I'm guessing this is why Sun hasn't been advertising the fact that they are supporting SCO. They licensed the code back in February and we just learned about it from SCO regulatory filings. Remember, February was before SCO started making all of the crazy accusations against Linux (all your code belong to...). Sun doesn't want to be associated with SCO but wants to profit from the FUD. Of course, it was bound to come out sooner or later. The backlash will be interesting to watch.
you should also note that the only reason for the expansion of the license was to allow sun to do intel hardware drivers under Solaris..soemthing they could have adpoted from Linux without any costs what so ever.
I'm sure this was far from the only reason. They could have just adapted drivers from BSD with little licensing restrictions. Also, Sun had Solaris working on Intel long before this deal. My guess is that one of the primary motivations from Sun is the FUD factor. "Switch to Sun , the ONLY 100% in the clear, IP legit UNIX vendor."
Nope. Because of the GPL, they can't sue a group and not another. And since they won't sue their own customers, Linux users (and distributors) are safe.
Sorry, but this is incorrect, SCO can choose NOT to sue whoever they like while retaining their right to sue others. To use a car analogy (the whole world can be explained with car analogies, right?) if I have two cars, and they get stolen by different people, I can choose not to press charges against one of them while still retaining my right to prosecute the other. I believe that SCO merely said that it wouldn't sue its customers, not that they had a legal right to use the (allegedly) stolen code.
I have no idea what you mean by "camera mice," can you post a link? A quick glance at the mouse on my desk provides a simple solution for 3D navigation, the ball (x, y) and the scroll wheel (z). It seems that the scroll wheel would be a logical interface for a third dimension.
Well, you could always bring a Knoppix CD to the lab and keep your home directory and personal settings on a USB Keychain type device. Instant personalized Linux workstation wherever you go. Of course, your university may not allow this, but what they don't know . . .
Cool, thanks for the factoid and book reference, I'll definetely check out that book. My experience is with modern fighter jets, which, since they are unstable, cannot fly without a computer and will crash. Commercial planes are designed to be stable. It doesn't suprise me that Boeing built some mechanical emergency controls into the 777. Does Airbus have something similar or are they completely fly-by-wire?
Unless the heat producing parts of your computer are in direct contact with the metal, there's no difference, because the air acts as a nice insulator.
False. While you are correct that air has a low thermal conductivity, if you have a signifigant air gap (say >.5") you will get convection. This is what the fans are doing, providing forced convection inside the case, transfering heat from the hot componets to the sides of the computer as well as expelling the hot air. Air is only a good insulator if you can keep it from circulating. Incidentely, this is why foams are good insulators, they are mostly little pockets of air which can't circulate. This is why if you are using foam to insulate something you do NOT want to compress it.
Now hold on there, who said fly-by-wire systems have no backups? All aircrat have loads of backups and redundant systems. I work on fighter jets so I can't really speak for commercial planes, but we have multiple electrical branches, hardening against lightning strikes and pretty much everything else we can think of. Fly-by-wire systems have the advantage of being lower weight, which is a very big deal in airplanes. Also, fighter jets are designed to be unstable (in order to be agile) so they HAVE to have a fly-by-wire computer controlled system.
BTW, who says aeronautical engineers can't be nerds too?
This is true, however there are only a few planes that actualy use fly-by-wire.
Airbus and newer Boeing planes use fly-by-wire, this is certainly more than a few. You are correct that there is still a vast number of older Boeing planes which use mechanical linkages. However, fom the article:
For modern fly-by-wire aircraft, installing soft walls would only require software changes.
They article doesn't mention how the "soft wall" concept would be incorporated into mechanically controlled planes. I'm not even sure that it could be, leaving a majority of the current US commercial fleet vulnerable and calling into question the usefullness of this concept.
For modern fly-by-wire aircraft, installing soft walls would only require software changes.
I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as "only" a software change in avionics. Software changes require rigorous testing and development. There is absolutely no guarantee that a software change would be any less time-consuming or expensive then a hardware change.
An EMP would disable all electronics, and radios, transponders, etc, but the hydraulic controls for the rudder/etc would still function.
Nope, sorry. In a fly-by-wire plane there are no mechanical links to the control surfaces. If the flight control computer completely dies, you have absolutely no control over the plane.
