I was originally going to write a post to show that you might not be totally justified in what you're writing, but then I realised that nano is the SI prefix for 10^-9, while a hydrogen molecule is 1.06 * 10^-10m, so you might not be completely off in saying that this is nothing new, so this is one score to you.
However, I have to mention that the size might not be the problem, but rather the properties of these nanoparticles.
The most important thing to remember when talking about nanoparticles, is that a lot of these materials have a unique thing in common, quoth wikipedia, "vastly increased ratio of surface area to volume". Remember for example lunar dust and the problems associated with it? Imagine that effect on a much worse level.
Q: Are there patent infringing portions of code in Linux?
A: Of course there are. As in every goddamn nontrivial software in the USA, where software patents are valid.
Q: So Linux will be forced to remove code from the kernel?
A: I personally don't think Microsoft will be actually that stupid to sue. After all, IBM is the patent king with 20'000 software patents. If they go into a counterattack MS could close shop because no part of Windows will be non-patent infringing. So the three choices are: noone will sue, everyone will sue and the court nukes every major OS on the planet, or that everyone will sue and patent reform will commence in the USA.
Q: But, but Microsoft will just pull out of the EU and show'em!
A: How is this relevant here? Do I have to remind people all the time that it's not going to happen? (Yes, I actually do have to...)
if Linux really is infringing on some MS patent then the functionality will have to be removed
Most likely IBM would nuke the heck out of Microsoft with it's 20k strong industry leading patent portfolio if MS would take anything to court. Most of the patents on both sides would get invalidated after decades of work on behalf of the courts. Linux won't have to remove a single line of code. Even if, I'll just point people to the mirror at the local university, in the EU. No software patents in the EU, yet thank Ignucius.
As Bruce Perens put it, every nontrivial software violates patents. The question is, what to do with all this.
Add to that some ignorance from those people who say it's difficult to write portable code (perhaps because they have only ever been exposed to that confusion of code generated by MS tools)
There are levels of portability and I wouldn't especially call code written for Windows, linux , osx/bsd "portable". Personally I think that portability has a natural tendency to emerge from already well written code. Most of what you call not portable is _downright stupid_ generally. Well, in most cases. Portability is very much similar to robustness. Things like, not assuming line ending to be "\n", etc.
while also stimulating an interest, in the taxpayers
Science is not circus. What NASA needs to do is set scientific goals, achieve those goals and then the taxpayers profit from the knowledge obtained. There are more interesting things going on in a small part of cosmology, with huge implications, than a "hey look! We can do this, how cool!" attention grab from NASA ever could achieve. Interesting, important != understandable to the average person.
The average guy is not going to hear or care about 21 centimeter radiation, but it's still damn important for science.
You can do the circus part with extra funding from the x part of the budget, but science should stay science not "Tv-science". Yeah, it's hard to justify on a funding level because it's not immediately spectacular, but it's still the right thing to do.
The OPEC countries decided in 1985 to link their production quotas to their reserves. What then seemed wise provoked important increases of the estimates; in order to increase their production rights. This also permits the obtainment of bigger loans at lesser interest rates. This is a suspected reason for the reserves rise of Iraq in 1983, then at war with Iran.
In fact, Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, a former senior executive of the National Iranian Oil Company, has stated unequivocally that OPEC's oil reserves (notably Iran's) are grossly overstated. In a recent interview he stated that world oil production is now at its peak and predicted that it will fall 32% by 2020.
The rest of the section is too long to include here, but please read on if you need further proof. The table including the already peaked and peaking countries, the detailed information about how OPEC members inflated their oil numbers, etc. are worth reading.
Microsoft is an American company with (primarily) American shareholders. We see things differently and (in a lot of cases) don't agree with how Europe sees things. This could be a good way to spark change.
Sure. Go ahead and tell that to an european judge. I'm sure he will appreciate your american arrogance.
There is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Europe does not recognize software patents, and as for copyright: it has a very narrowly defined (and abused) goal in law: to provide incentive. MS blocks that effort by monopolizing.
