Buesseler said it is possible to enrich larger areas of the oceans around Antarctica with iron, but that the net result would likely be the removal of only a few percent of the extra carbon in the atmosphere.
Besides, who is going to pay for it? What are going to be the unforeseen consequences?
It's cheaper and simpler not to generate the CO2 in the first place.
As long as Microsoft has any patent even remotely related to any of the listed protocols, this is a valid legal agreement, because each side is giving something to the other. And while what you are getting is probably not useful to you, Microsoft is getting something very useful out of it: you have to display their licensing notices and you have to face restrictions in how you can sublicense your software (which probably also means that you can't work on many open source projects in the future).
If you actually execute the license agreement, you will be under all sorts of legal obligations to Microsoft that you weren't under before; for example, you need to put a notice into your software and you may be restricted in how you can sublicense it. And you get nothing from them in return because they don't actually own any of the protocols. This is not a "liberal" license, it's a license for suckers.
"Modifications" means any (a) change or addition to the
Technology or (b) new source or object code implementing any portion of the Technology.
Therefore, yes, you may indeed use any information in intangible form that you remember, as long as you don't use it for implementing any portion of Java. That's because any portion of Java you implement after agreeing to the JRL is considered a "Modification" under the license agreement and would therefore fall under the viral terms of the JRL.
In other words, you can read the code to learn how it works and use that knowledge. You just can't cut-and-paste Sun's code into another project.
That would be a reasonable license, but that is not what the JRL seems to say.
but I feel that anyone that has taken the time to create software or whatever has the right to define the terms upon how it is used.
Yes, and users have a right to discuss and decide for themselves whether a particular piece of software comes with a license that is acceptable. That's not "whining", it's sensible if you don't want to get locked into something proprietary. And it's something that both FOSS users and commercial users have a responsibility to do.
So it's a bit of giving and a bit of taking.
No, it's a little giving by Sun and a lot of taking: Sun wants to establish Java as a pervasive proprietary standard, making both Linux and Windows irrelevant in the process. And they are doing it in a way in which other people are doing much of the hard work for them (JCP, JRL, etc.). Sun is worse than Microsoft: at least Microsoft pays for their own development.
IBM has called on Sun to open source Java, so the obstacle is Sun, not IBM. The fact that IBM has contributed so much to J2SE is probably a thorn in IBM's side because they did a lot of work and Sun effectively gets to control what happens with it.
Obtaining the license is no problem. [...] Your implementation has to pass the compatibility tests, though.
So, you have to execute a license with Sun and then Sun gets to look at your implementation before you finish it and decide whether they like it. If they don't like it, you don't get to distribute it. Would you consider it "open" if Microsoft did that? Well, you shouldn't when Sun does it either.
I think you have to pay if you want to use the trademark name Java.
It's not about whether you have to pay. A standard can fail to be open even if you don't have to pay in order to implement. Like, for example, when a company like Sun has the final say over whether your implementation measures up to their standards.
There are several clean room implementations of Java (GCJ, Kaffe, TowerJ, Jeode and others I forget).
GCJ and Kaffe are not implementations of Java since what they implement is only a subset and has not passed compatibility tests. TowerJ was merely an implementation of the compiler and relied on Sun Java for the libraries (it also doesn't seem to exist anymore). And Jeode is only an implementation of the embedded version of Java, not the full Java platform.
The Java platform cannot be legally reimplemented without meeting Sun's compatibility requirements and without obtaining licenses for several of Sun's patents (Sun has refrained to enforce that against open source, but as Unisys and SCO show you, you can cause trouble many years after some infringement has taken place). As a result, the Java platform is not open (i.e., an "open standard") in the long-established meaning of the term.
the computer industry (Sun specifically) has used the word "open" for many years
The computer industry has used the term "open standard" for many years. The term "open source", however, used to refer to publicly available intelligence sources before the open source movement applied it to software. And, whether you believe me on the the history or not, most people will understand it to mean what opensource.org says it means; any attempt by Sun or anybody else to play semantic games and pretend that their software "is open source" for some unusual meaning of "is", "open", or "source" is just being deceptive.
I'm referring to both the JRL and the SCSL. The JRL is so obviously and explicitly not an open source license that it doesn't even deserve a comment (either from me or from Debian). But since you brought it up...
and the other (JRL) which has yet to be judged
Don't try to create the impression that there is any ambiguity. The JRL is not open source; it allows the code to be used only for "research purposes" and prohibits "commercial use".
