Isn't the way they worked very close to Free Software, though? They would show their code to anyone, and anyone who could improve it was allowed to, etc. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to improve it.
It was both free and open. Many would leave a copy of the code near the terminals so anyone else could look at and try to make improvements to the code. They were then expected to do the same thing. Steven Levy wrote a good book, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, on this. It goes into both the software and hardware hackers.
most of the BSD-licensed products in the Linux community have more of sharing culture, and perhaps do not feel as strongly the need to recoup the costs of their development tools:D
I may be wrong but what I understand of the BSD license is that it is less open than the GPL and because of this it's easier to make money from BSD licensed software. A person could take open source code from a project and modify it then sale the new package without opening the code, all that's required is that those who contributed code to what you use you give them credit for.
At least that's my understanding of the BSD license, however I may be wrong. So if someone knows I am wrong I welcome their corrections. Actually I've thought of working a BSD licensed graphics, photoeditting, program. I'm a photographer and GIMP doesn't have many of the capabilities of Photoshop (PS) so unless you make a lot of money the price of PS isn't easily justifiable. Because of this I've thought of working with a BSD licensed app I could program more capabilities into then turn around and make money selling it to other photographers and not have to give the source away, at least not until I've made enough for it to be finacially worth the tyme I spent programming.
Actually, SCO [slashdot.org] (back when it was called Caldera) invented Open Source back in 1996 [google.com]. Yes, that's before the OSI thing, though after the foundation of the FSF.
The Tech Model Railroad Club of MIT had open source software as early as the 1960s and early 1970s beating out SCO by a long shot. The first computer game, Spacewar, came out in 1962 as a result of many programmers' contributions in an open manner. They used to compeat to see who could come up with a nifty hack, something that was considered impossible, never thought of, or was able to shave a few lines out of a program. Those programmer were amoung the first computer hackers and followed the Hacker ethic.
Energy effeciency is a far better, cheaper, and more effective route than building nuke plants.
Despite what Cheney says efficiency is all three of these, better, cheaper, and more effective than bulding not just nuclear power plants but any power plant. I want to build a home Off the Grid and build a hybrid energy system of solar PVs and wind gennies, generators. First step though is building it as energy efficient as possible. Home Power is a good magazine with articles showing just how this can be done. Solar Today also has good articles on designing buildings and energy systems.
Would be a combination of renewables, and algae biomass driven "Air Blown Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle" power plants.
Better probably is using algae to produce hydrogen.
"In part I guess it's because it's a cooler colour, which I prefer because I won't get as hot myself."
Is that a joke?
No, it's not. Colours, especially of light, can have a big impact on how warm or cool and other feelings I experience just as it does for others. Red hot, cool blue, green with envy, et alia.
Then I would say that the optimal solution is incandescent bulbs and nuclear power. So let's get the move on! Mandate nukes, not some stop-gap measure that requires a whole new level of the old recycling boondoogle.
Isn't nuclear power a stop gap measure? And one that creates and leaves more problems than they solve? In the US the Bush admin wants to use Yucca Mountain as permanent storage, well for 10,000, when the halflife of some of the waste is millions of years. On top of that Yucca is a seismically active region, having had earthquakes in the area, and has a volcano not too far away.
Someone can then say the waste can be reprocessed, as the French do. IEEE's magazine IEEE Spectrum has an article in the Febuary 2007 issue, Nuclear Wasteland by Peter Fairley asking "The French are recycling nuclear waste. Should other countries follow suit?" He brings up problems reprocessing creates including reprocessing concentrates high level waste that's hotter and harder to handle than waste that isn't reprocessed.
But if we use bulbs that don't have mercury, but are as efficient, it's that much more mercury that isn't introduced into the environment.
Ah but what bulbs are available that are as efficient as if not more so than CFLs? LED lghts are more efficient however currently they are only good for spot lighting, not for area lighting.
The first problem is that the CFLs only last 6 to 12 months in my house. I suppose I have pretty poor power, since I live in the country, but the incandescents seem to handle it much better. This failure rate adds significantly to the cost of CFLs, and makes mockery of those little marketing charts that show that CFLs last 7 times as long as incandescents.
