There are a lot of problems with today's patent system, but there is no single "silver bullet" solution to solve them all. Disbanding the patent system altogether will never happen. It does have a noble purpose when applied properly. However, it has become a cash cow whereby companies patent every single thought of their employees in order to build a "patent portfolio". The first obvious fix is to define business method patents and ban them. They are ridiculous. How that is done, I don't know. Another thought is to develop some sort of Devil's Advocate system, where an examiner is assigned to each patent who sole job is to disprove an applications patentability. A final thought is to somehow tax patents as though they were the valued assets they are represented to be. Taxing patents on transfer is easy enough, and may be done already (although this tax should be upped, if the original inventor isn't using the patent).
There are ways to make things better. It just takes some thoughtful debate and a willingness of the politicians and bureaucrats to effect some change. Enough "big corporations" are getting burnt by patents to provide some momentum, I hope.
This "fear" of GPL extends way beyond McAffee. A client of mine has forbidden the use of "open source" code in ANY software developed for them. This includes software under very permissive licenses, not just the GPL. I'm sure this was prompted over fear of the "viral nature" of the GPL. I'm not saying that the GPL is a bad thing or is viral, but there is a perception that using GPL or LGPL software is a potential legal risk. In this case, the paranoia has extended to all open source software. I highly doubt my client is the only organization to take a knee-jerk approach. The funny thing is that most commercial development toolkits and whatnot have more onerous software licenses.
"I'd go to France in a heartbeat, et je parle français, if any French recruiters see this."
I just thought of a way for Iran and North Korea to get their hands on nuclear technology much more easily and quickly than their current clandestine attempts...Invade France.
There are easier ways to damage the bulk power grid (or local transmission). Pick up a rifle at your nearest sporting goods store. Go to your nearest transmission substation (or even large generating plant). Take a shot at the porcelain on one of the transformer bushings. Kablam! You just removed a few hundred MW (or perhaps more) or generating capacity or transfer capability and caused millions of dollars in damage. If it's a generating station, the cost of lost revenue could drive the total to 70 or 80 million. Actually, I have seen bushings with bullet holes. Obviously not that common, or something would be done about it, but it does happen. It won't always cause an immediate and catastrophic failure, but it certainly can. Especially if one keeps trying...
The bigger danger to this nations power grid is lack of investment and a severe brain drain in engineering personnel.
This kind of thing is why we need options in the open source world. The most critical FSF-controlled project is GCC, for which there is no alternative. The only promising alternative I have read about is the LLVM backend with the new C/Obj. C/C++ clang frontend in early development.
The real danger of all of this infighting is that it just fragments the community (watch the flame-fest that accompanies this story) at a time when open source software is making real progress. To outsiders (IT managers, decision makers, etc.), it just gives another reason to avoid open source software. Even worse, it splits the effort (and funding) of the open source development community. I'm contradicting myself here, I know. I just don't follow RMSs philosophy. I don't think many of the businesses funding open source developers do either. But that just the unimportant opinion of one guy...
Ah, but it isn't that simple. Take for example a race for state Governor. We have two, maybe 3 candidates to choose from. Each have positions on an array of issues that we care about. Most likely, our opinions will not perfectly align with any single candidate. This means we have to choose which issues are most important to us and pick the lesser of two evils. So, there very well may be people who voted for the current administration in MA, knew about the office format issue, but had to pick the lesser of two evils.