Please bother to read the article or at least follow the links in the headline.
If you bothered to follow the links in the headline, you would know full well that the JRL is not an open source license. If you thought that was worth pointing out, you should have done so, rather than creating the false impression that the issue is anything but crystal clear.
You can find Sun's license here. Sun admits that it isn't an open source license, they are just trying to argue that it is somehow better than open source.
Because Debian is forced to classify software into open source or not, Debian has had to look at this in some detail, and they concluded that it was not open source.
Yes, you can download the J2SE 5.0 source code. But once you do, you will be bound by Sun's source code license agreements. Some companies and open source projects interpret those license agreements in such a way that you will not be able to work on projects covering anything that overlaps with functionality in the Java distribution.
I'd recommend you read Sun's licenses carefully in their entirety and think about its implications carefully before you download the source code and look at it.
Furthermore, you should carefully think about what you are getting out of agreeing to the license and what Sun is getting out of it (I find Sun's licenses inequitable).
If you want to find out how Java-like compilers and runtimes are developed and built, there are truly open source systems you might look at that don't saddle you with the kinds of restrictions Sun wants to impose on you (and they are likely better systems to learn from anyway).
Internal politics, didn't like the traffic in Waltham (where Novell is now HQ'd), really did leave to "pursue other opportunities", doesn't matter.
Chris Stone said that "it is with some regret" that he is leaving and he got a big severance package. That doesn't sound like it was an amicable parting.
As much as folks invest in the cult of personality Linux wouldn't come to a screeching halt without Torvalds,
In this case, it's Wall Street and customers that may have invested millions that are practicing the cult of personality, and they will be practicing it with Novell the same way as they do with any other company. (Besides, like it or not, without these cults of personality, Linux, MS, Apple, and other big projects just wouldn't exist.)
No, the sky isn't falling, but this is the sort of thing investors do pay attention to, and the ball is in Novell's court to come up with an explanation and a reassuring response.
The goal of every academic is to be on the leading edge of a new wave of discovery.
Academics are just far out enough to appear innovative yet still get published. That usually isn't very far out.
For example, most of physics is happening around the fringes of two theories we already can't both be right at the same time (quantum mechanics, general relativity), and the few brave souls that try to look at alternatives are generally considered a little cooky, if not worse. On the other hand, work trying to fit new phenomena into existing frameworks with the most contorted arguments is hailed as high quality work.
Academics are crowd pleasers and herd animals. If they are trying to be on the leading edge of anything, it's more like the leading edge of a stampede of bulls.
Who are you kidding? Apple goes around telling everybody to "switch" from PCs, although I suppose they realize the futility of trying to "kill" Windows. But they sure are trying to kill Linux and UNIX (although not having much success there either).
PGAdmin II. It is based on a mature, open source, cross-platform GUI toolkit and written in C++. And that toolkit does not have any restrictions on where you can compile for it or what you can port it to.
Well, and Windows is the de facto standards, too. That's why every Mac owner should sell their Mac immediately and buy a Windows machine, right?
Something would have to have twice the features at half the price with considerably more 'style' to "kill" the iPod.
Half the price with the same size and feature set is enough. And, hard as that may be for you to believe, some people just don't give a damn about "style" in their portable music players. In fact, there are many people who prefer devices that look sensible and cost less to devices that look "stylish" and have a price to match.
The problem that rivals are having is that whilst they can easily make a product that is technically superior, they can't make a product that is asthetically superior.
Whether the mini iPod appeals to you is a matter of taste, as is whether you like the iPot user interface.
In any case, I suspect Apple will be out of the iPod business within a few years: the prices will drop so low the margins will be too thin form it to be worth it.
Why is everyone so excited about OGG? Just because it's free?
It's better in practice than MP3. But, yes, the main reason is because it's free. With something like MP3, you end up not being in control of content you paid for.
Convert the OGG to MP3 or to some other format that the player uses.
Both Ogg and MP3 are lossy formats; every time you convert, the quality goes down audibly.
and be done with it
No, it is companies that should just implement Ogg "and be done with it". It doesn't cost them anything to license, it works well, and they even get an integer codec for embdded systems.
I just can't believe that because the player is missing a basically unused format (for the non-geeks) that it is somehow "bad".
