OK, basically a short summary of what I posted in another branch of this thread by mistake:
SCO claims they own all code in all derivative works to UNIX. This includes the JFS code in Linux, which then makes all Linux a work derived from AIX, and gives SCO full ownership of Linux (according to their interpretation of "all derived works."
Carrying this chain one step further, SCO then becomes the legal owner of all code added to Linux if their lawyers can get the judge to see things the way Darl does. This means the code in question is considered a derived work (even though it's not derived straight from the original UNIX code) and therefore belongs to SCO and not IBM.
Please read the other branch and you'll see my point.
SCO claims full ownership of all derived works.
This means SCO owns AIX and everything in it.
"Everything in AIX" includes JFS code, making JFS code their property as well.
"Linux with JFS support" is then obviously SCO's property, since it's derived from SCO's JFS. (Remember: Pretend you're smoking the same pipe Darl is.)
"Linux with MWAVE support" is then SCO's property, because it shares code with SCO's "Linux with JFS support."
Basically SCO has an incredibly weak case here, but if they can convince the judge that their interpretation of "all derived works" is correct and the recollections of the people who originally negotiated are wrong, then all of IBM's arguments to date are completely irrelevant. The fact that the case wasn't dismissed months ago indicates that this is still a remote possibility.
You're missing the grandparent's point: IBM has contributed code that has nothing to do with AIX, and would never work on AIX in any case, like the MWAVE driver or countless Thinkpad patches and drivers.
Actually, you're once again missing the point about SCO's claim to ownership of all derivative works. Let me go through this step by step.
Please try to imagine you're smoking the same stuff as Darl & Co. just for a second, and you'll see that under SCO's interpretation of the original contract all of IBM's points are completely irrelevant.
SCO claims to own UNIX and all derivative works.
IBM adds JFS code to AIX.
--SCO then claims to own JFS, since in their mind it is a derived work.
IBM then adds JFS code to Linux.
--SCO then claims to own Linux, since they now consider it to be a work derived from AIX, which they claim to own.
IBM contributes MWAVE code.
--SCO sees "Linux with MWAVE code", which is obviously a derivative of SCO's "Linux" property. This makes MWAVE code SCO's property as well due to SCO's interpretation of the original AT&T contract.
The GPL is actually quite clear about this point - if the code is covered by a license that's mutually incompatible with the GPL, then you can't distribute it at all. So SCO is breaching IBM's copyright on all of the other code in Linux that has nothing to do with AIX, even if their bullshit claims about owning JFS code were true.
From SCO's standpoint, this would mean they have done nothing wrong, while IBM has violated both the original AT&T contract as well as the GPL.
Since SCO claims full ownership of all the code in Linux, they can then distribute it under any license they feel is appropriate.
Now, you and I both know that all of SCO's claims are bogus since everything hinges upon their interpretation of the AT&T contract, and both of the parties originally involved in that contract have refuted SCO's claims on that point.
However, SCO will not concede this point, ever. It's the same argument they used to start this three-ring circus in the first place, and admitting they're bullshitting on this one issue would basically be the same as telling the court "We've known for 15 months that we were just wasting your time." Presumably, the judge would not react favorably to that, and SCO could conceivably be in more trouble than if they pretended they had legitimate claims to the very end.
SCO's argument is that code IBM added to AIX belongs to SCO, and that any derived work also belongs to SCO. So according to SCO's interpretation of the contract, just including JFS code in Linux gives SCO all rights to all parts of the kernel since it is a derived work according to their point of view.
Like I said before, it's pretty obvious their claims are total bullshit, but that doesn't mean they feel the same way.
According to SCO's interpretation of IBM's contract with AT&T, the minute IBM added this code to UNIX it became part of UNIX and therefore it now belongs to SCO, not IBM. (Obviously this isn't true, but it's what the've been arguing all along.)
SCO's response is obvious: They will claim all rights to the code in question on the grounds (however false) that IBM gave them all rights to the code under the original contract with AT&T..