There must be a problem with your wiring or power, I've been using CFLs for more than 15 years and in that tyme I've only replaced two of them when they burned out. The first was several years ago and the second a few months ago. Looking at my lights now I see I need to replace a third one, and I have 12 CFLs I use.
Even the new "instant-on" CFL's are not as fast as I am.
That's one of the two problems I've run into with CFLs, some take some minutes to fully come on. The other problem is in how CFLs affect photo shots.
I now feel that the solution is to move to individually generated solar or wind power. If I want to use more power, I obtain more solar panels. That way, any limitations are self-imposed, and the State does not have to tell me what kind of light bulbs I can or can't buy.
In a way I agree, I was designing a home I eventually wanted to build that was totally energy selfsufficient. Two of my fav mags are Homepower and Solar Today. I also think government, whether local, state, or national shouldn't be banning anything. However they can take steps to encourage energy efficiency.
Note that micro-flourescents contain mercury that if not re-cycled ends up in landfills.
Ah but how much does CFLs prevent from being emitted in the atmosphere when coal is burned? CFLs should be recycled, as should most things after they've been reused, however I read a study some tyme back that concluded CFLs prevent more mercury from being emitted by coal fired powerplants than the amount they contain.
Not to mention that fluorescents let out a high-pitched noise, and some people can see their flickering, as well
All of the light bulbs I have are all CFLs and I don't hear any "high-pitched" noises from them. Neither do I detect flickering, and I would if they did as flickering gives me headaches. Today's CFLs aren't yesteryears' florescents.
The best ones I've found so far are the Sylvania "Daylight Extra" bulbs. They're marked 3500K, so they're really not "daylight" bulbs, but that's okay, since I think the 5600K bulbs all look way too blue.
Guess I'm unusual in that I prefer bluish tinted lights under normal circumstances indoors. In part I guess it's because it's a cooler colour, which I prefer because I won't get as hot myself. Now outdoors it's another matter.
For framing a house, concrete blocks were cheaper than wood, and insulated so well that no A/C was needed.
I grew up in a concrete block home in Florida and if we hadn't had a/c then the inside would of gotten as sweaty smelling as a gym locker room. As it is I used to get up off the bed and lay down to sleep on the concrete, trasel (sic), floor because it was relatively cool but the house itself would be hot. The bed sheets would be soaked with my sweat so I'd put them under the faucet to soak them then wring them out to spread on the floor to lay on.
There are times when you *need* incandescent lighting, photography for one.
The first thought I had when reading this article was what effects they would have on photography. One of the first assignments I had in photography class in college was we had to shoot one set of photos with incandescent lights and another with florescents.
And initial costs of fluorescents are more because you need the ballast etc.
Today's CFLs don't need an external ballast, one is built into the lights. And the prices have gone down a lot as well. While they are still much more expensive than incandescent lights the price isn't too bad, just a few months ago I bought some CFLs for less than $2 a bulb and they last several tymes longer than incandescents.
The fact that these lawmakers don't understand enough of the technology to make it workable really gets on my chimes.
California screwed up when they passed the law banning incandescents. Instead they should of passed a law encouraging energy efficient lights, say by levying a new tax on inefficient lights and maybe reducng or eliminating tax on efficient lights.
Ah, OK. Based on your description of travelling there, I'm sure that you meant just "London". London, Ontario is a good-size city (by Canadian standards), and is about 2 hours northeast of Detroit (about halfway between Detroit and Toronto).
It might of been London, I did see there was a New London in both Montreal and Quebec using Google Maps. However the one in Ontario was too far north and the one in Quebec too far east.
1491 is an awesome book that discusses this and lots of other evidence about the population and civilization of the Americas (N & S) before the Europeans arrived.
I've got a copy of the book on my desk between me and my monitor, but I haven't started reading it yet.
The weak tribes were driven out by the strong tribes. Humans are territorial by nature and limted resources are usually controlled by those with more power, leaving the weak to find food in less hospitable places.
