From Wikipedia: "it is possible that some molecules reach a state of no kinetic energy while others have more kinetic energy than the measured energy. Since the average between the lower and higher measurements give us the temperature we read, it is quite possible for some molecules to reach zero Kelvin."
Yes, it is possible for things to be colder, like in the above extreme example of molecules with no kinetic energy. I think the novel part of the Large Hadron Collider is its scale. Bringing something this large (a circular tunnel with a circumference of 17 miles) to such a low temperature is the impressive part.
Here in Southern California, if you are more than 20 miles inland, the typical summer daytime temperature is around 100. I think it makes much more sense to throw solar panels on top of the houses instead of giving up and letting the people roast.
You first argue that it is illegal to study someone's GPL'd code and reimplement it. It is not - this is the meaning of the free in "free software." Then you argue that it could be considered illegal in court to examine code too closely. But your Wikipedia article's only mention of a court case was the one that set the precedent that it is *legal* to reverse engineer and closely examine existing code. I think legally, it is entirely safe to look through GPL code as long as you don't copy it. The point of clean room design is to avoid copying patented ideas and algorithms, not "free" ideas and algorithms.
So, given the fact that you are a paying member of the FSF, I don't understand your argument. I try not to push discussions this deep on Slashdot, but I seriously want to understand why it would be illegal, or even legally risky, for Apple to use Linux for ideas for its own kernel.
"You can claim as much as you like that you only ripped of "ideas and algorithms", but the courts (and opposing lawyers) will find it otherwise."
You have claimed that this will hold up in court twice now. Please cite something, because my intuition tells me that something like that is so ridiculously hard to prove (perhaps even impossible) that no court would find someone guilty of of anything less than copying code directly. Proving intent in court is a tough, pointless thing.
For the record, GPL does not ban people from looking at its code; in fact, this is the opposite of its intention.
Well, I wasn't thinking of ripping off source code so much as ripping off ideas and algorithms, neither of which can be copyrighted (nor can they be covered by GPL). A decent engineer can read code and understand it well enough that there is no need to "copy" the code.
"it will just get better and better, and eventually even Apple will not be able to avoid using Linux, because it will be THAT GOOD"
I don't know much about the open source OS community, but it seems to me that this isn't true. While the open source community spends 100s of man hours improving Linux, Apple can study its source code and implement what they want into their own kernel in much less time; meanwhile, they can afford to hire programmers to improve on top of all this. Therefore, I think the steady-state is for OSX to always be a step ahead of Linux; the second Linux is improved, I am sure someone at Apple is reading through the code changes.
If we REFUSE to give any money to the people who put effort into publicizing artists, music might as well as be dead. I don't buy the record studio's argument that we need them, but in their absence the grassroots movement needs some funding.
If you are too cheap to tack 15% on top of your donation, just go to the artist's page and donate directly.
Good point, I'm surprised Slashdot doesn't do that for us. Here ya go:
"A new startup named Pluribo has developed a technology that can auto-summarize user reviews on the internet. It is a Firefox extension that can take a webpage filled with reviews and condense it down into a couple of sentences."
I think that Microsoft live product already has strong AI; it knows how to brown-nose so Microsoft doesn't kill it:
"Windows? Millennium Edition, or Windows Me, is the home operating system for PC?s that brings the richness and convenience of the digital world to your home. Windows Me is designed specifically for the home PC user. It represents the first major milestone towards advancing the vision of the Windows Division and further simplifying the computing experience for consumers. Windows Me delivers in 4 key areas. It?s one of the best in digital media, it improves user experience, enhances home networking, and delivers a rich internet experience. Advanced help functions make it the most trouble-free operating system for the home. System Restore lets users easily return their systems to a working state, and System File Protection safeguards key system files. Help and support resources are easily accessible from a single location, and AutoUpdate lets users easily schedule automatic updates from the Windows Update site. For a high-powered operating system for your home computer, go with Microsoft?s Windows Millennium Edition."
I normally buy components and build my own computer. I usually save about 10-50% from Dell's prices, and more on Apple's (assuming I already have the OS).
I tried to price a computer with similar specs to the Mac Pro, and I was surprised: A. It's impossible with parts Newegg sells B. When I tried to spec a computer as similar as possible, it cost about 4000 dollars, i.e. 30% more
So, while the extra additions may cost more, Apple really is the only option if you want a top of the line consumer computer. The smartest thing to do, as you hint at, is to buy the base computer and upgrade the computer. If you do this, make sure the parts you are buying are the same quality as Apple's because cheap parts can produce bottlenecks in performance.