There are reactor designs which are physically incapable of runaway reactions, unfortunately the three-mile island incident has
I would expect here at Slashdot of all places, people would be willing to look into the solutions modern technology can provide, instead of trying to spread FUD based on the obvious inadequacies of technology that is nearly forty years old.
Try going to a library and reading articles on nuclear poants from 15 years ago, or at least attempt a Google search using the appropriate terms before you jump to any conclusions.
I'm not challenging the report's factuality, I just got a small laugh out of it that I thought I'd share.
Whether it's a joke or not, it's no longer funny when it's already been posted a half-dozen times. I agree that giving the number of grams would make more sense in a certain way, but that's not the standard practice with compressed gases. Also if you think about hauling the stuff to the surface and storing it, Giving the amount in volume at STP gives you a better idea what size tank to use.
It seems rather obvious. Carbon, when placed under extreme pressure for millions of years, becomes diamond. Apparently water, when placed under similar circumstances, becomes hydrogen.
The point is, it's not obvious. High pressure actually helps prevent the reaction in question, so it's not analogous to diamond.
Pretty much the same reaction occurs when you try to extinguish thermite (2000 degrees C) with water, and it happens fast enough that there's a good chance of blowing yourself up since the gases cool down and recombine rather quickly.
So since a liter is a measure of volume and does not take into account pressure or temperature,
it is a poor choice of a measurement unit for this discussion.
Only if you assume that it's the volume occupied by the hydrogen within the rock. The point is, it's pretty much STANDARD to refer to the amount of a compressed gas by its volume at standard temperature and pressure. If you look for a flow meter with units of g/s or mol/s, I doubt you'll ever find one. On the other hand, units like cc/s or cc/min are pretty much universal.
Yes, but surely this process takes place on a geological time scale,
Given that we don't know how long water takes to reach that level, I don't think that's an honest claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim, if you're so sure about it?
As I've stated (what, a half-dozen times now?) At least 34% of the rock is empty space. Also consider that hydrogen gas can quite easily be compressed to less than 1% of its STP volume before condensing...
1L = 1000ml = 1000cc = 10^3cc
(10^6 cc/m^3)*(1L/10^3cc) = 10^3L/m^3
= 1000L/m^3
Gee, either that's some REALLY HEAVY hydrogen or som REALLY LIGHT rock!
Ignoring the obvious fact that you're trolling, I'll point out that you haven't been reading the messagesbelow.
I believe the point was not just that there was plenty of hydrogen, but that more was actively being produced by thermal decomposition of water.
According to Professor Friedemann Freund and colleagues at Nasa's Ames Research Center in California, the gas is produced when water molecules trapped inside molten rock break down to release hydrogen.
...when these scientists later considered that the universe is composed of 74% hydrogen, they realized their "discovery" was somewhat moot.</i></p> <p>Actually it is impressive...Earth really isn't massive enough to capture hydrogen gas with gravity alone. Earth's crust is composed mainly of heavier elements, being about 50% oxygen by weight.</p>
How will massive amounts of accidental hydrogen emissions compare to massive amounts of purposeful CO2 emissions?
Well, for one thing hydrogen is a nonpolar diatomic molecule, so it it transparent to IR radiation. It's also the lightest molecule in existence, so it should be capable of dispersing faster than most other gases. Unlike carbon dioxide, hydrogen is a reducing agent and (with proper catalysis) could actually decrease the amount of NOx in the atmosphere to lower the amount of acid rain.
<p>Yes, but IIRC water and carbon dioxide have sort of "complimentary" infrared absorption spectra. Whewre one's transparent, the other has a high absorbance. If you reduce amounts of either one in the atmosphere, you allow different bands of infrared to escape. Now, the water evaporates from the oceans, and we produce a very large portion of the carbon dioxide.</p> <p>Which is easier for us to reduce?</p>
Actually, one liter of hydrogen would react with one half liter of oxygen to give you less than 0.001 liters of water (assuming you let it cool to room temperature, and both gases were at standard temperature and pressure) Hopefully that should give you some idea how far apart the molecules in most gases are.
I posted a link earlier, so here it is again, if you want some information about hydrogen storage.