There are many qualities that are required for dielectric fluid in transformers. The most important two are ability to remove heat (viscosity) and dielectric strength. The other big factor is cost. A large power transformer might have over 20,000 gals. of oil. Transformer oil must have a dielectric strength of roughly 30-35kV/mm. It also has to have reasonable viscosity at temperatures as low as perhaps -10C (or lower, depending on location). Oils derived from paraffinic crudes tend to get waxy at low temperatures. The other big factor is oxidation stability. At higher temperatures, particularly in the presence of oxygen, the oil breaks down and forms sludge. These "sludges" are mostly polar contaminants, reducing the dielectric strength of the oil and coating the solid insulation with a film of sludge that could result in a creep failure over the surface of the insulation. As for PCBs, they were generally used as a less-flammable alternative to straight mineral oil. Mineral oil will burn for days. It also produces large quantities of acetylene, methane, ethylene and ethane when you pass an arc through it, resulting in a risk of explosion if the tank ruptures. PCBs were a class of less flammable insulating fluid used for indoor applications and some distribution transformers to reduce fire hazard. Other oil filled equipment may have been contaminated if the same processing equipment was used for PCB and non-PCB fluids. All transformers today are tested for PCB content down to the ppb. PCBs were officially phased out in 1978 or 79, I think. Whenever TSCA was passed. That ban made a lot of people rich...
The only problem is that oil is a good solvent. Of course, computer equipment is obsolete in 3-5yrs, so maybe it's not an issue. However, the article mentions they tried motor oil first, so I wonder how much they actually thought this through. Motor oil, among other things, is much more viscous than traditional dielectric fluids. The fluids used in transformers are more like water in terms of viscosity. Lower viscosity provides better heat transfer. Also, since high dielectric strength is not an issue, I've got to think that there are some less-corrosive alternatives that will do the job without destroying the components. Half-baked at best, I think.
Actually, vegatable oils (natural ester fluids) have been used as an alternative dielectric fluid for several years now. A fair number of distribution-size transformers are filled with it, as it has less environmental consequence in the event of spills. It does have lower oxidation stability than mineral oil, so the system would have to be sealed.
1.3GW? If I read Warwick Energy's page correctly, the planned capacity for each array is 300MW, for a total of 600MW. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, by contrast, operates two 1,100MWe reactors... Wind power enjoys a lot of support from various interests, and the tax breaks and subsidies make it worthwhile. However, there aren't many places where wind power is truly viable. Forget solar, that will never happen. Peak demand in the U.S. for 06 was about 840GW. About 71% of NERC area capacity (US/Canada) is Oil or Gas. 13% is Hydro. 12% is Nuclear. About 2% is "Other" where wind generation falls. Now, I'll admit that this is installed capacity. What is actually utilized at any given time depends upon pricing and whatnot. The point is, the vast majority of electricity generation is still from fossil fuels, hundreds of GW. It would take a huge investment to replace that. Nuclear power is the only technology that has a chance in hell of providing the needed capacity. Hydro helps quite a bit. Wind power, despite the hype, barely makes a dent. The long and the short of it is that we will be relying on coal and oil for at least my lifetime. Nobody really wants a solution. We know alternative energy isn't going to do it. Even as the environmentalists are yelling about pollution and what not, they bitch about birds and wind turbines. Plus, nobody wants a wind farm in their backyard. They don't want nukes, because of the potential hazards, which in my opinion can and have been minimized. Storage of spent fuel is always an issue, but not insurmountable if everyone would check their emotions at the door. But even still, we have maybe 5 nuclear projects in the works. It takes years to get approval. If all five were approved this decade, we could add maybe 15GW? So, coal is all we've got, in the near-term anyway.
-Apple, for example, does not burden users with Product Activation or any similar anti-piracy technologies in its Mac OS X operating system-
Now why the hell would they? OS X generally only runs on Apple hardware. So someone would have to buy an Apple computer (with OS included) to run the pirated copy.
"At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before."
We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC. I'm not condoning the actions of either side, but it's our unrelenting support of Israel when there bombing the beejeezes out of a largely innocent country that bugs me. If we provided $2.5billion in aid to Lebanon, what kind of political power would Hezbollah be then?
Amen brother! Only problem is, we can't keep our eyes on them all the time. The most difficulty I've had as a parent is knowing when to let go a little bit and let them have their fun. Two girls, can't wait until the teen years...
