[Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."
Not specifically linux, but the market. ANYONE who had come along providing that focus with good functionality would have had the same effect. Linux has rewritten a few rules with the GPL and the way the beast is created and mantained, but ultimately the reason why the market has accepted those is because they provide greater security and greater stability.
Microsoft would have also focused there if they had tried to meet their user's demands instead of telling them they should meet Microsoft's goals.
Due to high demand, this story is being temporarily mirrored by other Web sites for easy access. For a permanent link to this story, bookmark this page. This page will be replaced by the actual story and images when the mirroring ends.
Although we will do our best, HubbleSite is not responsible for the availability of this story on external mirror sites.
If you have trouble reaching the mirror sites, you can bookmark this page and try again later.
---
What can I say Slashdot, I'm so proud of you:_)
What was it? Oh yeah, wget -b -r http://www10.ksc... O:-)
And Apparently there're too many "junk characters" here. Heh.
As a spaniard I can tell you that Siesta has been part of our culture since longer than my grandparents can remember (that's all the data I can reliably have access to).
Although I'm not going to dispute if the reason why eDonkey or FastTrack don't run centralized is legality or not (which it probably is;) ), the thing is, if I write an app that will make a computer a node of a de-centralized network that can swap bytes, be them HTML pages, MP3 files or Mass Spec data from Spirit's latest experiments, can I? Or is that app now illegal and such a thing has to be done with some sort of central server for DRM checks? And more importantly, would I have to provide that some sort of server myself to filter the content when all I do is write that app? I'm not sure the answer is so clearly "yes, yes and triply yes".
Also I'n not sure if the hash solution for files will quite work here. They're checking for some sort of acoustical properties of the swapped file, not a simple file checksum/hash. I'm not sure if this thing can indeed be distributed to the edges of the network easily (I'm betting the size will be a lot bigger than a list of hashes). MP3s of the same song encoded in different computers will be slightly different, that's the crux of the problem really.
It'll be interesting to see how they plan to work around modified clients that send bogus "harmonic data" back to the servers/supernodes or simply tell other clients "why yes, this is a perfectly safe, non-copyrighted song".
that the Phantom forums have been shut down for a while now? I guess *someone* saw this one coming and decided to conveniently tell the boss it'd be a good idea to "upgrade to a better forum software" as soon as possible.
In a de-centralized network this beast wouldn't work. You need a central server with the copyrighted works to compare against, and an individual/company that merely makes a de-centralized P2P network software doesn't need to have such a thing. Who's going to foot the bill for the server?
Actually it'd be nice if the RIAA would pay to mantain the server, I'd get that software and share a few hundred tracks of myself playing the banjo or tuning my gitar, and have a warm fuzzy feeling knowing all those mp3s are costing the RIAA a few pennies.
As if IBM wasn't big enough, they go after Daimler-Chrysler??
Does this company know no limits or have an ounce of common sense left anywhere? The only way I can think they can top this is of they go after BP or Phillip Morris.
This is going to be one hell of a trainwreck. This is going to go down in history. I bet 10 years from now "who do you think you are? SCO?" will be a common phrase for people who make massive stupidity "bold" actions, like jumping from a plane at 10,000 feet with no parachute or something.
Plants don't use vacuum pumps. All the example does is to show how a vacuum pump cannot go any higher than the fabled one atmosphere pressure difference. That's the whole point. Plants pull the water up, check the wikipedia link. The evaporation creates a surface tension that pulls the water up.
Yes, sorry about the units (I posted as AC that it should be feet and not meters). I did say there would be Hg gas in the column of mercury though.
You see, if you had read the very top parent you'd have seen this:
Recently two groups have demonstrated that water in the xylem avoids cavitation even at negative pressures exceeding 225 lb/in2 - tensions that would easily lift water to the top of the tallest trees. (Both groups made their measurements by spinning branches in a centrifuge.)