I wish I had a link to a study I read about to share with you. The study was mentioned in an article regarding this topic in one of the science magazines. Anyway the study concluded that people living where there's plenty to eat are more likely to be peaceful and share food, land and other resources, and that's it's those people who live in harsh environments such as in deserts that are more warlike and that there's more fighting between tribes. That I know of there's only one tribe or group of tribes that breaks this, the Bedouin Arabs. In Israel they call themself Israeli Arabs and don't fight Hebrews or Jews. Some are elected members of Israel's government. Then again Bedouins have been and are generally pastorialists and don't wage war.
There are Inuit populations that until recently, fed themselves quite nicely hunting in seas full of pack ice, in boats made of whale bone and seal skin.
Ah but now the Inuit are finding it harder to feed themself. They used to be able to depend on thick ice to hunt now the ice is getting thinner and thinner with some Inuits breaking through and getting soaked, and three minutes in the freezing water is enough to kill ya. Another problem the Inuit have is PCB which compromises their immune system.
If the first humans came from the north through asia,
Ah, but the first people in the Americas didn't come from Asia acroos the Bering land bridge into the Americas. Monte Verde in southern Chile, and fathest south you can get in the Americas, is dated 12,500 BP (Before Present) which means it predates the Bering Land Bridge. The Bering Land Bridge formed around 12,000 BP.
Why is it that the further south you go into South America, the older the civilizations appear to be? Seems like they keep finding all kinds of ancient ruins there. Now what is the likelihood that people would wander from the north all the way down there before creating the civilizations they created? Could the Americas have been populated from Antarctica instead, before the polar shift? Prolly not, I guess there were no humans back then, but still...
Actually I wonder why this article says nothing about Monte Verde, the oldest known settlement in the Americas. It is located in the southern tip of Chile which makes it the southern most settlement site in the Americas and it dates to 12,500 BP (Before Present), so it was settled before the Clovis people were around. This dating also places the settlement before the opening of the Bering land bridge between Asia and America.
I'll agree that he's wrong. I'm not sure about the "Fortunately".
It's fortunate in that MS has been sued and the plaintif won. However it's unfortunate that these lawsuits MS lost hasn't prevented MS from doing the same things over again. To be more effective the awards in cases MS looses need to be more than MS makes from patent infringments, if MS isn't compelled to pay more then lawsuits are just another expense of doing business.
Justice isn't for sale, because they're out of stock. Consider, e.g., SCOX vs. IBM. IBM is clearly in the right, and is clearly the wealthier party. SCOX has shown zip in the way of evidence, and even their statement of what they're suing about is incoherent.
While this case has gone way past the point where it should of been ended it's my hope the judges are giving SCO the rope to hang themself with. I'd not only rule IBM won but require SCO to pay IBM's legal costs and disbar the SCO lawyers, request there be a hearing on their actions, or whatever it takes to make sure they never practice law again. If I had the power I'd even fine if not jail Darl et alia.
Then again I very much support people's right to sue an entity that has wronged them. I myself was involved in a lawsuit. Just over ten years ago I was hit while riding my bike, after classes I was taking in college, by an driver who never should of been allowed to drive while on the payroll of a business driving a company vehicle. While I was in a coma my family retained a lawyer to sue the company that employed the driver. Eventually the company's insurance decided to settle but without being able to sue the company it would of been able to get away with the damage their employee created and my family would of been left high and dry having to pay for more than $125,000 in medical bills. And that doesn't count all of the therapy costs, the last tyme I was in therapy it cost $1500 a week and it lasted 6 months. I never did compleat it and the whole tyme I've been on disability. Which really pisses me off, I'd rather be working.
Just goes to show that the legal system in the United States at least is based on money. Pure and simple. If you can afford the lawyers, you can win the battle reguardless of whether your right or wrong. I think the legal system needs an ovehaul.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the way they worked very close to Free Software, though? They would show their code to anyone, and anyone who could improve it was allowed to, etc. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean you're allowed to improve it.
It was both free and open. Many would leave a copy of the code near the terminals so anyone else could look at and try to make improvements to the code. They were then expected to do the same thing. Steven Levy wrote a good book, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution , on this. It goes into both the software and hardware hackers.