Well, you better believe it. If a player is Ogg-based, it also means that non-geeks get bette choices for converting their audio collections.
There are several other possible energy sources, they are just not as mature or viable, or people are too scared of them, for them to be main stream yet.
There is absolutely nothing "immature" about using energy efficient devices, recycling, and renewable energies; we could switch and grow our economy enormously (the act of switching alone would ensure growth).
And, yes, people are scared. They are scared because groups with vested interests find it easy to get people to act irrationally by scaring them. So, people end up being scared of the wrong things. Reducing energy consumption and switching to other energy sources shouldn't scare you; burning oil should.
As for limiting population, the solution to that problem is spreading to the stars. If there is not enough space or resources on this planet, then the time has come to find a way to spread to another one.
You watch too much Star Trek. Unless relativity turns out to be completely and utterly wrong, that's just not going to happen.
Even if we did reach another system, that won't do anything to ease population pressures here on earth: we still need to do the same things we already need to do, live sustainably and limit population size.
Patent number is 6,782,370, filed September 4, 1997. The distinguishing feature relative to prior recommendations basd on purchase history is that it is over "distributed network".
Such systems had been in use and published for several years before the patent was filed, so this shouldn't stand. But, given Amazon's history with stupid patents, one can only hope that both Amazon and Cendant lose lots of money in the legal fight.
Unfortunately, a growing economy, requires an ever increasing energy supply. [...] I am not against being more efficient, but the simple fact is that as the world's economy grows, the world, and all of its people, will require more energy.
That's not a "simple fact", it's not even a "fact", neither technologically nor economically. Technologically, the entire world could live a higher standard of living than we are living today with no fossil fuel used whatsoever. Economically, growth is simply defined in terms of good and services we exchange; there is no reason why those goods and services need to consume any significant amount of energy at all, let alone fossil fuels. We just happen to have chosen to "grow" in a way that makes less sense than the Dutch tulip bubble.
Quite apart from that: growth must come to an end, sooner or later because our planet has a finite size, people need a certain amount of space, and there is no reason to grow a population beyond a certain point.
Slashdot Mirror
It's cheaper and simpler not to generate the CO2 in the first place.
Knowing all this, it is unreasonable to expect any administration to again resubmit the treaty for ratification,
It's a Republican president and a Republican Congress. If Bush wanted to, he could get this passed.
As long as Microsoft has any patent even remotely related to any of the listed protocols, this is a valid legal agreement, because each side is giving something to the other. And while what you are getting is probably not useful to you, Microsoft is getting something very useful out of it: you have to display their licensing notices and you have to face restrictions in how you can sublicense your software (which probably also means that you can't work on many open source projects in the future).
If you actually execute the license agreement, you will be under all sorts of legal obligations to Microsoft that you weren't under before; for example, you need to put a notice into your software and you may be restricted in how you can sublicense it. And you get nothing from them in return because they don't actually own any of the protocols. This is not a "liberal" license, it's a license for suckers.
In other words, you can read the code to learn how it works and use that knowledge. You just can't cut-and-paste Sun's code into another project.
That would be a reasonable license, but that is not what the JRL seems to say.
but I feel that anyone that has taken the time to create software or whatever has the right to define the terms upon how it is used.
Yes, and users have a right to discuss and decide for themselves whether a particular piece of software comes with a license that is acceptable. That's not "whining", it's sensible if you don't want to get locked into something proprietary. And it's something that both FOSS users and commercial users have a responsibility to do.
So it's a bit of giving and a bit of taking.
No, it's a little giving by Sun and a lot of taking: Sun wants to establish Java as a pervasive proprietary standard, making both Linux and Windows irrelevant in the process. And they are doing it in a way in which other people are doing much of the hard work for them (JCP, JRL, etc.). Sun is worse than Microsoft: at least Microsoft pays for their own development.
IBM has called on Sun to open source Java, so the obstacle is Sun, not IBM. The fact that IBM has contributed so much to J2SE is probably a thorn in IBM's side because they did a lot of work and Sun effectively gets to control what happens with it.
Obtaining the license is no problem. [...] Your implementation has to pass the compatibility tests, though.
So, you have to execute a license with Sun and then Sun gets to look at your implementation before you finish it and decide whether they like it. If they don't like it, you don't get to distribute it. Would you consider it "open" if Microsoft did that? Well, you shouldn't when Sun does it either.