I doubt granite is quite so efficient as these alloys, so you might be able to just sink big pieces of metal underground to absorb hydrogen from the surrounding rock, although it would probably be a slow process.
Let's see 1 liter of water = 10 cm cubed at 1 atmosphere, so 1000 liters = 1 meter cubed. That leaves no room for the rock in which the gas is supposed to be trapped!
If people would read earlier posts, I wouldn't be explaining this for the third time. Even in a close-packed solid structure, about 1/3 of the space consists of "holes" between atoms. With a modest amount of pressure or formation of weak bonds, you can easily compress the hydrogen into the remaining volume.
2nd problem. Isnt 1000 liters exactly equal to the volume of one cubic meter? So where is all the granite?
The granite also takes up 1000 liters. What you have to take into account is, even in a solid with a close-packed structure (which granite is definitely not), something like 34% of the volume consists of the "holes" between atoms. The hydrogen is simply filling in these holes, which requires at least a 3:1 compression ratio for the hydrogen, and the energy for that may come from formation of secondary bonds with the crystal lattice.
Another possibility is adsorption of hydrogen onto surfaces. If the granite is full of cracks and pores, that provides quite a bit of surface area for hydrogen to bond to.
Re:Quark Matter is Not New
on
Quark Stars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In normal matter quarks group together in sets of 3 to form protons and nuetrons. Rare particles, like pions, can be formed from pairs of quarks, but quarks never appear in isolation, for them it's always in groups of 2 or 3. In quark plasmas though there aren't any distinct groups of twos and threes.
That's pretty close to the truth, but you missed one important detail. Pions (and other mesons) are made from a paired quark and antiquark, not two quarks.
Baryons like protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks bound together by their color charges, so for example a proton is (I think) made of two up quarks and a down quark, where you have one quark each of red, green, and blue color charge. Mesons contain a quark and an antiquark of the opposite color (i.e. red and antired).
This is especially important if the download contains executable code. The most obvious two outcomes are:
a)Such corporations are forced out of business by a single lawsuit, or
b)The court decides code is free speech, which gives most legal cases vs. DMCA, etc. a big boost.
In a way, this is actually a good thing because we can now let the advertising industry and "entertainment" industry set precedents that we can use against the other. This is an opportunity to drive a legal/political wedge into the funding machinery behind the MPAA.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO claims they own all code in all derivative works to UNIX. This includes the JFS code in Linux, which then makes all Linux a work derived from AIX, and gives SCO full ownership of Linux (according to their interpretation of "all derived works."
Carrying this chain one step further, SCO then becomes the legal owner of all code added to Linux if their lawyers can get the judge to see things the way Darl does. This means the code in question is considered a derived work (even though it's not derived straight from the original UNIX code) and therefore belongs to SCO and not IBM.
SCO claims full ownership of all derived works.
This means SCO owns AIX and everything in it.
"Everything in AIX" includes JFS code, making JFS code their property as well.
"Linux with JFS support" is then obviously SCO's property, since it's derived from SCO's JFS. (Remember: Pretend you're smoking the same pipe Darl is.)
"Linux with MWAVE support" is then SCO's property, because it shares code with SCO's "Linux with JFS support."
Basically SCO has an incredibly weak case here, but if they can convince the judge that their interpretation of "all derived works" is correct and the recollections of the people who originally negotiated are wrong, then all of IBM's arguments to date are completely irrelevant. The fact that the case wasn't dismissed months ago indicates that this is still a remote possibility.
Actually, you're once again missing the point about SCO's claim to ownership of all derivative works. Let me go through this step by step.
Please try to imagine you're smoking the same stuff as Darl & Co. just for a second, and you'll see that under SCO's interpretation of the original contract all of IBM's points are completely irrelevant.
SCO claims to own UNIX and all derivative works.
IBM adds JFS code to AIX.
--SCO then claims to own JFS, since in their mind it is a derived work.
IBM then adds JFS code to Linux.
--SCO then claims to own Linux, since they now consider it to be a work derived from AIX, which they claim to own.
IBM contributes MWAVE code.