An often quoted example is this: if you buy a piece of bread at a bakery, and there's a stone in it, so that you loose a tooth, the bakery is liable, even if the stone has already been in the flour without the baker's knowledge. Of course, the bakery can itself claim damages from the vendor of the flour.
This analogy seems flawed, since the bakery made the bread from the flour and presumably should have found the stone. In the case of Red Hat packaging Mozilla, Red Hat wasn't involved in the creation of Mozilla at all, they just packaged and sold it. Perhaps a better example is cars, if Ford cars have a dangerous design flaw, Ford gets sued, not the dealership where you bought it. So, under German law, you could sue the Ford dealership for selling you a faulty vehicle?
People who sell open source/free software (either written by themselves or someone else) might be held liable to a certain extent. In that, they're no different from people who sell propietary software.
Can a company really be held liable for software it didn't write? I.e. Red Hat Linux comes with Mozilla. If I purchase Red Hat and find a fault in Mozilla I could potentially hold Red Hat liable, even though they have nothing to do with it's developement?
I could back up to the fork point, but didn't have any "Forward" options other than where I just came from.
Agreed, I always found the forward button to be pretty much useless. However, once I found tabs, both the forward and back buttons are (metaphorically) rusting from disuse. If I come across an interesting link I just open it in a new tab. Hardly ever a reaon t ogo back or forward. I highly recommend you check out Mozilla, they of course have a Windows version.
I did not say that missing links disprove evolution I said they "tend to disprove" it, by which I mean that the evidence (or lack thereof) weighs against evolution.
It is difficult to deny that the fossil reord contains considerable gaps. For example, there are amphibians and reptiles , but not much in between. If life is constanly evoling over the centuries we would expect the fossil record to show this, i.e. a smooth progression from one type to another. It should be very difficult to draw a line between what is an "amphibian" and what is a "reptile." A random selection of life at various stages in the evolutionary cycle (fossils) ought to show this smooth progression, not the strang grouping we encounter. While this alone does not "disprove" evolution, it hardly helps it.
Second of all, I think we need to clarify what we are refering to. Evolution itself isn't even debateable. It is an observation about the natural world. (A fact, if you will). Natural selection, a mechanism to describe why evolution occurs. It is very internally consistent, simple, and predictively useful, so we call it a theory. It cannot be proven or for that matter disproven, which is why we do not give it the title of "law" like the law of gravity.
Evolution however, which is the fact that gene frequencies change over time within a population, is an observation. It is not a theory or a law, just a fact.
You say you want to clarify what we are refering to yet you muddle the issue. You are using a straw man arguement here. Everything you have said is 100% true as applied to micro-evolution. No one argues the validity of micro-evolution, not even Creationists (except perhaps very stupid or stubborn ones). However, proof of micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution.
I am neither an Evolutionist or a Creationist, I find both of these theories lacking in their present form. I am content to acknowledge that the orgin of life is a question we humans do not yet have an answer for. Heck, we don't even know why we stick to the ground instead of floating off into space!
This is often quoted, but do you have any proof that the XBox is still sold at a loss? I know there was a lot of publicity when it first came out a few years ago but the price for PC hardware has dropped quite a bit since then. I think it is far more likeley that Microsoft is now making money on every unit sold.
Whoa there AC, try to keep those knees from jerking so hard. Your response is typical of someone who's belief system has been challenged. See any similarities to religious believers do you? Different dogma, same attitudes and reactions.
in response to your reference to "micro evolution"... there is just as much proof to macro evolution. I am speaking of Fossils and such
Nope, sorry there isn't conclusive proof of macroevolution. Fossils are a very poor example, the fossil record contains huge gaps and actually tends to disprove evolution in certain areas. (They ain't called missing links for nothing.)
and besides, it just makes sense!!!
Well, I'm glad we have that scientific criteria to fall back on. No need for "proof," just go by your gut feeling (still not seeing any similarities to religion?). I also appreciate your use of multiple exclamation points to help prove your case, 'cause hey, sometimes one just ain't enough!!!! (sarcasm) I always new Galileo was wrong. Just look outside, it looks obvious that the sun and planets are revolving around the Earth, it Just Makes Sense!!!!! And that wacko Einstein? Phh, that theory of special relativity makes no sense at all, it's completely counterintuitive, no way it could be true!!!!(/sarcasm)
Take micro evolution "which we can observe in our short lifetimes" and stretch it over millions of years... voila!