I think you have to pay if you want to use the trademark name Java.
It's not about whether you have to pay. A standard can fail to be open even if you don't have to pay in order to implement. Like, for example, when a company like Sun has the final say over whether your implementation measures up to their standards.
There are several clean room implementations of Java (GCJ, Kaffe, TowerJ, Jeode and others I forget).
GCJ and Kaffe are not implementations of Java since what they implement is only a subset and has not passed compatibility tests. TowerJ was merely an implementation of the compiler and relied on Sun Java for the libraries (it also doesn't seem to exist anymore). And Jeode is only an implementation of the embedded version of Java, not the full Java platform.
Java is "open" (documented, can be reimplemented)
The Java platform cannot be legally reimplemented without meeting Sun's compatibility requirements and without obtaining licenses for several of Sun's patents (Sun has refrained to enforce that against open source, but as Unisys and SCO show you, you can cause trouble many years after some infringement has taken place). As a result, the Java platform is not open (i.e., an "open standard") in the long-established meaning of the term.
the computer industry (Sun specifically) has used the word "open" for many years
The computer industry has used the term "open standard" for many years. The term "open source", however, used to refer to publicly available intelligence sources before the open source movement applied it to software. And, whether you believe me on the the history or not, most people will understand it to mean what opensource.org says it means; any attempt by Sun or anybody else to play semantic games and pretend that their software "is open source" for some unusual meaning of "is", "open", or "source" is just being deceptive.
Be careful,
Or what? The Schwartz is going to destroy me?
The licence you refer to is the SCSL
I'm referring to both the JRL and the SCSL. The JRL is so obviously and explicitly not an open source license that it doesn't even deserve a comment (either from me or from Debian). But since you brought it up...
and the other (JRL) which has yet to be judged
Don't try to create the impression that there is any ambiguity. The JRL is not open source; it allows the code to be used only for "research purposes" and prohibits "commercial use".
Please bother to read the article or at least follow the links in the headline.
If you bothered to follow the links in the headline, you would know full well that the JRL is not an open source license. If you thought that was worth pointing out, you should have done so, rather than creating the false impression that the issue is anything but crystal clear.
You can find Sun's license here. Sun admits that it isn't an open source license, they are just trying to argue that it is somehow better than open source.
Because Debian is forced to classify software into open source or not, Debian has had to look at this in some detail, and they concluded that it was not open source.
Yes, you can download the J2SE 5.0 source code. But once you do, you will be bound by Sun's source code license agreements. Some companies and open source projects interpret those license agreements in such a way that you will not be able to work on projects covering anything that overlaps with functionality in the Java distribution.
I'd recommend you read Sun's licenses carefully in their entirety and think about its implications carefully before you download the source code and look at it.
Furthermore, you should carefully think about what you are getting out of agreeing to the license and what Sun is getting out of it (I find Sun's licenses inequitable).
If you want to find out how Java-like compilers and runtimes are developed and built, there are truly open source systems you might look at that don't saddle you with the kinds of restrictions Sun wants to impose on you (and they are likely better systems to learn from anyway).
Internal politics, didn't like the traffic in Waltham (where Novell is now HQ'd), really did leave to "pursue other opportunities", doesn't matter.
Chris Stone said that "it is with some regret" that he is leaving and he got a big severance package. That doesn't sound like it was an amicable parting.
As much as folks invest in the cult of personality Linux wouldn't come to a screeching halt without Torvalds,
In this case, it's Wall Street and customers that may have invested millions that are practicing the cult of personality, and they will be practicing it with Novell the same way as they do with any other company. (Besides, like it or not, without these cults of personality, Linux, MS, Apple, and other big projects just wouldn't exist.)
No, the sky isn't falling, but this is the sort of thing investors do pay attention to, and the ball is in Novell's court to come up with an explanation and a reassuring response.
take this virtual trip to Mars?
The goal of every academic is to be on the leading edge of a new wave of discovery.
Academics are just far out enough to appear innovative yet still get published. That usually isn't very far out.
For example, most of physics is happening around the fringes of two theories we already can't both be right at the same time (quantum mechanics, general relativity), and the few brave souls that try to look at alternatives are generally considered a little cooky, if not worse. On the other hand, work trying to fit new phenomena into existing frameworks with the most contorted arguments is hailed as high quality work.