If that tension is applied (a quick google tells me that's over 10 atmospheres) to the water backwards (like my example of the syringe) it should boil right? Well, it doesn't. I still don't understand why you say that if you pull with more pressure than the atmosphere is pressing the pressure of water is still positive. No, really, in the capillary the water will not boil as the experiment shows, the cohesion will keep the water molecules together. The water inside the capillary is in tension, and it won't boil or break because in the small capillary the cohesion of the water molecules will keep that column of water together. The plant is pulling up with more strength than the gravity is pulling down.
But anyway, this is pointless as you have shown already:
I guess I could read the links, but I am concerned they contain more misinformation.
If apparently what the biologist community says about how water goes up in a plant is misinformation, then please do look other way *rolleyes*
IE, the plunger example is reducing the pressure. The pressure will approach zero, but never a negative number. It is physically impossible.
Let's take the classical experiment where you have a liquid in a U-shaped tube with one end sealed, the first kind of manometer developed pretty much.
As you probably know, if the liquid is mercury, a column exactly 760 mm high will exert a pressure of one atmosphere. If the column is any higher, the mercury will drop leaving a vacuum at the top of the sealed end (well, there are some traces of gaseous mercury, but let's not split hairs here). The pressure at the top of the mercury column will be zero, right?
Now, if you do the same experiment with a capillary (so that turbulence that might let air in doesn't happen, it doesn't have to be too thin) and if the liquid is water, you need some 30 odd meters IIRC (I'm not going to do the exact numbers because it doesn't matter) to get one atmosphere. As before, the pressure at the top is zero.
What happens if the column is longer than the 30 meters you need for one atmosphere? Will the water drop to the 1 atmosphere level? Well, the answer is NO, and that's because of the cohesion of water molecules. The capillary column will have to be much higher before its own weight can break the cohesion.
Say, in that case, what's the pressure at the top of the water column? The molecules are being pulled apart from each other!
In the case of the tree, you have a 100 meter tall column of water. Gravity is pulling down. After 30 meters, the pressure that the water at the bottom is exerting over the rest of the water is exactly the same that the air would be exerting at putative end of the column (the roots). After 60 meters, the column of water is pulling down with one atmosphere of pressure. What is the pressure of the water molecules at that point? At 90 meters? Does the word negative come to mind? Yes, there is a negative pressure being exerted over the water molecules, which is not enough to break the cohesion forces of the molecules.
I am taking a swag at it and saying that plants use a combination of capillary action and evaporation to bring water above the nominal 32 feet of water sea level barometric pressure.
Good to see you're still not reading the links. Capillary wouldn't go any higher than a couple of meters with the diameter of Xylem tubes. From the Wikipedia:
Transpirational pull results ultimately from the evaporation of water from the surfaces of cells in the interior of the leaves. This evaporation causes the surface of the water to pull back into the pores of the cell wall. Inside the pores, the water forms a concave meniscus. The high surface tension of water pulls the concavity outwards, generating enough force to lift water as high as a hundred meters from ground level to a tree's highest branches
You have water in a sealed syringe. You pull the syringe so that the pressure you're doing is 2 atmospheres (-1 from our atmosphere equals one atmosphere). The volume of water doesn't change because you can't break cohesion, what's the pressure of the water inside of the syringe?
There IS. The evidence is in the fucking link I provided! Here's another part of the text (highlighting by me):
The rattan vine may climb as high as 150 ft on the trees of the tropical rain forest in northeastern Australia to get its foliage into the sun. When the base of a vine is severed while immersed in a basin of water, water continues to be taken up. A vine less than 1 inch in diameter will "drink" water indefinitely at a rate of up to 12 ml/minute.
If forced to take water from a sealed container, the vine does so without any decrease in rate, even though the resulting vacuum becomes so great that the remaining water begins to boil spontaneously. (The boiling temperature of water decreases as the air pressure over the water decreases, which is why it takes longer to boil an egg in Denver than in New Orleans.)
you can check the Wikipedia too, or if you're not overly lazy google for "Transpiration pull".