Yes, that's the theory in a nutshell but reality is a bit more complicated. Proof of microevolution does not lead to proof of macroevolution. Linux works great on 4 processors, so it follows that it must work great on 4,000 processors right? (My analogy is awful I know, but hopefully you see my point). Also, evolution gets sticky when you start looking at details. How does something like an eye evolve? Or a central nervous system? These questions do not yet have answers.
We have your so highly unlikely "macro evolution"!!!!
Where did I say macroevolution was highly unlikely? I merely said that it is unproven, and the evidence is still inconclusive (however much you wish to disagree, this is the case). If more evidence is presented I will accept it no problem. If someone manages to create a new life form in the lab (not just a bunch of amino acids) then I would certainly believe in this aspect of evolution. This should be possible, no? Alternatively, if someone presented valid evidence for a higher being I would accept that as well. In the meantime, I am perfectly happy to admit that I do not know how life and humans came into being. I also don't know how gravity works, but then, neither does anyone else. Don't let it get you down.;)
Re:Looks like an interesting book.
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft HAS done multiple runs. There are several known revisions of the XBox, look on some of the XBox hacking sites to verify for yourself. As an example, I believe the original XBox came with ~8 GB HDD, later ones come with ~10 GB (although the system only uses the first 8) due to the decreaing availability of the smaller drives.
True (sort of) but evolution is a more internally consistent and simple paradigm of beliefs.
Wha? We must be looking at two totally different theories. The prevailing theories of evolution have changed many times over the years and there are many disagreements and arguments today.
this is what really characterizes a scientific framework. not "proof" (there is no such thing).
No, a simple paradigm of beliefs is not what characterizes a scientific framework, look up the scientific method some time. From the top of my head, it basically consists of making hypotheses and testing them with repeatable experiments. Evolution does not lend itself well to this kind of analysis. Yes, there is no "proof," perhaps evidence is a better term. Science is basically a courtroom, you must present your evidence that certain events happen for certain reasons to the scientific community, who then weighs the evidence and decides if it is reasonable. Of course, the verdict can always be revised later with the presentation of new evidence (or new interpretations).
On another note, Christianity IS an "internally consistent and simple paradigm of beliefs." The Christian dogma is relatively simple and easy to understand and has remained largely unchanged for about 2000 years (much longer than evolution). Different denominations disagree over details and interpretations, but pretty much all agree on the basic foundation. So, by your rational, is Christianity a scientific framework? (Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, but was until recently).
I must also make the case that evolution is far from verified fact. Micro-evolution is generally well proven and understood, however there is very little supporting evidence for macro-evolution. Any one who believes in the undeniable fact of evolution is doing so based on faith (belief without proof) just like their religious counterparts. Intelligent scientists know that things are true only as far as they have been tested. I.e. Newton's laws were accepted to be true for hundreds of years until Einstein came around and showed that they don't work at high speed (near c). Also, I read a theory recently (sorry, can't find a link) that the speed of light may not be constant, but in fact has slowed down a bit since the universe started.
As for my personal beliefs, I am undecided pending further evidence. Creationism (not the 7 day myth) is not unreasonable; there certainly could be a being far beyond our level of comprehension (similar to how people flying in an airplane are beyond the comprehension of the ants scurrying below) who had a hand in our development, although the evidence is not conclusive. Evolution could be true, but the evidence available today is also inconclusive. Alternatively there could be yet another more plausible theory waiting just around the corner (remember, Darwin didn't live all that long ago). I'm content to wait and see.
Re:Looks like an interesting book.
on
Hacking the XBox
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
these consoles are being sold at a loss
This is often quoted, but do you have any proof that the XBox is still sold at a loss? I know there was a lot of publicity when it first came out a few years ago but in case you haven't noticed the price for PC hardware has dropped a bit since then. I think it is far more likeley that Microsoft is now making money on every unit sold.
selderrr said: "If they move all their assets to India or other low-cost countries, they hit a double whammy : cheaper labour + no pattent fees.