Falconmost of the BSD-licensed products in the Linux community have more of sharing culture, and perhaps do not feel as strongly the need to recoup the costs of their development tools :D
I may be wrong but what I understand of the BSD license is that it is less open than the GPL and because of this it's easier to make money from BSD licensed software. A person could take open source code from a project and modify it then sale the new package without opening the code, all that's required is that those who contributed code to what you use you give them credit for.
At least that's my understanding of the BSD license, however I may be wrong. So if someone knows I am wrong I welcome their corrections. Actually I've thought of working a BSD licensed graphics, photoeditting, program. I'm a photographer and GIMP doesn't have many of the capabilities of Photoshop (PS) so unless you make a lot of money the price of PS isn't easily justifiable. Because of this I've thought of working with a BSD licensed app I could program more capabilities into then turn around and make money selling it to other photographers and not have to give the source away, at least not until I've made enough for it to be finacially worth the tyme I spent programming.
FalconActually, SCO [slashdot.org] (back when it was called Caldera) invented Open Source back in 1996 [google.com]. Yes, that's before the OSI thing, though after the foundation of the FSF.
The Tech Model Railroad Club of MIT had open source software as early as the 1960s and early 1970s beating out SCO by a long shot. The first computer game, Spacewar, came out in 1962 as a result of many programmers' contributions in an open manner. They used to compeat to see who could come up with a nifty hack, something that was considered impossible, never thought of, or was able to shave a few lines out of a program. Those programmer were amoung the first computer hackers and followed the Hacker ethic.
FalconEnergy effeciency is a far better, cheaper, and more effective route than building nuke plants.
Despite what Cheney says efficiency is all three of these, better, cheaper, and more effective than bulding not just nuclear power plants but any power plant. I want to build a home Off the Grid and build a hybrid energy system of solar PVs and wind gennies, generators. First step though is building it as energy efficient as possible. Home Power is a good magazine with articles showing just how this can be done. Solar Today also has good articles on designing buildings and energy systems.
Would be a combination of renewables, and algae biomass driven "Air Blown Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle" power plants.
Better probably is using algae to produce hydrogen.
Falcon"In part I guess it's because it's a cooler colour, which I prefer because I won't get as hot myself."
Is that a joke?
No, it's not. Colours, especially of light, can have a big impact on how warm or cool and other feelings I experience just as it does for others. Red hot, cool blue, green with envy, et alia.
FalconPerhaps the new bulb GE is developing?
When GE commercializes these bulbs then I'll look at them.
FalconThen I would say that the optimal solution is incandescent bulbs and nuclear power. So let's get the move on! Mandate nukes, not some stop-gap measure that requires a whole new level of the old recycling boondoogle.
Isn't nuclear power a stop gap measure? And one that creates and leaves more problems than they solve? In the US the Bush admin wants to use Yucca Mountain as permanent storage, well for 10,000, when the halflife of some of the waste is millions of years. On top of that Yucca is a seismically active region, having had earthquakes in the area, and has a volcano not too far away.
Someone can then say the waste can be reprocessed, as the French do. IEEE's magazine IEEE Spectrum has an article in the Febuary 2007 issue, Nuclear Wasteland by Peter Fairley asking "The French are recycling nuclear waste. Should other countries follow suit?" He brings up problems reprocessing creates including reprocessing concentrates high level waste that's hotter and harder to handle than waste that isn't reprocessed.
FalconBut if we use bulbs that don't have mercury, but are as efficient, it's that much more mercury that isn't introduced into the environment.
Ah but what bulbs are available that are as efficient as if not more so than CFLs? LED lghts are more efficient however currently they are only good for spot lighting, not for area lighting.
FalconThe first problem is that the CFLs only last 6 to 12 months in my house. I suppose I have pretty poor power, since I live in the country, but the incandescents seem to handle it much better. This failure rate adds significantly to the cost of CFLs, and makes mockery of those little marketing charts that show that CFLs last 7 times as long as incandescents.
There must be a problem with your wiring or power, I've been using CFLs for more than 15 years and in that tyme I've only replaced two of them when they burned out. The first was several years ago and the second a few months ago. Looking at my lights now I see I need to replace a third one, and I have 12 CFLs I use.