Again, if you think the term "negative pressure" is not accurate, say so, but don't try to redefine it if you have no idea what you're talking about. If you get a sealed syringe and pull the plunger, what kind of pressure are you applying to the air sealed inside? Depends on the reference perhaps? This is how the water goes UP in the plants.
Shit, I don't know what's worse, the stubborn refusal to read the text provided or the ignorant mods that keep moding this tripe up.
The people who contribute to those free OSS projects don't do that because they think it'd be neat if such and such software would exist for someone to use, in most cases (I can't say for sure "in all cases", blame me for being a scientist) they work in a project because that particular piece of software is something they want to use themselves.
See, there's so much I can do on my own. But if I want something done, and by letting you use my code I'll get some of yours in exchange, I've actually gained something, I've gained the hours of work it'd have taken to add that code, correct my bugs, or whatever that other person who uses my code gives me. That's the heart of the GPL.
If I have to put a value of n dollars per line of code, does that mean someone who sends me (or the public repository) y lines is actually giving me/us money? Is code worth a lot? Yes, that's why getting extra code on top of mine is a good value I get for releasing my software for free.
Slashdot Mirror
[Linux is] "going to force Microsoft to spend more time on security and stability, and less time on adding new features."
Not specifically linux, but the market. ANYONE who had come along providing that focus with good functionality would have had the same effect. Linux has rewritten a few rules with the GPL and the way the beast is created and mantained, but ultimately the reason why the market has accepted those is because they provide greater security and greater stability.
Microsoft would have also focused there if they had tried to meet their user's demands instead of telling them they should meet Microsoft's goals.
For the story and images, choose a mirror site below:
Due to high demand, this story is being temporarily mirrored by other Web sites for easy access. For a permanent link to this story, bookmark this page. This page will be replaced by the actual story and images when the mirroring ends.
Although we will do our best, HubbleSite is not responsible for the availability of this story on external mirror sites.
If you have trouble reaching the mirror sites, you can bookmark this page and try again later.
---
What can I say Slashdot, I'm so proud of you
What was it? Oh yeah, wget -b -r http://www10.ksc... O:-)
And Apparently there're too many "junk characters" here. Heh.
aeronautics lads, who calculated that delta V makes a lot more sense with a beer bottle in the midst of it.
That'll be a pint, you insensitive clod!
As a spaniard I can tell you that Siesta has been part of our culture since longer than my grandparents can remember (that's all the data I can reliably have access to).
PC, and a very strong argument for trying to leverage older equipment
/. , some people here still keep their houses warm with the idle drone of their VAX clusters ;)
This is
Seriously, I still have my 386sx kicking around. All it has is DOS 5.0 and old games, but hey, I'm using it.
Ever heard the phrase "follow the money"? Yes? Well, that's what they should be doing with Spam.
(It's basically rugby.)
;)
Remind me never to play rugby with you, in my town we're not allowed to carry guns when playing
The giant robot attack in SC4 just doesn't cut the mustard. The original Godzilla-stomping was the best.
I'm outta mod points...
You mean like a boomstick? ;-)
That's three coments by the way ;)
;) ), the thing is, if I write an app that will make a computer a node of a de-centralized network that can swap bytes, be them HTML pages, MP3 files or Mass Spec data from Spirit's latest experiments, can I? Or is that app now illegal and such a thing has to be done with some sort of central server for DRM checks? And more importantly, would I have to provide that some sort of server myself to filter the content when all I do is write that app? I'm not sure the answer is so clearly "yes, yes and triply yes".
Although I'm not going to dispute if the reason why eDonkey or FastTrack don't run centralized is legality or not (which it probably is
Also I'n not sure if the hash solution for files will quite work here. They're checking for some sort of acoustical properties of the swapped file, not a simple file checksum/hash. I'm not sure if this thing can indeed be distributed to the edges of the network easily (I'm betting the size will be a lot bigger than a list of hashes). MP3s of the same song encoded in different computers will be slightly different, that's the crux of the problem really.