I agree. The problem is, though, the FSF does intend to use GPL3. This means that GCC and all those other GNU tools for which there is no real alternative go the way of the whacko. How many businesses will want to invest or rely on GPL software after this?
Try http://www.suso.org./ Unlimited (within reason) disk space, your own domain name, IMAP & POP plus webmail. $15/month. I have over 2.5Gb of email up there now. No complaints.
For you contribution to be accepted, you must assign copyright to Trolltech, allowing them to release your contributions under whatever license they choose. If you don't, they don't incorporate it. No skin off their back.
This is an issue that I have tried to find a decent answer to. I have some engineering software that I wrote (or will write) and want to release as open source. There's no real money in it, and if I had to support paying customers, fagghetaboutit. I've been around it long enough to know that a) you can't reasonably develop bug free software of anything more than moderate complexity and b) there's still the chance that someone does something stupid (garbage in, garbage out). With current product liability laws, I would be on the hook if something went wrong. Now, I'm not talking about software where a bug causes someone to lose an hours work, but software where a bug could possibly result in the loss of multi-million dollar equipment. Even though I'm giving it away, I could be sued into oblivion if some schmuck uses it and screws up. My big question is this: Is there an open-source license that effectively limits product liability? They all more or less have clauses, but I'm not all that sure they hold water. Anyone know anything about this?
This is FAR from true at my Alma Mater. At RPI, the graduate student enrollment is down nearly 40% over the last 5 years. This is due to the new Presidents policies to attract only students that will "further the research goals of the institution" while actively discouraging everyone else. The graduate tuition for part-time students (like me) has doubled in the past few years (from $700/cr to $1350/cr). They have fostered all the buzzword programs like Biotech and Nanotech at the expense of traditional programs. My program, Electric Power, went from being an autonomous department to being folded in to ECSE to nearly non-existant in the span of four years. All of this was done by the short-sighted decrees of Ms. Jackson, the highest compensated president of any college or university. In addition, the US News & World Report rankings have shown a steady decline since her reign began. In short, if you're thinking about RPI for undergrad or graduate study in Engineering, forget about it. The place has gone to shit. I can't get any of the courses I need to finish my Master's in Electric Power, but I can take a class in "Deep Listening" or "Advanced Deep Listening". Van Rensselaer is probably turning over in his grave.
Wi-fi, or any "wireless" technology for that matter, would never become a public utility like water, sewer or electricity (at least before deregulation). The reason these are public utilities is that they provide a needed service that relies on a huge infrastructure that must be owned and maintained by one entity. Imagine if every company that wanted to provide electricity to your home maintained separate transmission and distribution systems. Wires would be everywhere. In addition, these businesses are low margin and have high capital costs. The capital cost per user just would not support competition. Just look at what deregulation has done for the electric utility business. No cash for infrastructure investments.
Now, wireless broadband surely would become a valuable service in the vein of cell phone service. However, wi-fi ain't gonna do it, especially in less dense suburban or rural areas. The range needs to be on par with current cell phone technology range, assuming the per-installation costs are roughly the same. When a standard in this area emerges, look for cell service providers to pick it up with a similar business plan. They already have the antenna sites, which is a major chuck of the new installation costs for any wireless service.
From a Dec. 2004 "chat":
Q: How is security addressed in Monad?
A: This is a very board topic. We spend a lot of time on security. One of the common questions is "are we reintroducing script attacks?". We are doing a number of things to mitigate those exposures. 1) we will not have a doc handler for.msh files (this means that you won't be able to double-click a.msh file and have it run). 2) We'll have a policy that only allows signed scripts (from people you trust) to run (we'll then make it easy for you to sign scripts).
