Both fossil fuels and fission nuclear reactors produce heat that would not otherwise be released (or at least, not so quickly). And they are both absolutely dwarfed by the amount of heat unleashed on the earth by mister sun. I doubt "heat pollution" would be a major concern. And if it reduces the amount of green house gases generated, then the earth might actually be cooler.
Course we have no idea whether the claim is true. It needs to be verified by reputable third parties. Or if it could ever be practical for energy production.
I had a look at SCO's quarterly report released today.
Revenue from operations appears to be shrinking fast, down from $13.5 m to $11.4 m in a single quarter, resulting in a $5 m operational loss.
I'm presuming their operations are, in the long run, toast. Why, then, do they still have significant marketing and R&D expenses? Why not go into "harvest" mode? They do, however, say their expenses will drop in the future as they become "more efficient", so maybe this is just what they have in mind.
They also list $3.7 m in "Other Income, Net". What the hell is this? Linux Licensings fees?
Their "war chest" (that is, cash) dropped from $64 m to $57 m, giving a burn rate of more than $2 m / month. One would expect this burn rate to increase as they open up new litigation fronts with AutoZone, DaimlerChrysler, and the rest of western civilization. Even so, they should be good for at least a year, and maybe two, of litigation.
The number of shares increased by about 2.5 million. Obviously they made good use of the high stock price. Without a cash flow statement, though, I'm having a little trouble seeing where the money went, and what their true litigation expenses are. Perhaps their burn rate is far greater than the last paragraph estimated.
I notice they list over $9 million in "Goodwill and intangibles". Who says accountants don't have a sense of humour?
When fighting a war, it's important to open up as many fronts, against as many opponents, as possible. And not just any opponents - litigate against companies who buy their legal pads by the pallet, why don't you?
Even an 11 year old Risk player knows better than this.
You say there are no intellectual property rights for software. Is that a statement of fact, logic, or desire? Society commonly refers to copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret law collectively as "intellectual property rights". I am simply using the term like everyone else.
It's true that the GPL is based on copyright law. It's also true that at least some of the founders of the free software movement would like to do away with software copyright all together. It's something many supporters of the free software movement (such as myself) aren't too thrilled about.
Free software is a great idea, so long as it's not imposed. Then it becomes the freedom of people to take other people's things without permission.
Now I like the free software movement. I think it will provide enormous benefits to society. In fact, I think it already has. And I like the idea that people are free to carry on this movement.
But people should also be free to write commercial, proprietary software, with the full protection of copyright. I believe that the combination of free and proprietary is the best of both worlds.
There's a storm brewing. Many (although certainly not all!) developers in the free software movement believe there should be no intellectual property rights for software - that "software is knowledge, and knowledge should be free".
Thankfully, the odds that they will be successful in bringing about this revolution are remote. It would require a radical rewriting of the law, and that isn't going to happen soon.
Programs are not people. Software can be free as in beer, but not free as in liberty. One may as well liberate your television. Only people can have freedom - the freedom to do any damn thing they wish with the fruits of their labour - whether they sell it, license it for money, use it for their own personnal use, release it under the GPL, or place it into the public domain.
Some people call this greedy. If wanting the freedom to do anything I want with my work is greedy, then I'm greedy. If wanting to be rewarded for my labours and provide for my family is greedy, then I'm greedy.
The trouble with your advice is that it's useless. Before you begin "Figuring out what the
code is supposed to do" you have to figure out
what code. In a 25,000 line application,
where do you begin? What classes or functions are causing the problem? What lines of code?
And I didn't say you should rewrite the application from scratch. I said it would take someone that long if they used your "approach".
Here's how to win the Master's. For each swing...
Figure out where you want the ball to end up.
Hit it there.
I'm sure Mike Weir will be grateful for this advice. Then again, maybe not.
Give me a break
on
Debugging
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Yeah, right. Perhaps if you are debugging a small application you wrote yourself then it may be that easy. Debugging a major application written by someone else, who used perhaps a less than optimum style and methodology? Forget it. The above won't work because you won't be able to figure out #1 and you won't be able to figure out #2 in less time than it takes to rewrite the application from scratch.
Don't know what planet you're programming on.
Two of my favourite rules...
on
Debugging
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Find the simplest possible run that replicates the error.
My favourite strategy. It's really worth while doing this. Related to rule 4, perhaps, but not the same thing.
Examine the input data.