MS should simply call their bluff and cut Europe off completely from MS products for a few months
A few things would and wouldn't happen: first of all, existing installed Microsoft products wouldn't stop working. MS hasn't got a global off switch. Second: MS would still have to pay. If they would refuse to pay, they'd get all their assets seized in Europe. Third: Copyright treaties and law allows the government to free something from copyright if it's something of a national security interest. They declare MS's copyright void in the EU. That'd alone kill MS.
Even if that wouldn't happen, Europe would have an accelerated migration OFF Windows, which, as the biggest union in the world in terms of GDP and having the Euro as a better alternative to the dollar, would cause a cascading effect in all businesses reducing the demand/marketshare for Microsoft products worldwide.
This would be nothing short of complete suicide on behalf of Microsoft. They are not that stupid.
The "old" system I was studying in is equivalent of a Masters, it was one five year block. Then lately they changed to the Bolognese system of 3 years batchelor and 2 years masters. As far as I know they still have 6 semesters of analysis in the first 3 years of a batchelor degree.
Well contrary to the popular opinion, scientists aren't idiots, so they thought about the Van Allen radiation belts long before any sensationalist headline came up with it.
Here is the debian trademark policy you seek. Also, debian specifically has an "official" image, which is only used on their website and has a community image, which is "free".
Actually you can't own points. A "point" is basically an imaginary concept and conveys nothing more than information. Noone in their right mind would come up with a system where you can own information. Oh wait...
You've got it wrong. The "shoddy debian patches" were just an excuse mentioned by the Mozilla Corporation, but they weren't the dealbreaker - they could have been negotiated. The dealbreaker were the images (their license is not free), because either debian includes them and then it violates its own standards (DFSG), or doesn't include them and then violates Mozilla's trademark conditions they set forward or they change the name of the package. They went for the latter and I'm 100% supportive of that decision.
I got to the point that if I could, I would use something else than Firefox. Only that I need a few extensions + the resize image capability. I don't like the recent direction Firefox is heading.
My own symphathy goes unreservedly to Debian, as a software developer I know what a total pain stupid corporate policies are to deal with.
Yeah. That's why they wanted to use TATP. You would only need to bring a complete mobile chemical laboratory to the plane, mix stuff with chemical fumes and being extemely careful for 2-2.5 hours in the toilet and then if you're lucky you could detonate it. Sounds realistic.
About dirty bombs: it spreads the radiation! This means the small pieces are not nearly enough to cause even a temporary health problem! -- that's a summary coming from a terrorism expert.
Slashdot Mirror
I was originally going to write a post to show that you might not be totally justified in what you're writing, but then I realised that nano is the SI prefix for 10^-9, while a hydrogen molecule is 1.06 * 10^-10m, so you might not be completely off in saying that this is nothing new, so this is one score to you.
However, I have to mention that the size might not be the problem, but rather the properties of these nanoparticles.
The most important thing to remember when talking about nanoparticles, is that a lot of these materials have a unique thing in common, quoth wikipedia, "vastly increased ratio of surface area to volume". Remember for example lunar dust and the problems associated with it? Imagine that effect on a much worse level.
Q: Are there patent infringing portions of code in Linux?
A: Of course there are. As in every goddamn nontrivial software in the USA, where software patents are valid.
Q: So Linux will be forced to remove code from the kernel?
A: I personally don't think Microsoft will be actually that stupid to sue. After all, IBM is the patent king with 20'000 software patents. If they go into a counterattack MS could close shop because no part of Windows will be non-patent infringing. So the three choices are: noone will sue, everyone will sue and the court nukes every major OS on the planet, or that everyone will sue and patent reform will commence in the USA.
Q: But, but Microsoft will just pull out of the EU and show'em!
A: How is this relevant here? Do I have to remind people all the time that it's not going to happen? (Yes, I actually do have to...)