Wouldn't it be much smarter just not to commit crimes near cameras? Either: 1. Your diversion isn't very good and the camera will continue scanning elsewhere when it realizes this, seeing the crime 2. Your diversion is good, and calls the cops, who will trivially catch you
I fail to see how committing crimes near cameras make sense. What I would do (which is what plenty of people currently do) if I wanted to commit a crime near a camera is destroy the camera first. See http://aia.mahost.org/act_cctv.html
I somehow doubt a list of people who bought the best selling video game of all time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Sales) - with 22 million sales - would generate much buzz online. I think GTA is far less controversial than the media wants us to believe; for every Jack Thompson/vocal-overprotective mom out there, 50,000 people bought the game.
It's not just moral objections, there are two other reasons I can think of that explain why smart people aren't going into any sort of government defense job: 1. It doesn't pay as well as private organizations. Likewise, it's often not a meritocracy. I worked for a defense contractor, and I found that incompetence was rampant. 2. Most graduate level engineers/scientists cannot obtain a security clearance because they are not citizens. This puts an automatic cap on any defense related career.
As far as I am aware, Gmail was the first mainstream e-mail service/client that did not load remote images automatically. Before then, these tracking products were plausible, but fortunately most clients I am aware of have followed suit and ruined the business plan.
Now, the only way to truly track e-mails is to request the user click on a link to an external website to read the message. I don't know many people who would do this without suspicion.
You are referencing the blog, not the article; the article is more clear about it. They explain that the cool part of this processor is that it is so efficient, it only requires a tiny battery the same size as the processor. The main thing that is preventing portable electronics from being smaller is their battery. Case in point: the laptop which has a battery 5000 times larger than the part that is actually doing the work.
Kind of an obvious and not so ground breaking statement, but at least it makes sense.
Microsoft didn't lose any ruling... Asus is forced into purchasing Windows for all computers, and they certainly don't pay 200 dollars per copy, so the money came out of Asus' pockets.
The GP only said he disagrees with this. In all fairness, Europe has a lot of laws that are overbearing and I disagree with. On a site like Slashdot, you will find a lot of libertarian-minded people who find laws like this unfair. It is up to the computer seller to decide what to package with their systems, not non-technical politicians. The GP makes an excellent point that if the purchaser knew what he was getting, the ruling isn't "fair."
It may be the law, and yes, the guy theoretically can leave France, but no one is obligated to agree with what happened.
Models constantly change as more data is analyzed and experiments are run. That is how Eisenstein replaced Newton, Bohr replaced Rutherford, etc...
In this case, scientists have to extrapolate a lot from what information they have. How do we truly know the mixture of matter 100-4000 miles below us when the most we can dig is 2 miles? I'm guessing the basics are still the same - average density, average temperature, but otherwise it's always been a bit of guessing (and still is)
I think the take-home message is that most people don't want to contribute much. The reason is obvious to me - after 40+ hours of working in a week, most people I know want to relax and not think much; passively watching TV is the perfect outlet.
That's not fair - they are cramming 50,000 articles into 1000 pages. What this means is that most of the "articles" in the book are heavily cut down- i.e. *edited* by someone. Wikipedia in a book form hasn't been done before for that obvious reason - there is simply too much information in too much space. Putting it into a concise form truly is a skill worth paying for.
Besides, isn't the whole point of open and free (something I thought Slashdot stood for) that anyone can freely distribute the collective work? When I put time into editing Wikipedia, my main goal is that as many people as possible can benefit from what I do.
Agreed. I don't see any real difference between IT people and other people politically, except that IT people tend to me a bit more libertarian (and obviously concerned with a politician's IT platform). One time a non-CS friend asked me why computer science people lean libertarian, and I honestly couldn't answer... when most polls show Ron Paul at under 5%, why do 10% of IT people support him?
Slashdot Mirror
From Wikipedia: "it is possible that some molecules reach a state of no kinetic energy while others have more kinetic energy than the measured energy. Since the average between the lower and higher measurements give us the temperature we read, it is quite possible for some molecules to reach zero Kelvin."