Often it isn't a bug. Often the program is doing an entirely reasonable thing given the input data. Or perhaps the program mishandled bad input data (in which case it is a bug, but now you know what to look for).
We don't dare file want ads on those boards. Once upon a time it took an hour or so, and a postage stamp, for someone to respond to an ad. Now it takes a few minutes. The result - hundreds and hundreds of responses to each ad, of which only a tiny fraction are worth any consideration.
We've had much better luck posting ads on the bulletin boards of local user groups and professional associations.
SF for adults, please.
on
Singularity Sky
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yeah, you're right. Most science fiction sucks. I have about 1000 SF books in my basement from my youth, and I find that few of them are readable now.
My main problem is not the stories themselves, but the quality of the writing. That many of them are written for 14 year olds doesn't help (although this in itself doesn't make it poor writing).
We need SF book for adults, for people who have actually become somewhat literate in their dotage. I know they're out there, because I own a few.
I'm going to repond to you even though the original post is long gone. Maybe no one will read this.
Adam Smith addressed wealth creation over two centuries agp. He stated that the true source of wealth for a nation is the effort and inventiveness of its people. There are many examples today of nations with relatively few natural resources that generate enormous wealth.
You've fallen into the fallacy of the "zero sum game", that the only way to get rich is to take wealth from someone else. Modern economics, which you appear entirely innocent of, says that most situations, particularly when people are free to follow their own self interest, are win-win. People buy products because both they and the manufactorer are better for to. Someone agrees to work for someone else because it improves the lot of both. Two countries agree to trade with each other without restriction because they are both richer for it (something Lou Dobbs should keep in mind).
You see everything as exploitation. You see everything as winner vs. loser. You should, perhaps, grow up.
By the way, U.S. patents last 20 years from the data of first filing, That is far short of eternity.
If these are the only ways to get wealthy, where did wealth originally come from?
You forgot the fourth way - create it. This is what America does so well, and what socialists do so poorly, perhaps because they buy into blather like yours.
Adam Smith addressed this more than two centuries ago. The wealth of a nation is not it's currency or gold bullion, but its productivity. Large bank statements don't represent wealth, people sweating over a hot terminal do.
The problem is that once a patent is rewarded, it is no small thing to get it overturned. Awarded patents are presumed valid by the courts until proven otherwise. And to prove otherwise takes deep pockets, especially against so formidable a foe as
Microsoft.
Swell. Great. Now we can all learn to curse like sailors on shore leave whenever we're on an automatic answering system. Apparantly the rude customers are more important than the polite ones. Let's reward incivility, shall we?
Well, thank you for that incoherent rant. What do you mean "most of you also said Einstein was also full of it?" Do you think we were around 100 years ago?
Actually, Einstein and Heisenberg was highly respected in their time, and their work quickly appreciated (relatively speaking) by the scientific community at large, considering that Einstein did nothing less than rewrite the basic laws of physics.
Nope, the criticism of Wolfram's work is justified.
Some primitive, war-like societies still use Imperial units of measurement. 12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, 220 yards to the furlong (important if you're a horse), 8 furlongs to the mile, and on on.
Until recently, C lacked a complex primitive data
type. C++ still lacks one. This rather minor oversight was enough to make C/C++ extremely awkward for numerical computation.
If Weyerhauser were to sell paper to the Chinese, and that paper were used during trial proceedings of political dissidents, would Weyerhauser be guilty of the same thing?
Ol' Bill has a point. Short of doing no trade of any sort with the Chinese, no one has much control of what their products are used for.
And doing no trade at all would be far more punishing to the Chinese people than risking that one's products might get misused.
As a manager, I've read, oh, about a million resumes. I've gathered the following tips about what I like to see:
Begin your cover letter by stating what advertisement you are responding to
and which position you are applying for. Use the rest of your cover letter
to briefly explain how you are suited for this position in particular.
Begin your resume with a short statement of what you want to do
(objectives) and what you are an expert in.
List university or other degrees on page 1. It takes up little space and is
critical for defining who you are in the technical community. I don't want
to find out on page 3 that you have a Ph.D. A long list of additional
training can be included near the end of the resume.
Don't drown me in alphabet soup. Your resume should not look like a grocery
list of every technology you've been exposed to. A reasonable format for
describing a single position held at a company is a paragraph describing
your accomplishments and responsibilities, followed by a short list of the
major skills and technologies used. A skills matrix is okay, but put it
near the end of the resume.