The US pattent office is well on it's way to push every profitable tech offshore."
duffbeer703 replied: "Free trade is wonderful, isn't it?"
It certainly sounded to me that you were saying that patents forcing jobs overseas (what selderr said) is all part of free trade, which AFAIK it is not. Cheaper labor, on the other hand, is part of free trade and competition. I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of your post.
Now think about how much further along Linux would have been if that time, money, and effort had not been squandered on dead ends.
Now think about how much time, money, and effort was spent on Gnome or KDE. Now think about how much further along Gnome or KDE could have been if nobody had wasted their time on the other one.
(Sarcasm mode) Now think of how much time, money and effort we could all save if we could tell in advance what works best. Every business would be profitable, no more layoffs or bankruptcy's, since everyone would do things the right way the first time!
Now think of how much time, money and effort we could all save if we just make one generic, one-size-fits-all solution. Ignore those people with "niche or fringe" needs. Choice and flexability are way overrated.(/Sarcasm mode)
From what I remember from my economics course patents are not a part of free trade (if I'm wrong someone please correct me). In perfect free trade a competitor would be free to steal your idea and produce it cheaper if he could. Patents are designed to reduce competition, which is bad, but they are also designed to stimulate innovation/invention, which is a reasonable tradeoff. However, the problem is not with patents, the problem is with the US Patent Office granting patents for things it really shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing this is why Sun hasn't been advertising the fact that they are supporting SCO. They licensed the code back in February and we just learned about it from SCO regulatory filings. Remember, February was before SCO started making all of the crazy accusations against Linux (all your code belong to...). Sun doesn't want to be associated with SCO but wants to profit from the FUD. Of course, it was bound to come out sooner or later. The backlash will be interesting to watch.
I'm sure this was far from the only reason. They could have just adapted drivers from BSD with little licensing restrictions. Also, Sun had Solaris working on Intel long before this deal. My guess is that one of the primary motivations from Sun is the FUD factor. "Switch to Sun , the ONLY 100% in the clear, IP legit UNIX vendor."
Sorry, but this is incorrect, SCO can choose NOT to sue whoever they like while retaining their right to sue others. To use a car analogy (the whole world can be explained with car analogies, right?) if I have two cars, and they get stolen by different people, I can choose not to press charges against one of them while still retaining my right to prosecute the other. I believe that SCO merely said that it wouldn't sue its customers, not that they had a legal right to use the (allegedly) stolen code.
We have the Yopy 3700 and now someone's leaving Zope.com. Has Disney been put in charge of naming things lately? Try the new Dopey 2003(C)!
I have no idea what you mean by "camera mice," can you post a link? A quick glance at the mouse on my desk provides a simple solution for 3D navigation, the ball (x, y) and the scroll wheel (z). It seems that the scroll wheel would be a logical interface for a third dimension.
Well, you could always bring a Knoppix CD to the lab and keep your home directory and personal settings on a USB Keychain type device. Instant personalized Linux workstation wherever you go. Of course, your university may not allow this, but what they don't know . . .
Cool, thanks for the factoid and book reference, I'll definetely check out that book. My experience is with modern fighter jets, which, since they are unstable, cannot fly without a computer and will crash. Commercial planes are designed to be stable. It doesn't suprise me that Boeing built some mechanical emergency controls into the 777. Does Airbus have something similar or are they completely fly-by-wire?
False. While you are correct that air has a low thermal conductivity, if you have a signifigant air gap (say >.5") you will get convection. This is what the fans are doing, providing forced convection inside the case, transfering heat from the hot componets to the sides of the computer as well as expelling the hot air. Air is only a good insulator if you can keep it from circulating. Incidentely, this is why foams are good insulators, they are mostly little pockets of air which can't circulate. This is why if you are using foam to insulate something you do NOT want to compress it.
BTW, who says aeronautical engineers can't be nerds too?
Airbus and newer Boeing planes use fly-by-wire, this is certainly more than a few. You are correct that there is still a vast number of older Boeing planes which use mechanical linkages. However, fom the article:
For modern fly-by-wire aircraft, installing soft walls would only require software changes.
They article doesn't mention how the "soft wall" concept would be incorporated into mechanically controlled planes. I'm not even sure that it could be, leaving a majority of the current US commercial fleet vulnerable and calling into question the usefullness of this concept.