It'll be interesting to see how they plan to work around modified clients that send bogus "harmonic data" back to the servers/supernodes or simply tell other clients "why yes, this is a perfectly safe, non-copyrighted song".
It just runs.
Although I bet there's room in the backpack to put a knoppix CD or something like that.
that the Phantom forums have been shut down for a while now? I guess *someone* saw this one coming and decided to conveniently tell the boss it'd be a good idea to "upgrade to a better forum software" as soon as possible.
In a de-centralized network this beast wouldn't work. You need a central server with the copyrighted works to compare against, and an individual/company that merely makes a de-centralized P2P network software doesn't need to have such a thing. Who's going to foot the bill for the server?
Actually it'd be nice if the RIAA would pay to mantain the server, I'd get that software and share a few hundred tracks of myself playing the banjo or tuning my gitar, and have a warm fuzzy feeling knowing all those mp3s are costing the RIAA a few pennies.
As if IBM wasn't big enough, they go after Daimler-Chrysler??
Does this company know no limits or have an ounce of common sense left anywhere? The only way I can think they can top this is of they go after BP or Phillip Morris.
This is going to be one hell of a trainwreck. This is going to go down in history. I bet 10 years from now "who do you think you are? SCO?" will be a common phrase for people who make massive stupidity "bold" actions, like jumping from a plane at 10,000 feet with no parachute or something.
That's Tim's plan, not Infamous Labs'.
Wherever IL makes profit or disappears doesn'T matter, he will walk out with a pocket full of stupid investor's money.
Considering people around here never RTFA, do you expect them to listen to a long and slow press conference?
If they're running you can bet your ass those are not bacteria.
What Would Brian Boitano Do?
What would Brian Boitano do
If he was here right now?
He'd make a plan, and he'd follow through,
That's what Brian Boitano'd do!
When Brian Boitano came
and knocked at SCO's door
he kicked Darl's stupid ass
and with it he wiped the floor.
Hi de lo de hi de lay!
Brian Boitano's here!
So round up all your lasses,
And tell them to have no fear!
Woosh! Right over your head as well.
Plants don't use vacuum pumps. All the example does is to show how a vacuum pump cannot go any higher than the fabled one atmosphere pressure difference. That's the whole point. Plants pull the water up, check the wikipedia link. The evaporation creates a surface tension that pulls the water up.
Here's a bit of "misinformation". Damn that Nature propaganda.
Yes, sorry about the units (I posted as AC that it should be feet and not meters). I did say there would be Hg gas in the column of mercury though.
You see, if you had read the very top parent you'd have seen this:
Recently two groups have demonstrated that water in the xylem avoids cavitation even at negative pressures exceeding 225 lb/in2 - tensions that would easily lift water to the top of the tallest trees. (Both groups made their measurements by spinning branches in a centrifuge.)
If that tension is applied (a quick google tells me that's over 10 atmospheres) to the water backwards (like my example of the syringe) it should boil right? Well, it doesn't. I still don't understand why you say that if you pull with more pressure than the atmosphere is pressing the pressure of water is still positive. No, really, in the capillary the water will not boil as the experiment shows, the cohesion will keep the water molecules together. The water inside the capillary is in tension, and it won't boil or break because in the small capillary the cohesion of the water molecules will keep that column of water together. The plant is pulling up with more strength than the gravity is pulling down.
But anyway, this is pointless as you have shown already:
I guess I could read the links, but I am concerned they contain more misinformation.
If apparently what the biologist community says about how water goes up in a plant is misinformation, then please do look other way *rolleyes*
IE, the plunger example is reducing the pressure. The pressure will approach zero, but never a negative number. It is physically impossible.
Let's take the classical experiment where you have a liquid in a U-shaped tube with one end sealed, the first kind of manometer developed pretty much.
As you probably know, if the liquid is mercury, a column exactly 760 mm high will exert a pressure of one atmosphere. If the column is any higher, the mercury will drop leaving a vacuum at the top of the sealed end (well, there are some traces of gaseous mercury, but let's not split hairs here). The pressure at the top of the mercury column will be zero, right?