Differentiate between major areas of expertise and areas which are either
minor or you are not fully an expert in. The first category should include
no more than half a dozen items - otherwise it strains credibility.
Keep to the substantial. Don't tell me you are a self-motivated team player
with excellent communication skills looking for a challenging position in a
dynamic, cutting-edge company. If anyone can say it, the information
content is zero.
Having said this, state any facts that show you to be a self-motivated team
player with excellent communication skills. For example, did you introduce
any new technologies to your fellow employees, or give any courses?
No more than three pages in your resume, and two if you have little
experience.
No filler ever. Be as brief as possible while including all important
information.
Skip "Interests". I don't need to know your hobbies unless they directly
relate to the position.
Grammar and spelling must be perfect.
Be conventional. Stand out by clearly, concisely, and accurately describing
your goals, accomplishments, and abilities.
Patents can definitly be a problem.
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
First, anytime you have to go to court over a patent, you're talking big bucks and serious distractions. This gives a big advantage to big companies - many small companies can't afford to defend or challenge a patent.
Second, patents are assumed valid by the courts until shown invalid. This means it is not cheap or easy overturning a patent. Just because you found one case where this was so, doesn't mean they all are.
Third, most patents in the U.S. last 20 years from the date of first filing, not 17 years from the awarding of patent. That was the old system.
I still think patents have a place, but what's needed are better quality patents (clear, original, and not overly broad), and cheaper, faster ways to challenge the more dubious patents (I heard they were working on this).
Big macs, cafe lattes, and pharmaceuticals are all significantly cheaper in Canada. Purchasing power parity suggests that the greenback is still significantly overvalued compared to the loonie. Given that Canada's current account is positive and the U.S.'s current account is negative (which means there should be a greater demand for the C$), many economists think the greenback will continue to fall. 'Course currencies don't always listen to economists. Very few things in this world do.
In a related storey, 100% of respondents thought computers were too complicated, too poorly described, and too insecure, making it a minor miracle that internet use is as high as it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Course we have no idea whether the claim is true. It needs to be verified by reputable third parties. Or if it could ever be practical for energy production.
Revenue from operations appears to be shrinking fast, down from $13.5 m to $11.4 m in a single quarter, resulting in a $5 m operational loss.
I'm presuming their operations are, in the long run, toast. Why, then, do they still have significant marketing and R&D expenses? Why not go into "harvest" mode? They do, however, say their expenses will drop in the future as they become "more efficient", so maybe this is just what they have in mind.
They also list $3.7 m in "Other Income, Net". What the hell is this? Linux Licensings fees?
Their "war chest" (that is, cash) dropped from $64 m to $57 m, giving a burn rate of more than $2 m / month. One would expect this burn rate to increase as they open up new litigation fronts with AutoZone, DaimlerChrysler, and the rest of western civilization. Even so, they should be good for at least a year, and maybe two, of litigation.
The number of shares increased by about 2.5 million. Obviously they made good use of the high stock price. Without a cash flow statement, though, I'm having a little trouble seeing where the money went, and what their true litigation expenses are. Perhaps their burn rate is far greater than the last paragraph estimated.
I notice they list over $9 million in "Goodwill and intangibles". Who says accountants don't have a sense of humour?
Even an 11 year old Risk player knows better than this.
It's true that the GPL is based on copyright law. It's also true that at least some of the founders of the free software movement would like to do away with software copyright all together. It's something many supporters of the free software movement (such as myself) aren't too thrilled about.
Free software is a great idea, so long as it's not imposed. Then it becomes the freedom of people to take other people's things without permission.
But people should also be free to write commercial, proprietary software, with the full protection of copyright. I believe that the combination of free and proprietary is the best of both worlds.
There's a storm brewing. Many (although certainly not all!) developers in the free software movement believe there should be no intellectual property rights for software - that "software is knowledge, and knowledge should be free".
Thankfully, the odds that they will be successful in bringing about this revolution are remote. It would require a radical rewriting of the law, and that isn't going to happen soon.
Programs are not people. Software can be free as in beer, but not free as in liberty. One may as well liberate your television. Only people can have freedom - the freedom to do any damn thing they wish with the fruits of their labour - whether they sell it, license it for money, use it for their own personnal use, release it under the GPL, or place it into the public domain.