Even the new "instant-on" CFL's are not as fast as I am.
That's one of the two problems I've run into with CFLs, some take some minutes to fully come on. The other problem is in how CFLs affect photo shots.
I now feel that the solution is to move to individually generated solar or wind power. If I want to use more power, I obtain more solar panels. That way, any limitations are self-imposed, and the State does not have to tell me what kind of light bulbs I can or can't buy.
In a way I agree, I was designing a home I eventually wanted to build that was totally energy selfsufficient. Two of my fav mags are Homepower and Solar Today . I also think government, whether local, state, or national shouldn't be banning anything. However they can take steps to encourage energy efficiency.
FalconNote that micro-flourescents contain mercury that if not re-cycled ends up in landfills.
Ah but how much does CFLs prevent from being emitted in the atmosphere when coal is burned? CFLs should be recycled, as should most things after they've been reused, however I read a study some tyme back that concluded CFLs prevent more mercury from being emitted by coal fired powerplants than the amount they contain.
FalconNot to mention that fluorescents let out a high-pitched noise, and some people can see their flickering, as well
All of the light bulbs I have are all CFLs and I don't hear any "high-pitched" noises from them. Neither do I detect flickering, and I would if they did as flickering gives me headaches. Today's CFLs aren't yesteryears' florescents.
FalconThe best ones I've found so far are the Sylvania "Daylight Extra" bulbs. They're marked 3500K, so they're really not "daylight" bulbs, but that's okay, since I think the 5600K bulbs all look way too blue.
Guess I'm unusual in that I prefer bluish tinted lights under normal circumstances indoors. In part I guess it's because it's a cooler colour, which I prefer because I won't get as hot myself. Now outdoors it's another matter.
FalconFor framing a house, concrete blocks were cheaper than wood, and insulated so well that no A/C was needed.
I grew up in a concrete block home in Florida and if we hadn't had a/c then the inside would of gotten as sweaty smelling as a gym locker room. As it is I used to get up off the bed and lay down to sleep on the concrete, trasel (sic), floor because it was relatively cool but the house itself would be hot. The bed sheets would be soaked with my sweat so I'd put them under the faucet to soak them then wring them out to spread on the floor to lay on.
FalconThere are times when you *need* incandescent lighting, photography for one.
The first thought I had when reading this article was what effects they would have on photography. One of the first assignments I had in photography class in college was we had to shoot one set of photos with incandescent lights and another with florescents.
And initial costs of fluorescents are more because you need the ballast etc.
Today's CFLs don't need an external ballast, one is built into the lights. And the prices have gone down a lot as well. While they are still much more expensive than incandescent lights the price isn't too bad, just a few months ago I bought some CFLs for less than $2 a bulb and they last several tymes longer than incandescents.
The fact that these lawmakers don't understand enough of the technology to make it workable really gets on my chimes.
California screwed up when they passed the law banning incandescents. Instead they should of passed a law encouraging energy efficient lights, say by levying a new tax on inefficient lights and maybe reducng or eliminating tax on efficient lights.
FalconAh, OK. Based on your description of travelling there, I'm sure that you meant just "London". London, Ontario is a good-size city (by Canadian standards), and is about 2 hours northeast of Detroit (about halfway between Detroit and Toronto).
It might of been London, I did see there was a New London in both Montreal and Quebec using Google Maps. However the one in Ontario was too far north and the one in Quebec too far east.
Falcon1491 is an awesome book that discusses this and lots of other evidence about the population and civilization of the Americas (N & S) before the Europeans arrived.
I've got a copy of the book on my desk between me and my monitor, but I haven't started reading it yet.
FalconThe weak tribes were driven out by the strong tribes. Humans are territorial by nature and limted resources are usually controlled by those with more power, leaving the weak to find food in less hospitable places.
I wish I had a link to a study I read about to share with you. The study was mentioned in an article regarding this topic in one of the science magazines. Anyway the study concluded that people living where there's plenty to eat are more likely to be peaceful and share food, land and other resources, and that's it's those people who live in harsh environments such as in deserts that are more warlike and that there's more fighting between tribes. That I know of there's only one tribe or group of tribes that breaks this, the Bedouin Arabs. In Israel they call themself Israeli Arabs and don't fight Hebrews or Jews. Some are elected members of Israel's government. Then again Bedouins have been and are generally pastorialists and don't wage war.