--SCO sees "Linux with MWAVE code", which is obviously a derivative of SCO's "Linux" property. This makes MWAVE code SCO's property as well due to SCO's interpretation of the original AT&T contract.
From SCO's standpoint, this would mean they have done nothing wrong, while IBM has violated both the original AT&T contract as well as the GPL.
Since SCO claims full ownership of all the code in Linux, they can then distribute it under any license they feel is appropriate.
Now, you and I both know that all of SCO's claims are bogus since everything hinges upon their interpretation of the AT&T contract, and both of the parties originally involved in that contract have refuted SCO's claims on that point.
However, SCO will not concede this point, ever. It's the same argument they used to start this three-ring circus in the first place, and admitting they're bullshitting on this one issue would basically be the same as telling the court "We've known for 15 months that we were just wasting your time."
Presumably, the judge would not react favorably to that, and SCO could conceivably be in more trouble than if they pretended they had legitimate claims to the very end.
SCO's argument is that code IBM added to AIX belongs to SCO, and that any derived work also belongs to SCO. So according to SCO's interpretation of the contract, just including JFS code in Linux gives SCO all rights to all parts of the kernel since it is a derived work according to their point of view. Like I said before, it's pretty obvious their claims are total bullshit, but that doesn't mean they feel the same way.
According to SCO's interpretation of IBM's contract with AT&T, the minute IBM added this code to UNIX it became part of UNIX and therefore it now belongs to SCO, not IBM. (Obviously this isn't true, but it's what the've been arguing all along.) SCO's response is obvious: They will claim all rights to the code in question on the grounds (however false) that IBM gave them all rights to the code under the original contract with AT&T..
Strictly speaking, this isn't true.
There are reactor designs which are physically incapable of runaway reactions, unfortunately the three-mile island incident has
I would expect here at Slashdot of all places, people would be willing to look into the solutions modern technology can provide, instead of trying to spread FUD based on the obvious inadequacies of technology that is nearly forty years old.
Try going to a library and reading articles on nuclear poants from 15 years ago, or at least attempt a Google search using the appropriate terms before you jump to any conclusions.
I'm not challenging the report's factuality, I just got a small laugh out of it that I thought I'd share.
Whether it's a joke or not, it's no longer funny when it's already been posted a half-dozen times. I agree that giving the number of grams would make more sense in a certain way, but that's not the standard practice with compressed gases. Also if you think about hauling the stuff to the surface and storing it, Giving the amount in volume at STP gives you a better idea what size tank to use.
It seems rather obvious. Carbon, when placed under extreme pressure for millions of years, becomes diamond. Apparently water, when placed under similar circumstances, becomes hydrogen.
The point is, it's not obvious. High pressure actually helps prevent the reaction in question, so it's not analogous to diamond.
Pretty much the same reaction occurs when you try to extinguish thermite (2000 degrees C) with water, and it happens fast enough that there's a good chance of blowing yourself up since the gases cool down and recombine rather quickly.
So since a liter is a measure of volume and does not take into account pressure or temperature, it is a poor choice of a measurement unit for this discussion.
Only if you assume that it's the volume occupied by the hydrogen within the rock. The point is, it's pretty much STANDARD to refer to the amount of a compressed gas by its volume at standard temperature and pressure. If you look for a flow meter with units of g/s or mol/s, I doubt you'll ever find one. On the other hand, units like cc/s or cc/min are pretty much universal.
How about a do-it-yourself scanning tunnelling microscope? Or does that not qualify for some reason I don't understand?
Yes, but surely this process takes place on a geological time scale,
Given that we don't know how long water takes to reach that level, I don't think that's an honest claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim, if you're so sure about it?
The article states that Hydrogen produces only water when burned. This is WRONG. It produces water and carbon dioxide.
WRONG. Making carbon dioxide requires carbon, which is absent from both hydrogen and oxygen.
As I've stated (what, a half-dozen times now?) At least 34% of the rock is empty space. Also consider that hydrogen gas can quite easily be compressed to less than 1% of its STP volume before condensing...