For modern fly-by-wire aircraft, installing soft walls would only require software changes.
I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as "only" a software change in avionics. Software changes require rigorous testing and development. There is absolutely no guarantee that a software change would be any less time-consuming or expensive then a hardware change.
Nope, sorry. In a fly-by-wire plane there are no mechanical links to the control surfaces. If the flight control computer completely dies, you have absolutely no control over the plane.
This analogy seems flawed, since the bakery made the bread from the flour and presumably should have found the stone. In the case of Red Hat packaging Mozilla, Red Hat wasn't involved in the creation of Mozilla at all, they just packaged and sold it. Perhaps a better example is cars, if Ford cars have a dangerous design flaw, Ford gets sued, not the dealership where you bought it. So, under German law, you could sue the Ford dealership for selling you a faulty vehicle?
Can a company really be held liable for software it didn't write? I.e. Red Hat Linux comes with Mozilla. If I purchase Red Hat and find a fault in Mozilla I could potentially hold Red Hat liable, even though they have nothing to do with it's developement?
Agreed, I always found the forward button to be pretty much useless. However, once I found tabs, both the forward and back buttons are (metaphorically) rusting from disuse. If I come across an interesting link I just open it in a new tab. Hardly ever a reaon t ogo back or forward. I highly recommend you check out Mozilla, they of course have a Windows version.
It is difficult to deny that the fossil reord contains considerable gaps. For example, there are amphibians and reptiles , but not much in between. If life is constanly evoling over the centuries we would expect the fossil record to show this, i.e. a smooth progression from one type to another. It should be very difficult to draw a line between what is an "amphibian" and what is a "reptile." A random selection of life at various stages in the evolutionary cycle (fossils) ought to show this smooth progression, not the strang grouping we encounter. While this alone does not "disprove" evolution, it hardly helps it.
Evolution however, which is the fact that gene frequencies change over time within a population, is an observation. It is not a theory or a law, just a fact.
You say you want to clarify what we are refering to yet you muddle the issue. You are using a straw man arguement here. Everything you have said is 100% true as applied to micro-evolution. No one argues the validity of micro-evolution, not even Creationists (except perhaps very stupid or stubborn ones). However, proof of micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution.
I am neither an Evolutionist or a Creationist, I find both of these theories lacking in their present form. I am content to acknowledge that the orgin of life is a question we humans do not yet have an answer for. Heck, we don't even know why we stick to the ground instead of floating off into space!
This is often quoted, but do you have any proof that the XBox is still sold at a loss? I know there was a lot of publicity when it first came out a few years ago but the price for PC hardware has dropped quite a bit since then. I think it is far more likeley that Microsoft is now making money on every unit sold.
in response to your reference to "micro evolution"... there is just as much proof to macro evolution. I am speaking of Fossils and such
Nope, sorry there isn't conclusive proof of macroevolution. Fossils are a very poor example, the fossil record contains huge gaps and actually tends to disprove evolution in certain areas. (They ain't called missing links for nothing.)
and besides, it just makes sense!!!
Well, I'm glad we have that scientific criteria to fall back on. No need for "proof," just go by your gut feeling (still not seeing any similarities to religion?). I also appreciate your use of multiple exclamation points to help prove your case, 'cause hey, sometimes one just ain't enough!!!! (sarcasm) I always new Galileo was wrong. Just look outside, it looks obvious that the sun and planets are revolving around the Earth, it Just Makes Sense!!!!! And that wacko Einstein? Phh, that theory of special relativity makes no sense at all, it's completely counterintuitive, no way it could be true!!!!(/sarcasm)
Take micro evolution "which we can observe in our short lifetimes" and stretch it over millions of years... voila!
Yes, that's the theory in a nutshell but reality is a bit more complicated. Proof of microevolution does not lead to proof of macroevolution. Linux works great on 4 processors, so it follows that it must work great on 4,000 processors right? (My analogy is awful I know, but hopefully you see my point). Also, evolution gets sticky when you start looking at details. How does something like an eye evolve? Or a central nervous system? These questions do not yet have answers.
We have your so highly unlikely "macro evolution"!!!!