Now, if you do the same experiment with a capillary (so that turbulence that might let air in doesn't happen, it doesn't have to be too thin) and if the liquid is water, you need some 30 odd meters IIRC (I'm not going to do the exact numbers because it doesn't matter) to get one atmosphere. As before, the pressure at the top is zero.
What happens if the column is longer than the 30 meters you need for one atmosphere? Will the water drop to the 1 atmosphere level? Well, the answer is NO, and that's because of the cohesion of water molecules. The capillary column will have to be much higher before its own weight can break the cohesion.
Say, in that case, what's the pressure at the top of the water column? The molecules are being pulled apart from each other!
In the case of the tree, you have a 100 meter tall column of water. Gravity is pulling down. After 30 meters, the pressure that the water at the bottom is exerting over the rest of the water is exactly the same that the air would be exerting at putative end of the column (the roots). After 60 meters, the column of water is pulling down with one atmosphere of pressure. What is the pressure of the water molecules at that point? At 90 meters? Does the word negative come to mind? Yes, there is a negative pressure being exerted over the water molecules, which is not enough to break the cohesion forces of the molecules.
I am taking a swag at it and saying that plants use a combination of capillary action and evaporation to bring water above the nominal 32 feet of water sea level barometric pressure.
Good to see you're still not reading the links. Capillary wouldn't go any higher than a couple of meters with the diameter of Xylem tubes. From the Wikipedia:
Transpirational pull results ultimately from the evaporation of water from the surfaces of cells in the interior of the leaves. This evaporation causes the surface of the water to pull back into the pores of the cell wall. Inside the pores, the water forms a concave meniscus. The high surface tension of water pulls the concavity outwards, generating enough force to lift water as high as a hundred meters from ground level to a tree's highest branches
You have water in a sealed syringe. You pull the syringe so that the pressure you're doing is 2 atmospheres (-1 from our atmosphere equals one atmosphere). The volume of water doesn't change because you can't break cohesion, what's the pressure of the water inside of the syringe?
What do you mean there is no suction??
There IS. The evidence is in the fucking link I provided! Here's another part of the text (highlighting by me):
The rattan vine may climb as high as 150 ft on the trees of the tropical rain forest in northeastern Australia to get its foliage into the sun. When the base of a vine is severed while immersed in a basin of water, water continues to be taken up. A vine less than 1 inch in diameter will "drink" water indefinitely at a rate of up to 12 ml/minute.
If forced to take water from a sealed container, the vine does so without any decrease in rate, even though the resulting vacuum becomes so great that the remaining water begins to boil spontaneously. (The boiling temperature of water decreases as the air pressure over the water decreases, which is why it takes longer to boil an egg in Denver than in New Orleans.)
you can check the Wikipedia too, or if you're not overly lazy google for "Transpiration pull".
Again, if you think the term "negative pressure" is not accurate, say so, but don't try to redefine it if you have no idea what you're talking about. If you get a sealed syringe and pull the plunger, what kind of pressure are you applying to the air sealed inside? Depends on the reference perhaps? This is how the water goes UP in the plants.
Shit, I don't know what's worse, the stubborn refusal to read the text provided or the ignorant mods that keep moding this tripe up.
The people who contribute to those free OSS projects don't do that because they think it'd be neat if such and such software would exist for someone to use, in most cases (I can't say for sure "in all cases", blame me for being a scientist) they work in a project because that particular piece of software is something they want to use themselves.
See, there's so much I can do on my own. But if I want something done, and by letting you use my code I'll get some of yours in exchange, I've actually gained something, I've gained the hours of work it'd have taken to add that code, correct my bugs, or whatever that other person who uses my code gives me. That's the heart of the GPL.
If I have to put a value of n dollars per line of code, does that mean someone who sends me (or the public repository) y lines is actually giving me/us money? Is code worth a lot? Yes, that's why getting extra code on top of mine is a good value I get for releasing my software for free.