Yes, it is possible for things to be colder, like in the above extreme example of molecules with no kinetic energy. I think the novel part of the Large Hadron Collider is its scale. Bringing something this large (a circular tunnel with a circumference of 17 miles) to such a low temperature is the impressive part.
Here in Southern California, if you are more than 20 miles inland, the typical summer daytime temperature is around 100. I think it makes much more sense to throw solar panels on top of the houses instead of giving up and letting the people roast.
You first argue that it is illegal to study someone's GPL'd code and reimplement it. It is not - this is the meaning of the free in "free software." Then you argue that it could be considered illegal in court to examine code too closely. But your Wikipedia article's only mention of a court case was the one that set the precedent that it is *legal* to reverse engineer and closely examine existing code. I think legally, it is entirely safe to look through GPL code as long as you don't copy it. The point of clean room design is to avoid copying patented ideas and algorithms, not "free" ideas and algorithms.
So, given the fact that you are a paying member of the FSF, I don't understand your argument. I try not to push discussions this deep on Slashdot, but I seriously want to understand why it would be illegal, or even legally risky, for Apple to use Linux for ideas for its own kernel.
"You can claim as much as you like that you only ripped of "ideas and algorithms", but the courts (and opposing lawyers) will find it otherwise."
You have claimed that this will hold up in court twice now. Please cite something, because my intuition tells me that something like that is so ridiculously hard to prove (perhaps even impossible) that no court would find someone guilty of of anything less than copying code directly. Proving intent in court is a tough, pointless thing.
For the record, GPL does not ban people from looking at its code; in fact, this is the opposite of its intention.
Well, I wasn't thinking of ripping off source code so much as ripping off ideas and algorithms, neither of which can be copyrighted (nor can they be covered by GPL). A decent engineer can read code and understand it well enough that there is no need to "copy" the code.
"it will just get better and better, and eventually even Apple will not be able to avoid using Linux, because it will be THAT GOOD"
I don't know much about the open source OS community, but it seems to me that this isn't true. While the open source community spends 100s of man hours improving Linux, Apple can study its source code and implement what they want into their own kernel in much less time; meanwhile, they can afford to hire programmers to improve on top of all this. Therefore, I think the steady-state is for OSX to always be a step ahead of Linux; the second Linux is improved, I am sure someone at Apple is reading through the code changes.
If we REFUSE to give any money to the people who put effort into publicizing artists, music might as well as be dead. I don't buy the record studio's argument that we need them, but in their absence the grassroots movement needs some funding.
If you are too cheap to tack 15% on top of your donation, just go to the artist's page and donate directly.
Most fireworks shows I know of in the USA happen from land over water. Why do you say you doubt they would do that?
At Disney World I know they shoot the fireworks from either on land or near land over the water.
Good point, I'm surprised Slashdot doesn't do that for us. Here ya go:
"A new startup named Pluribo has developed a technology that can auto-summarize user reviews on the internet. It is a Firefox extension that can take a webpage filled with reviews and condense it down into a couple of sentences."
I think that Microsoft live product already has strong AI; it knows how to brown-nose so Microsoft doesn't kill it:
"Windows? Millennium Edition, or Windows Me, is the home operating system for PC?s that brings the richness and convenience of the digital world to your home. Windows Me is designed specifically for the home PC user. It represents the first major milestone towards advancing the vision of the Windows Division and further simplifying the computing experience for consumers. Windows Me delivers in 4 key areas. It?s one of the best in digital media, it improves user experience, enhances home networking, and delivers a rich internet experience. Advanced help functions make it the most trouble-free operating system for the home. System Restore lets users easily return their systems to a working state, and System File Protection safeguards key system files. Help and support resources are easily accessible from a single location, and AutoUpdate lets users easily schedule automatic updates from the Windows Update site. For a high-powered operating system for your home computer, go with Microsoft?s Windows Millennium Edition."
I normally buy components and build my own computer. I usually save about 10-50% from Dell's prices, and more on Apple's (assuming I already have the OS).
I tried to price a computer with similar specs to the Mac Pro, and I was surprised:
A. It's impossible with parts Newegg sells
B. When I tried to spec a computer as similar as possible, it cost about 4000 dollars, i.e. 30% more
So, while the extra additions may cost more, Apple really is the only option if you want a top of the line consumer computer. The smartest thing to do, as you hint at, is to buy the base computer and upgrade the computer. If you do this, make sure the parts you are buying are the same quality as Apple's because cheap parts can produce bottlenecks in performance.
