for the 787 basically from everywhere. When they needed to make the Dreamlifter cargo plane they went to a Taiwanese company...