Where did I say macroevolution was highly unlikely? I merely said that it is unproven, and the evidence is still inconclusive (however much you wish to disagree, this is the case). If more evidence is presented I will accept it no problem. If someone manages to create a new life form in the lab (not just a bunch of amino acids) then I would certainly believe in this aspect of evolution. This should be possible, no? Alternatively, if someone presented valid evidence for a higher being I would accept that as well. In the meantime, I am perfectly happy to admit that I do not know how life and humans came into being. I also don't know how gravity works, but then, neither does anyone else. Don't let it get you down. ;)
Microsoft HAS done multiple runs. There are several known revisions of the XBox, look on some of the XBox hacking sites to verify for yourself. As an example, I believe the original XBox came with ~8 GB HDD, later ones come with ~10 GB (although the system only uses the first 8) due to the decreaing availability of the smaller drives.
Wha? We must be looking at two totally different theories. The prevailing theories of evolution have changed many times over the years and there are many disagreements and arguments today.
this is what really characterizes a scientific framework. not "proof" (there is no such thing).
No, a simple paradigm of beliefs is not what characterizes a scientific framework, look up the scientific method some time. From the top of my head, it basically consists of making hypotheses and testing them with repeatable experiments. Evolution does not lend itself well to this kind of analysis. Yes, there is no "proof," perhaps evidence is a better term. Science is basically a courtroom, you must present your evidence that certain events happen for certain reasons to the scientific community, who then weighs the evidence and decides if it is reasonable. Of course, the verdict can always be revised later with the presentation of new evidence (or new interpretations).
On another note, Christianity IS an "internally consistent and simple paradigm of beliefs." The Christian dogma is relatively simple and easy to understand and has remained largely unchanged for about 2000 years (much longer than evolution). Different denominations disagree over details and interpretations, but pretty much all agree on the basic foundation. So, by your rational, is Christianity a scientific framework? (Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, but was until recently).
I must also make the case that evolution is far from verified fact. Micro-evolution is generally well proven and understood, however there is very little supporting evidence for macro-evolution. Any one who believes in the undeniable fact of evolution is doing so based on faith (belief without proof) just like their religious counterparts. Intelligent scientists know that things are true only as far as they have been tested. I.e. Newton's laws were accepted to be true for hundreds of years until Einstein came around and showed that they don't work at high speed (near c). Also, I read a theory recently (sorry, can't find a link) that the speed of light may not be constant, but in fact has slowed down a bit since the universe started.
As for my personal beliefs, I am undecided pending further evidence. Creationism (not the 7 day myth) is not unreasonable; there certainly could be a being far beyond our level of comprehension (similar to how people flying in an airplane are beyond the comprehension of the ants scurrying below) who had a hand in our development, although the evidence is not conclusive. Evolution could be true, but the evidence available today is also inconclusive. Alternatively there could be yet another more plausible theory waiting just around the corner (remember, Darwin didn't live all that long ago). I'm content to wait and see.
This is often quoted, but do you have any proof that the XBox is still sold at a loss? I know there was a lot of publicity when it first came out a few years ago but in case you haven't noticed the price for PC hardware has dropped a bit since then. I think it is far more likeley that Microsoft is now making money on every unit sold.
duffbeer703 replied: "Free trade is wonderful, isn't it?"
It certainly sounded to me that you were saying that patents forcing jobs overseas (what selderr said) is all part of free trade, which AFAIK it is not. Cheaper labor, on the other hand, is part of free trade and competition. I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of your post.
(Sarcasm mode) Now think of how much time, money and effort we could all save if we could tell in advance what works best. Every business would be profitable, no more layoffs or bankruptcy's, since everyone would do things the right way the first time!
Now think of how much time, money and effort we could all save if we just make one generic, one-size-fits-all solution. Ignore those people with "niche or fringe" needs. Choice and flexability are way overrated.(/Sarcasm mode)
From what I remember from my economics course patents are not a part of free trade (if I'm wrong someone please correct me). In perfect free trade a competitor would be free to steal your idea and produce it cheaper if he could. Patents are designed to reduce competition, which is bad, but they are also designed to stimulate innovation/invention, which is a reasonable tradeoff. However, the problem is not with patents, the problem is with the US Patent Office granting patents for things it really shouldn't.