Wouldn't it be much smarter just not to commit crimes near cameras? Either:
1. Your diversion isn't very good and the camera will continue scanning elsewhere when it realizes this, seeing the crime
2. Your diversion is good, and calls the cops, who will trivially catch you
I fail to see how committing crimes near cameras make sense. What I would do (which is what plenty of people currently do) if I wanted to commit a crime near a camera is destroy the camera first.
See http://aia.mahost.org/act_cctv.html
I somehow doubt a list of people who bought the best selling video game of all time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas#Sales) - with 22 million sales - would generate much buzz online. I think GTA is far less controversial than the media wants us to believe; for every Jack Thompson/vocal-overprotective mom out there, 50,000 people bought the game.
It's not just moral objections, there are two other reasons I can think of that explain why smart people aren't going into any sort of government defense job:
1. It doesn't pay as well as private organizations. Likewise, it's often not a meritocracy. I worked for a defense contractor, and I found that incompetence was rampant.
2. Most graduate level engineers/scientists cannot obtain a security clearance because they are not citizens. This puts an automatic cap on any defense related career.
As far as I am aware, Gmail was the first mainstream e-mail service/client that did not load remote images automatically. Before then, these tracking products were plausible, but fortunately most clients I am aware of have followed suit and ruined the business plan.
Now, the only way to truly track e-mails is to request the user click on a link to an external website to read the message. I don't know many people who would do this without suspicion.
You are referencing the blog, not the article; the article is more clear about it. They explain that the cool part of this processor is that it is so efficient, it only requires a tiny battery the same size as the processor. The main thing that is preventing portable electronics from being smaller is their battery. Case in point: the laptop which has a battery 5000 times larger than the part that is actually doing the work.
Kind of an obvious and not so ground breaking statement, but at least it makes sense.
This may be the best use of the tag "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" ever.
Microsoft didn't lose any ruling... Asus is forced into purchasing Windows for all computers, and they certainly don't pay 200 dollars per copy, so the money came out of Asus' pockets.
The GP only said he disagrees with this. In all fairness, Europe has a lot of laws that are overbearing and I disagree with. On a site like Slashdot, you will find a lot of libertarian-minded people who find laws like this unfair. It is up to the computer seller to decide what to package with their systems, not non-technical politicians. The GP makes an excellent point that if the purchaser knew what he was getting, the ruling isn't "fair."
It may be the law, and yes, the guy theoretically can leave France, but no one is obligated to agree with what happened.
Models constantly change as more data is analyzed and experiments are run. That is how Eisenstein replaced Newton, Bohr replaced Rutherford, etc...
In this case, scientists have to extrapolate a lot from what information they have. How do we truly know the mixture of matter 100-4000 miles below us when the most we can dig is 2 miles? I'm guessing the basics are still the same - average density, average temperature, but otherwise it's always been a bit of guessing (and still is)
This is an interesting analysis of the distribution of users who contribute online:
http://www.tiara.org/blog/?p=272
I think the take-home message is that most people don't want to contribute much. The reason is obvious to me - after 40+ hours of working in a week, most people I know want to relax and not think much; passively watching TV is the perfect outlet.
"any mention of helping others gets you labelled a 'socialist' or a 'commie'."
Wasn't it like that during the previous generation? And the generation before that?
That's not fair - they are cramming 50,000 articles into 1000 pages. What this means is that most of the "articles" in the book are heavily cut down- i.e. *edited* by someone. Wikipedia in a book form hasn't been done before for that obvious reason - there is simply too much information in too much space. Putting it into a concise form truly is a skill worth paying for.
Besides, isn't the whole point of open and free (something I thought Slashdot stood for) that anyone can freely distribute the collective work? When I put time into editing Wikipedia, my main goal is that as many people as possible can benefit from what I do.
I have a truly marvelous list of the moves which this comment box is too small to contain
Agreed. I don't see any real difference between IT people and other people politically, except that IT people tend to me a bit more libertarian (and obviously concerned with a politician's IT platform). One time a non-CS friend asked me why computer science people lean libertarian, and I honestly couldn't answer... when most polls show Ron Paul at under 5%, why do 10% of IT people support him?