Ignoring the obvious fact that you're trolling, I'll point out that you haven't been reading the messages below.
Exactly how "limitless" is this?
I believe the point was not just that there was plenty of hydrogen, but that more was actively being produced by thermal decomposition of water.
<p>Actually it is impressive...Earth really isn't massive enough to capture hydrogen gas with gravity alone. Earth's crust is composed mainly of heavier elements, being about 50% oxygen by weight.</p>
How will massive amounts of accidental hydrogen emissions compare to massive amounts of purposeful CO2 emissions?
Well, for one thing hydrogen is a nonpolar diatomic molecule, so it it transparent to IR radiation. It's also the lightest molecule in existence, so it should be capable of dispersing faster than most other gases. Unlike carbon dioxide, hydrogen is a reducing agent and (with proper catalysis) could actually decrease the amount of NOx in the atmosphere to lower the amount of acid rain.
Detail #2: Water is a potent greenhouse gas.
<p>Yes, but IIRC water and carbon dioxide have sort of "complimentary" infrared absorption spectra. Whewre one's transparent, the other has a high absorbance. If you reduce amounts of either one in the atmosphere, you allow different bands of infrared to escape. Now, the water evaporates from the oceans, and we produce a very large portion of the carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>Which is easier for us to reduce?</p>
Actually, one liter of hydrogen would react with one half liter of oxygen to give you less than 0.001 liters of water (assuming you let it cool to room temperature, and both gases were at standard temperature and pressure) Hopefully that should give you some idea how far apart the molecules in most gases are.
I posted a link earlier, so here it is again, if you want some information about hydrogen storage.
I doubt granite is quite so efficient as these alloys, so you might be able to just sink big pieces of metal underground to absorb hydrogen from the surrounding rock, although it would probably be a slow process.
Let's see 1 liter of water = 10 cm cubed at 1 atmosphere, so 1000 liters = 1 meter cubed. That leaves no room for the rock in which the gas is supposed to be trapped!
If people would read earlier posts, I wouldn't be explaining this for the third time. Even in a close-packed solid structure, about 1/3 of the space consists of "holes" between atoms. With a modest amount of pressure or formation of weak bonds, you can easily compress the hydrogen into the remaining volume.
That doesn't leave much room for the rock...
As I said before, it leaves plenty of room for the rock.
If you don't understand, spend a minute or two of your time trying to understand more about hydrogen storage.
2nd problem. Isnt 1000 liters exactly equal to the volume of one cubic meter? So where is all the granite?
The granite also takes up 1000 liters. What you have to take into account is, even in a solid with a close-packed structure (which granite is definitely not), something like 34% of the volume consists of the "holes" between atoms. The hydrogen is simply filling in these holes, which requires at least a 3:1 compression ratio for the hydrogen, and the energy for that may come from formation of secondary bonds with the crystal lattice.
Another possibility is adsorption of hydrogen onto surfaces. If the granite is full of cracks and pores, that provides quite a bit of surface area for hydrogen to bond to.
In normal matter quarks group together in sets of 3 to form protons and nuetrons. Rare particles, like pions, can be formed from pairs of quarks, but quarks never appear in isolation, for them it's always in groups of 2 or 3. In quark plasmas though there aren't any distinct groups of twos and threes.
That's pretty close to the truth, but you missed one important detail.
Pions (and other mesons) are made from a paired quark and antiquark, not two quarks.
Baryons like protons and neutrons are made up of three quarks bound together by their color charges, so for example a proton is (I think) made of two up quarks and a down quark, where you have one quark each of red, green, and blue color charge. Mesons contain a quark and an antiquark of the opposite color (i.e. red and antired).
Something I need to add:
This is especially important if the download contains executable code. The most obvious two outcomes are:
a)Such corporations are forced out of business by a single lawsuit, or
b)The court decides code is free speech, which gives most legal cases vs. DMCA, etc. a big boost.
In a way, this is actually a good thing because we can now let the advertising industry and "entertainment" industry set precedents that we can use against the other. This is an opportunity to drive a legal/political wedge into the funding machinery behind the MPAA.