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of problems with today's patent system, but there is no single "silver bullet" solution to solve them all. Disbanding the patent system altogether will never happen. It does have a noble purpose when applied properly. However, it has become a cash cow whereby companies patent every single thought of their employees in order to build a "patent portfolio". The first obvious fix is to define business method patents and ban them. They are ridiculous. How that is done, I don't know. Another thought is to develop some sort of Devil's Advocate system, where an examiner is assigned to each patent who sole job is to disprove an applications patentability. A final thought is to somehow tax patents as though they were the valued assets they are represented to be. Taxing patents on transfer is easy enough, and may be done already (although this tax should be upped, if the original inventor isn't using the patent). There are ways to make things better. It just takes some thoughtful debate and a willingness of the politicians and bureaucrats to effect some change. Enough "big corporations" are getting burnt by patents to provide some momentum, I hope.
This sounds like a direct result of MS's boneheaded default of hiding extensions of known file types. It's one of the first settings I change. Stupid.
This "fear" of GPL extends way beyond McAffee. A client of mine has forbidden the use of "open source" code in ANY software developed for them. This includes software under very permissive licenses, not just the GPL. I'm sure this was prompted over fear of the "viral nature" of the GPL. I'm not saying that the GPL is a bad thing or is viral, but there is a perception that using GPL or LGPL software is a potential legal risk. In this case, the paranoia has extended to all open source software. I highly doubt my client is the only organization to take a knee-jerk approach. The funny thing is that most commercial development toolkits and whatnot have more onerous software licenses.
"I'd go to France in a heartbeat, et je parle français, if any French recruiters see this." I just thought of a way for Iran and North Korea to get their hands on nuclear technology much more easily and quickly than their current clandestine attempts...Invade France.
There are easier ways to damage the bulk power grid (or local transmission). Pick up a rifle at your nearest sporting goods store. Go to your nearest transmission substation (or even large generating plant). Take a shot at the porcelain on one of the transformer bushings. Kablam! You just removed a few hundred MW (or perhaps more) or generating capacity or transfer capability and caused millions of dollars in damage. If it's a generating station, the cost of lost revenue could drive the total to 70 or 80 million. Actually, I have seen bushings with bullet holes. Obviously not that common, or something would be done about it, but it does happen. It won't always cause an immediate and catastrophic failure, but it certainly can. Especially if one keeps trying... The bigger danger to this nations power grid is lack of investment and a severe brain drain in engineering personnel.
This kind of thing is why we need options in the open source world. The most critical FSF-controlled project is GCC, for which there is no alternative. The only promising alternative I have read about is the LLVM backend with the new C/Obj. C/C++ clang frontend in early development. The real danger of all of this infighting is that it just fragments the community (watch the flame-fest that accompanies this story) at a time when open source software is making real progress. To outsiders (IT managers, decision makers, etc.), it just gives another reason to avoid open source software. Even worse, it splits the effort (and funding) of the open source development community. I'm contradicting myself here, I know. I just don't follow RMSs philosophy. I don't think many of the businesses funding open source developers do either. But that just the unimportant opinion of one guy...
Ah, but it isn't that simple. Take for example a race for state Governor. We have two, maybe 3 candidates to choose from. Each have positions on an array of issues that we care about. Most likely, our opinions will not perfectly align with any single candidate. This means we have to choose which issues are most important to us and pick the lesser of two evils. So, there very well may be people who voted for the current administration in MA, knew about the office format issue, but had to pick the lesser of two evils.
There are many qualities that are required for dielectric fluid in transformers. The most important two are ability to remove heat (viscosity) and dielectric strength. The other big factor is cost. A large power transformer might have over 20,000 gals. of oil. Transformer oil must have a dielectric strength of roughly 30-35kV/mm. It also has to have reasonable viscosity at temperatures as low as perhaps -10C (or lower, depending on location). Oils derived from paraffinic crudes tend to get waxy at low temperatures. The other big factor is oxidation stability. At higher temperatures, particularly in the presence of oxygen, the oil breaks down and forms sludge. These "sludges" are mostly polar contaminants, reducing the dielectric strength of the oil and coating the solid insulation with a film of sludge that could result in a creep failure over the surface of the insulation. As for PCBs, they were generally used as a less-flammable alternative to straight mineral oil. Mineral oil will burn for days. It also produces large quantities of acetylene, methane, ethylene and ethane when you pass an arc through it, resulting in a risk of explosion if the tank ruptures. PCBs were a class of less flammable insulating fluid used for indoor applications and some distribution transformers to reduce fire hazard. Other oil filled equipment may have been contaminated if the same processing equipment was used for PCB and non-PCB fluids. All transformers today are tested for PCB content down to the ppb. PCBs were officially phased out in 1978 or 79, I think. Whenever TSCA was passed. That ban made a lot of people rich...