Some people call this greedy. If wanting the freedom to do anything I want with my work is greedy, then I'm greedy. If wanting to be rewarded for my labours and provide for my family is greedy, then I'm greedy.
And I didn't say you should rewrite the application from scratch. I said it would take someone that long if they used your "approach".
Here's how to win the Master's. For each swing...
-
Figure out where you want the ball to end up.
-
Hit it there.
I'm sure Mike Weir will be grateful for this advice. Then again, maybe not.Don't know what planet you're programming on.
Examine the input data. Often it isn't a bug. Often the program is doing an entirely reasonable thing given the input data. Or perhaps the program mishandled bad input data (in which case it is a bug, but now you know what to look for).
We've had much better luck posting ads on the bulletin boards of local user groups and professional associations.
My main problem is not the stories themselves, but the quality of the writing. That many of them are written for 14 year olds doesn't help (although this in itself doesn't make it poor writing).
We need SF book for adults, for people who have actually become somewhat literate in their dotage. I know they're out there, because I own a few.
Adam Smith addressed wealth creation over two centuries agp. He stated that the true source of wealth for a nation is the effort and inventiveness of its people. There are many examples today of nations with relatively few natural resources that generate enormous wealth.
You've fallen into the fallacy of the "zero sum game", that the only way to get rich is to take wealth from someone else. Modern economics, which you appear entirely innocent of, says that most situations, particularly when people are free to follow their own self interest, are win-win. People buy products because both they and the manufactorer are better for to. Someone agrees to work for someone else because it improves the lot of both. Two countries agree to trade with each other without restriction because they are both richer for it (something Lou Dobbs should keep in mind).
You see everything as exploitation. You see everything as winner vs. loser. You should, perhaps, grow up.
By the way, U.S. patents last 20 years from the data of first filing, That is far short of eternity.
You forgot the fourth way - create it. This is what America does so well, and what socialists do so poorly, perhaps because they buy into blather like yours.
Adam Smith addressed this more than two centuries ago. The wealth of a nation is not it's currency or gold bullion, but its productivity. Large bank statements don't represent wealth, people sweating over a hot terminal do.
The problem is that once a patent is rewarded, it is no small thing to get it overturned. Awarded patents are presumed valid by the courts until proven otherwise. And to prove otherwise takes deep pockets, especially against so formidable a foe as Microsoft.
Swell. Great. Now we can all learn to curse like sailors on shore leave whenever we're on an automatic answering system. Apparantly the rude customers are more important than the polite ones. Let's reward incivility, shall we?
Actually, Einstein and Heisenberg was highly respected in their time, and their work quickly appreciated (relatively speaking) by the scientific community at large, considering that Einstein did nothing less than rewrite the basic laws of physics.
Nope, the criticism of Wolfram's work is justified.
Some primitive, war-like societies still use Imperial units of measurement. 12 inches to the foot, 3 feet to the yard, 220 yards to the furlong (important if you're a horse), 8 furlongs to the mile, and on on.
Until recently, C lacked a complex primitive data type. C++ still lacks one. This rather minor oversight was enough to make C/C++ extremely awkward for numerical computation.
Ol' Bill has a point. Short of doing no trade of any sort with the Chinese, no one has much control of what their products are used for. And doing no trade at all would be far more punishing to the Chinese people than risking that one's products might get misused.
Microsoft isn't selling landmines here.
A part time haiku
depending like "coyote" on
how you pronounce it
Now help me, Muse, for
I wish to tell a piece of
controversial math.
The last line has six syllables. For shame.
Second, patents are assumed valid by the courts until shown invalid. This means it is not cheap or easy overturning a patent. Just because you found one case where this was so, doesn't mean they all are.
Third, most patents in the U.S. last 20 years from the date of first filing, not 17 years from the awarding of patent. That was the old system.
I still think patents have a place, but what's needed are better quality patents (clear, original, and not overly broad), and cheaper, faster ways to challenge the more dubious patents (I heard they were working on this).
Big macs, cafe lattes, and pharmaceuticals are all significantly cheaper in Canada. Purchasing power parity suggests that the greenback is still significantly overvalued compared to the loonie. Given that Canada's current account is positive and the U.S.'s current account is negative (which means there should be a greater demand for the C$), many economists think the greenback will continue to fall. 'Course currencies don't always listen to economists. Very few things in this world do.
In a related storey, 100% of respondents thought computers were too complicated, too poorly described, and too insecure, making it a minor miracle that internet use is as high as it is.