Sorry, I'm still in the dark... How can they tell that a particular gene is related to "metabolism of metals, or peculiar photosynthetic components" unless they observe some organism actually doing it? It seems like what they're going to discover is, at best, that some subset of the zillions of microbes in a given beaker have some ability. We're still don't know which ones.
Re:I think is was said somewhere else...
on
P2P Leaks Surprises
·
· Score: 1
If they just grab DNA out of microbes they find floating around in the ocean, how will they know what genes correspond to what? Wouldn't it make more sense to sequence the DNA of things about which we have some knowledge?
(This isn't a rhetorical question -- I'm simply curious but ignorant.)
300 Mbps is roughly the peak speed that a garden-variety PCI bus peripheral can manage (many can go somewhat faster, but essentially if you've got something that can pump 300 Mbps to PC, you're running pretty close to its useful capacity. (I think we did all this math last week as part of the slashdot story in 10Gb ethernet...) Coincidence, or shrewd marketing?
Only a small number of pages contain info that requires a plug-in which appears to only work under IE. More like stupidity than discrimination; here's the message I get (using Safari):
This site is best viewed when using Internet Explorer.
Your using: Netscape5
What does someone like Weird Al Yankovich do? Does he pay the copyright holders for the songs he parodies? Seems like whatever applies to W.A.Y. applies here.
There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.
I doubt it... you'd be hard pressed to find a jury that devoid of sense. Most laws in the criminal code are defined with quite a bit of interpretation built in. For example, the definition of homicide does not contain an enumeration of all the possible ways that one person can cause the death of another (because there would always be a new one...). Instead, it's just defined in terms of, well, causing death.
If you had ever compiled the Xfree yourself you would know...
I guess I'm just lucky and/or the FreeBSD ports people do a great job, but I've never had a problem rebuilding XFree86 (except for the fact that it takes overnight to compile on my slow system...)
The new X license blocks anyone from linking a GPL program to it.
I concur that this sucks.
But this raises a further question -- can they really do that? And why?
I thought the main contribution of XFree was the server, which people don't link to anyway. The X11 libraries are non-trivial, but there are other forks of the original X consortium code so it seems stupid to even attempt this kind of restriction.
If you put unneccessary restrictions in your licence, someone will fork your code...
Not unless they can get the source in the first place and the license permits it. Otherwise we probably would have a fork of windows dating back to about 1988.
But I'm curious what restrictions the XFree people added and why it caused all this ruckus. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to my ability to get the source or play with it. What am I missing?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, boy, an arms race. That always works out for the best... Nothing like Mutual Assured Lawsuits to foster inovation.
p.s. I'm applying for copyright on the phrase "Mutual Assured Lawsuits."
Not to be nasty, but you might want to be careful about criticizing my English if you can't even capitalize the word properly.
Sorry, I'm still in the dark... How can they tell that a particular gene is related to "metabolism of metals, or peculiar photosynthetic components" unless they observe some organism actually doing it? It seems like what they're going to discover is, at best, that some subset of the zillions of microbes in a given beaker have some ability. We're still don't know which ones.
(This isn't a rhetorical question -- I'm simply curious but ignorant.)
300 Mbps is roughly the peak speed that a garden-variety PCI bus peripheral can manage (many can go somewhat faster, but essentially if you've got something that can pump 300 Mbps to PC, you're running pretty close to its useful capacity. (I think we did all this math last week as part of the slashdot story in 10Gb ethernet...) Coincidence, or shrewd marketing?
This site is best viewed when using Internet Explorer. Your using: Netscape5
So they should be (at least) doubly-embarrassed.
What does someone like Weird Al Yankovich do? Does he pay the copyright holders for the songs he parodies? Seems like whatever applies to W.A.Y. applies here.
I doubt it... you'd be hard pressed to find a jury that devoid of sense. Most laws in the criminal code are defined with quite a bit of interpretation built in. For example, the definition of homicide does not contain an enumeration of all the possible ways that one person can cause the death of another (because there would always be a new one...). Instead, it's just defined in terms of, well, causing death.
I guess I'm just lucky and/or the FreeBSD ports people do a great job, but I've never had a problem rebuilding XFree86 (except for the fact that it takes overnight to compile on my slow system...)
I concur that this sucks.
But this raises a further question -- can they really do that? And why? I thought the main contribution of XFree was the server, which people don't link to anyway. The X11 libraries are non-trivial, but there are other forks of the original X consortium code so it seems stupid to even attempt this kind of restriction.
But I'm curious what restrictions the XFree people added and why it caused all this ruckus. It doesn't seem to have made any difference to my ability to get the source or play with it. What am I missing?