As Bruce Perens put it, every nontrivial software violates patents. The question is, what to do with all this.
Sorry I couldn't let this one go. For the humor impaired: this was a joke
The average guy is not going to hear or care about 21 centimeter radiation, but it's still damn important for science.
You can do the circus part with extra funding from the x part of the budget, but science should stay science not "Tv-science". Yeah, it's hard to justify on a funding level because it's not immediately spectacular, but it's still the right thing to do.
...someone made a program to "audiolize" system load as raindrops. Couldn't see the point back then, can't see it now.
Yeah except it won't work. Remember, the EU bitchslapped the pharma industry before too, which is at least ten times as big as MS is...
There is no such thing as Intellectual Property. Europe does not recognize software patents, and as for copyright: it has a very narrowly defined (and abused) goal in law: to provide incentive. MS blocks that effort by monopolizing.
A few things would and wouldn't happen: first of all, existing installed Microsoft products wouldn't stop working. MS hasn't got a global off switch. Second: MS would still have to pay. If they would refuse to pay, they'd get all their assets seized in Europe. Third: Copyright treaties and law allows the government to free something from copyright if it's something of a national security interest. They declare MS's copyright void in the EU. That'd alone kill MS.
Even if that wouldn't happen, Europe would have an accelerated migration OFF Windows, which, as the biggest union in the world in terms of GDP and having the Euro as a better alternative to the dollar, would cause a cascading effect in all businesses reducing the demand/marketshare for Microsoft products worldwide.
This would be nothing short of complete suicide on behalf of Microsoft. They are not that stupid.
Every time this comes up on slashdot I'm happy to remind you people that the EU is Microsoft's biggest market.
The "old" system I was studying in is equivalent of a Masters, it was one five year block. Then lately they changed to the Bolognese system of 3 years batchelor and 2 years masters. As far as I know they still have 6 semesters of analysis in the first 3 years of a batchelor degree.
...but generally I received much more maths than I've seen mentioned in other posts in my five years of university while studying CS (not in the US).
The biggest chunk of it all was 6 semesters of Analysis and 4 of numerical analysis.
I was also told that only two other professions get slightly more maths: "applied mathematicians" and physicists.
Am I wrong to assume that CS education is much more maths based in the EU than in the USA?
So? Mozilla demanded those specific official images to be used.
Well contrary to the popular opinion, scientists aren't idiots, so they thought about the Van Allen radiation belts long before any sensationalist headline came up with it.
Here is the debian trademark policy you seek. Also, debian specifically has an "official" image, which is only used on their website and has a community image, which is "free".
Actually you can't own points. A "point" is basically an imaginary concept and conveys nothing more than information. Noone in their right mind would come up with a system where you can own information. Oh wait...
Nine of Nine, is that you, Seven of Nine's cousin?
You've got it wrong. The "shoddy debian patches" were just an excuse mentioned by the Mozilla Corporation, but they weren't the dealbreaker - they could have been negotiated. The dealbreaker were the images (their license is not free), because either debian includes them and then it violates its own standards (DFSG), or doesn't include them and then violates Mozilla's trademark conditions they set forward or they change the name of the package. They went for the latter and I'm 100% supportive of that decision.
I got to the point that if I could, I would use something else than Firefox. Only that I need a few extensions + the resize image capability. I don't like the recent direction Firefox is heading.
My own symphathy goes unreservedly to Debian, as a software developer I know what a total pain stupid corporate policies are to deal with.
You're right. I shouldn't have makened up a new word, but it's past 1am around here and I only speakeneding english as a second language.
Yeah. That's why they wanted to use TATP. You would only need to bring a complete mobile chemical laboratory to the plane, mix stuff with chemical fumes and being extemely careful for 2-2.5 hours in the toilet and then if you're lucky you could detonate it. Sounds realistic.
About dirty bombs: it spreads the radiation! This means the small pieces are not nearly enough to cause even a temporary health problem! -- that's a summary coming from a terrorism expert.
I just found the perfect one.