FalconThere are Inuit populations that until recently, fed themselves quite nicely hunting in seas full of pack ice, in boats made of whale bone and seal skin.
Ah but now the Inuit are finding it harder to feed themself. They used to be able to depend on thick ice to hunt now the ice is getting thinner and thinner with some Inuits breaking through and getting soaked, and three minutes in the freezing water is enough to kill ya. Another problem the Inuit have is PCB which compromises their immune system.
FalconHow the hell are you using Google to not find any match for "declarative judgement" [google.com]???
Did you click on my link?
FalconIf the first humans came from the north through asia,
Ah, but the first people in the Americas didn't come from Asia acroos the Bering land bridge into the Americas. Monte Verde in southern Chile, and fathest south you can get in the Americas, is dated 12,500 BP (Before Present) which means it predates the Bering Land Bridge. The Bering Land Bridge formed around 12,000 BP.
FalconA book I recommend is 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C Mann.
FalconWhy is it that the further south you go into South America, the older the civilizations appear to be? Seems like they keep finding all kinds of ancient ruins there. Now what is the likelihood that people would wander from the north all the way down there before creating the civilizations they created? Could the Americas have been populated from Antarctica instead, before the polar shift? Prolly not, I guess there were no humans back then, but still...
Actually I wonder why this article says nothing about Monte Verde, the oldest known settlement in the Americas. It is located in the southern tip of Chile which makes it the southern most settlement site in the Americas and it dates to 12,500 BP (Before Present), so it was settled before the Clovis people were around. This dating also places the settlement before the opening of the Bering land bridge between Asia and America.
FalconFortunately you're wrong.
I'll agree that he's wrong. I'm not sure about the "Fortunately".
It's fortunate in that MS has been sued and the plaintif won. However it's unfortunate that these lawsuits MS lost hasn't prevented MS from doing the same things over again. To be more effective the awards in cases MS looses need to be more than MS makes from patent infringments, if MS isn't compelled to pay more then lawsuits are just another expense of doing business.
Justice isn't for sale, because they're out of stock. Consider, e.g., SCOX vs. IBM. IBM is clearly in the right, and is clearly the wealthier party. SCOX has shown zip in the way of evidence, and even their statement of what they're suing about is incoherent.
While this case has gone way past the point where it should of been ended it's my hope the judges are giving SCO the rope to hang themself with. I'd not only rule IBM won but require SCO to pay IBM's legal costs and disbar the SCO lawyers, request there be a hearing on their actions, or whatever it takes to make sure they never practice law again. If I had the power I'd even fine if not jail Darl et alia.
Then again I very much support people's right to sue an entity that has wronged them. I myself was involved in a lawsuit. Just over ten years ago I was hit while riding my bike, after classes I was taking in college, by an driver who never should of been allowed to drive while on the payroll of a business driving a company vehicle. While I was in a coma my family retained a lawyer to sue the company that employed the driver. Eventually the company's insurance decided to settle but without being able to sue the company it would of been able to get away with the damage their employee created and my family would of been left high and dry having to pay for more than $125,000 in medical bills. And that doesn't count all of the therapy costs, the last tyme I was in therapy it cost $1500 a week and it lasted 6 months. I never did compleat it and the whole tyme I've been on disability. Which really pisses me off, I'd rather be working.
FalconYour search - "declarative judgement". - did not match any documents.
FalconJust goes to show that the legal system in the United States at least is based on money. Pure and simple. If you can afford the lawyers, you can win the battle reguardless of whether your right or wrong. I think the legal system needs an ovehaul.
Fortunately you're wrong. Microsoft has lost lawsuits. Microsoft loses appeal in Office patent spat. Microsoft loses Excel patent case. Microsoft even settled a lawsuit with Novell, Microsoft to pay Novell $536 million settlement. So MS does loose some lawsuits but unfortunately by the tyme MS is made to pay they've made more than they're required to pay and/or the other party is out of business.
Falcon