The only problem is that oil is a good solvent. Of course, computer equipment is obsolete in 3-5yrs, so maybe it's not an issue. However, the article mentions they tried motor oil first, so I wonder how much they actually thought this through. Motor oil, among other things, is much more viscous than traditional dielectric fluids. The fluids used in transformers are more like water in terms of viscosity. Lower viscosity provides better heat transfer. Also, since high dielectric strength is not an issue, I've got to think that there are some less-corrosive alternatives that will do the job without destroying the components. Half-baked at best, I think.
Actually, vegatable oils (natural ester fluids) have been used as an alternative dielectric fluid for several years now. A fair number of distribution-size transformers are filled with it, as it has less environmental consequence in the event of spills. It does have lower oxidation stability than mineral oil, so the system would have to be sealed.
1.3GW? If I read Warwick Energy's page correctly, the planned capacity for each array is 300MW, for a total of 600MW. Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, by contrast, operates two 1,100MWe reactors... Wind power enjoys a lot of support from various interests, and the tax breaks and subsidies make it worthwhile. However, there aren't many places where wind power is truly viable. Forget solar, that will never happen. Peak demand in the U.S. for 06 was about 840GW. About 71% of NERC area capacity (US/Canada) is Oil or Gas. 13% is Hydro. 12% is Nuclear. About 2% is "Other" where wind generation falls. Now, I'll admit that this is installed capacity. What is actually utilized at any given time depends upon pricing and whatnot. The point is, the vast majority of electricity generation is still from fossil fuels, hundreds of GW. It would take a huge investment to replace that. Nuclear power is the only technology that has a chance in hell of providing the needed capacity. Hydro helps quite a bit. Wind power, despite the hype, barely makes a dent. The long and the short of it is that we will be relying on coal and oil for at least my lifetime. Nobody really wants a solution. We know alternative energy isn't going to do it. Even as the environmentalists are yelling about pollution and what not, they bitch about birds and wind turbines. Plus, nobody wants a wind farm in their backyard. They don't want nukes, because of the potential hazards, which in my opinion can and have been minimized. Storage of spent fuel is always an issue, but not insurmountable if everyone would check their emotions at the door. But even still, we have maybe 5 nuclear projects in the works. It takes years to get approval. If all five were approved this decade, we could add maybe 15GW? So, coal is all we've got, in the near-term anyway.
-Apple, for example, does not burden users with Product Activation or any similar anti-piracy technologies in its Mac OS X operating system- Now why the hell would they? OS X generally only runs on Apple hardware. So someone would have to buy an Apple computer (with OS included) to run the pirated copy.
"At the cost of nearly 20,000 soldiers, and a trillion dollars in treasure and the expense of privacy and freedom Americans are now in more danger than they were before."
We're in more danger now than before because we give Israel $2.5billion in aid and Lebanon $40million in aid. We're in trouble because at times like now, when both sides have crossed the line, politicians pass resolutions declaring support for Israel and condemning Lebanon, all because Israelis have a huge lobby in DC. I'm not condoning the actions of either side, but it's our unrelenting support of Israel when there bombing the beejeezes out of a largely innocent country that bugs me. If we provided $2.5billion in aid to Lebanon, what kind of political power would Hezbollah be then?
Amen brother! Only problem is, we can't keep our eyes on them all the time. The most difficulty I've had as a parent is knowing when to let go a little bit and let them have their fun. Two girls, can't wait until the teen years...