Academics are crowd pleasers and herd animals. If they are trying to be on the leading edge of anything, it's more like the leading edge of a stampede of bulls.
Who are you kidding? Apple goes around telling everybody to "switch" from PCs, although I suppose they realize the futility of trying to "kill" Windows. But they sure are trying to kill Linux and UNIX (although not having much success there either).
TOra works with PostgreSQL (according to the announcement). PGAdmin works with PostgreSQL. Hence, yes, many people who use TOra can use PGAdmin.
If you are using TOra with Oracle, then, no, you can't use PGAdmin (but, then, you have bigger problems anyway).
PGAdmin II. It is based on a mature, open source, cross-platform GUI toolkit and written in C++. And that toolkit does not have any restrictions on where you can compile for it or what you can port it to.
VirtualPC runs Windows like crap, too. If you want a decent commercial VM, get VMware.
The iPod family are a de facto standard,
Well, and Windows is the de facto standards, too. That's why every Mac owner should sell their Mac immediately and buy a Windows machine, right?
Something would have to have twice the features at half the price with considerably more 'style' to "kill" the iPod.
Half the price with the same size and feature set is enough. And, hard as that may be for you to believe, some people just don't give a damn about "style" in their portable music players. In fact, there are many people who prefer devices that look sensible and cost less to devices that look "stylish" and have a price to match.
The problem that rivals are having is that whilst they can easily make a product that is technically superior, they can't make a product that is asthetically superior.
Whether the mini iPod appeals to you is a matter of taste, as is whether you like the iPot user interface.
In any case, I suspect Apple will be out of the iPod business within a few years: the prices will drop so low the margins will be too thin form it to be worth it.
Why is everyone so excited about OGG? Just because it's free?
It's better in practice than MP3. But, yes, the main reason is because it's free. With something like MP3, you end up not being in control of content you paid for.
Convert the OGG to MP3 or to some other format that the player uses.
Both Ogg and MP3 are lossy formats; every time you convert, the quality goes down audibly.
and be done with it
No, it is companies that should just implement Ogg "and be done with it". It doesn't cost them anything to license, it works well, and they even get an integer codec for embdded systems.
I just can't believe that because the player is missing a basically unused format (for the non-geeks) that it is somehow "bad".
Well, you better believe it. If a player is Ogg-based, it also means that non-geeks get bette choices for converting their audio collections.
There are several other possible energy sources, they are just not as mature or viable, or people are too scared of them, for them to be main stream yet.
There is absolutely nothing "immature" about using energy efficient devices, recycling, and renewable energies; we could switch and grow our economy enormously (the act of switching alone would ensure growth).
And, yes, people are scared. They are scared because groups with vested interests find it easy to get people to act irrationally by scaring them. So, people end up being scared of the wrong things. Reducing energy consumption and switching to other energy sources shouldn't scare you; burning oil should.
As for limiting population, the solution to that problem is spreading to the stars. If there is not enough space or resources on this planet, then the time has come to find a way to spread to another one.
You watch too much Star Trek. Unless relativity turns out to be completely and utterly wrong, that's just not going to happen.
Even if we did reach another system, that won't do anything to ease population pressures here on earth: we still need to do the same things we already need to do, live sustainably and limit population size.
Patent number is 6,782,370, filed September 4, 1997. The distinguishing feature relative to prior recommendations basd on purchase history is that it is over "distributed network".
Such systems had been in use and published for several years before the patent was filed, so this shouldn't stand. But, given Amazon's history with stupid patents, one can only hope that both Amazon and Cendant lose lots of money in the legal fight.
Unfortunately, a growing economy, requires an ever increasing energy supply. [...] I am not against being more efficient, but the simple fact is that as the world's economy grows, the world, and all of its people, will require more energy.
That's not a "simple fact", it's not even a "fact", neither technologically nor economically. Technologically, the entire world could live a higher standard of living than we are living today with no fossil fuel used whatsoever. Economically, growth is simply defined in terms of good and services we exchange; there is no reason why those goods and services need to consume any significant amount of energy at all, let alone fossil fuels. We just happen to have chosen to "grow" in a way that makes less sense than the Dutch tulip bubble.
Quite apart from that: growth must come to an end, sooner or later because our planet has a finite size, people need a certain amount of space, and there is no reason to grow a population beyond a certain point.