I agree. The problem is, though, the FSF does intend to use GPL3. This means that GCC and all those other GNU tools for which there is no real alternative go the way of the whacko. How many businesses will want to invest or rely on GPL software after this?
Try http://www.suso.org./ Unlimited (within reason) disk space, your own domain name, IMAP & POP plus webmail. $15/month. I have over 2.5Gb of email up there now. No complaints.
12,765. Runs fine. I ditched Outlook for the same reason.
For you contribution to be accepted, you must assign copyright to Trolltech, allowing them to release your contributions under whatever license they choose. If you don't, they don't incorporate it. No skin off their back.
Look again...that "Per Platform". If you want Linux\Unix and Windows, it'll cost you $2,990 for the "Desktop Light" edition per seat.
This is an issue that I have tried to find a decent answer to. I have some engineering software that I wrote (or will write) and want to release as open source. There's no real money in it, and if I had to support paying customers, fagghetaboutit. I've been around it long enough to know that a) you can't reasonably develop bug free software of anything more than moderate complexity and b) there's still the chance that someone does something stupid (garbage in, garbage out). With current product liability laws, I would be on the hook if something went wrong. Now, I'm not talking about software where a bug causes someone to lose an hours work, but software where a bug could possibly result in the loss of multi-million dollar equipment. Even though I'm giving it away, I could be sued into oblivion if some schmuck uses it and screws up. My big question is this: Is there an open-source license that effectively limits product liability? They all more or less have clauses, but I'm not all that sure they hold water. Anyone know anything about this?
An advertisement...
This is FAR from true at my Alma Mater. At RPI, the graduate student enrollment is down nearly 40% over the last 5 years. This is due to the new Presidents policies to attract only students that will "further the research goals of the institution" while actively discouraging everyone else. The graduate tuition for part-time students (like me) has doubled in the past few years (from $700/cr to $1350/cr). They have fostered all the buzzword programs like Biotech and Nanotech at the expense of traditional programs. My program, Electric Power, went from being an autonomous department to being folded in to ECSE to nearly non-existant in the span of four years. All of this was done by the short-sighted decrees of Ms. Jackson, the highest compensated president of any college or university. In addition, the US News & World Report rankings have shown a steady decline since her reign began. In short, if you're thinking about RPI for undergrad or graduate study in Engineering, forget about it. The place has gone to shit. I can't get any of the courses I need to finish my Master's in Electric Power, but I can take a class in "Deep Listening" or "Advanced Deep Listening". Van Rensselaer is probably turning over in his grave.
Wi-fi, or any "wireless" technology for that matter, would never become a public utility like water, sewer or electricity (at least before deregulation). The reason these are public utilities is that they provide a needed service that relies on a huge infrastructure that must be owned and maintained by one entity. Imagine if every company that wanted to provide electricity to your home maintained separate transmission and distribution systems. Wires would be everywhere. In addition, these businesses are low margin and have high capital costs. The capital cost per user just would not support competition. Just look at what deregulation has done for the electric utility business. No cash for infrastructure investments. Now, wireless broadband surely would become a valuable service in the vein of cell phone service. However, wi-fi ain't gonna do it, especially in less dense suburban or rural areas. The range needs to be on par with current cell phone technology range, assuming the per-installation costs are roughly the same. When a standard in this area emerges, look for cell service providers to pick it up with a similar business plan. They already have the antenna sites, which is a major chuck of the new installation costs for any wireless service.
From a Dec. 2004 "chat": Q: How is security addressed in Monad? A: This is a very board topic. We spend a lot of time on security. One of the common questions is "are we reintroducing script attacks?". We are doing a number of things to mitigate those exposures. 1) we will not have a doc handler for .msh files (this means that you won't be able to double-click a .msh file and have it run). 2) We'll have a policy that only allows signed scripts (from people you trust) to run (we'll then make it easy for you to sign scripts).
no pun intended...