"Book store owners aren't liable or obligated to conditions to the copyright of the books they sell unless the publisher conveys that to them before offering the book."
Book stores are obligated by the copyrights of the books they sell, but book stores don't make copies. A book store buys a physical copy of the book, and the doctrine of first sale gives them the right to do whatever they want with those phyisical copies (unless they contracted otherwise). Also, books bought by or sold at a book store don't typically come with EULAs. A more apt analogy would be an e-book that requires a copy to be made in order to distribute it.
I do, though, agree with the points you make about FUD in your post.
"the reason being that it takes decades to warm the oceans, which are THE significant source of C02 on the planet."
The oceans are a carbon dioxide sink, not a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink/
Strictly speaking, you're examples are not of geo-thermal energy production, but of ground source coupled heat pumps. It is much more efficient at heating using 55F ground water to reject heat than rejecting it to 95F air for summer A/C and much more possible to extract heat from 55F ground water than to extract it from 0F air in the winter (frost buildup on the evaporator coil at those low air temperautres causes you to do so much defrosting that it pays to use direct electric heat instead.) Still, that's not using geothermal heat for energy production, rather it is using the earth at relatively shallow depths as an efficient constant+/- temperature heat source/sink for conventional refrigeration cycles.
"It was a risky play, but one that could have paid off handsomely, . . . "
"It was an impossible play, but one that could have paid off in your neo-con dreams, . .."
There, fixed that for you.
'Also wind is very viable provided you have you farms spread around the country, smaller nations may have a problem with "no wind" '
I just got back from a very small country, Danmark. I was impressed by the number of wind turbines there, and was told that about 1/4 of their electricity is generated by wind, which is a greater percent than any other nation.
"Besides if worse comes to worse, we can just use the electricity to power A/Cs......yes, i know they actually increase the amount of heat, it was a joke."
Joke or not, if you use ground source coupled heat pumps for the A/C, you would be pumping the heat back into the ground (though much shallower), and you could really offset (some of) the imbalance of heat extracted from deeper in the ground.
Selling coupons for those wishing to license Novell/Suse software may indeed be considered distribution under US law. Do you think Microsoft would want to test this in court by suing Gnu/Linux users over patents that might or might not be held valid, or do you think they'd rather let the current confused atmosphere of FUD contintue?
The sale of vouchers for Novell software is conveying and/or propagating the software, and under US law may be considered as distribution. There's a good chance that MS has already, under GPL2, waived their right to sue Gnu/Linux users over patents covering Gnu/Linux.
The term "distribution" used in the GPL2 is a US law term of art. There is a very good chance that the deal Micrsoft made with Novell makes them a distributor subject to the terms of the GPL2, at least in the US. If so, Microsoft may have already waived their right to sue Gnu/Linux users for patent infringement. Don't expect Microsoft to test this in court, FUD is more valuable than the chance of suing free software users over patents that may or may not be valid.
The use of the words "conveying" and "propagating" was meant to clear up international differences in legal definitions of terms. In the US, "distribution" includes many forms of "making available to the public" or "communicating to the public", so, GPL2 or GPL3, MS may already be obligated by a waiver to not sue Gnu/Linux users for any patents that might be infringed by the software. I doubt they'll ever take the chance to test this in court, so I don't fear them suing me for patents that might cover GPL2 software that I use.
A license is a grant of permission for use or waiver of the right to sue. It can be considered as a one-way deal. Though it is usually granted as part of a contract, there is considerable debate about whether it by itself should be considered an agreement of two parties, i.e. a contract.
Not abiding by the terms of the license shouldn't mean anything about using the software (MS may disagree), but if you don't abide by the terms of the license, you don't get the waiver of the right to sue for copyright infringement, and so you can't copy or distribute the software or any derivatives.
The GPL3 doesn't affect MS unless MS copies, modifies, or distributes software published under the GPL3. If they do, then they either agree to the conditions or they can get sued for copyright infringement. My guess is that under many conditions they would be more willing to pay the costs of losing a copyright suit than abide by the GPL3. It won't be clear that they get off the hook for automatic patent licences and the like until court cases and appeals create precendents.
And the GPL3 was not custom crafted to specifcally attack Microsoft. It was specifically crafted to increase protections against patent attacks and to prevent companies like Tivo from avoiding the intent of the license.
"Wrong on faster and cheaper. As the recount in some Florida counties showed in the 2000 US presidential election."
I can't see the logic in that example. The recount in Florida was a recount, not a count. A recount of a close, contested vote has a lot of inherent diffuclties not necessarily found in the first count. Also, it was a visual recount of punch cards, and punch cards are designed for machine counting, not human reading. Hanging chads would not have been a problem in a paper ballot. I know ambiguities will always be possible in marking ballots, even paper ones. But humans are more accurate (even though maybe less consistent) than machines at interpreting ambiguities.
Your idea is right, but your math is a little off.
You should be able to get down below 1.5 kW per Ton of A/C. (efficient systems can get down below 1.0 kW/T, even including all the pumps and fans) That works out to close to 0.4 kW of A/C power used per 1.0 kW of heat cooled. But first add about 0.15 kW UPS per 1.0 kW power delivered, so you might as much as 0.5 kW per 1.0 kW of server power.
The maximum rated power supply does not correlate to power consumed, but an over-sized or under-sized power supply will be less efficient.
Also, is that 80W power differential the average over 24hrs/7days a week, or is it closer to a peak use difference?
"Sure, but most desktops don't run more than one or two apps at a time."
At work I'm likely to have CADD, spreadsheet, word processor, e-mail client, web browser, instant messenger, and pdf viewer open simultaneuously, each with multiple documents open. At home, I'm likely to only have 3 or 4 of those open at a time. (I currently have BricsCad, Firefox, Adobe Acrobat, Evolution, and Nautilis open.) That doesn't count background services that the OS might have running.
Re:An argument for doing away with drug patents
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
I don't completely agree with the AC, but AC was talking about basic research, which IMO is very underfunded, and your answer was about R&D, which you would expect any company to do. Nonetheless, patents are useful in encouraging the development of drugs, especially because trades secrets are out of the question if you want assurances of drug safety. The drug companies do try to game the system - doesn't almost everyone?
TFA didn't address what a programmer needs to know, it did claim that computer science was not rooted in math.
The point about not using MS Excel for statistics was that there are errors in the Excel statistical package that went unfixed for years (maybe fixed in MS Office 2007 ?, does anybody know?); similar errors got fixed quickly in Gnumeric.
"A mathematician thinks in terms of numbers and functions, which naturally helps in creating numeric algorithms."
Expand your definition of maths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_calculus
1. Define the math of computer science as algorithms. 2. Narrowly define algorithms so that they don't include all computer expressions. 3. Proclaim that computer science doesn't need math. 4. ???? 5. Profit!!
Having done some work for a well known packaged food brand, in a research and development lab and pilot plant, I can definitely confirm that there is such a thing as cooking science and food science.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't seen a copy either, but I did find a couple of interesting links:2 11117353/
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200705190 90322431/
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070525
"Book store owners aren't liable or obligated to conditions to the copyright of the books they sell unless the publisher conveys that to them before offering the book."
Book stores are obligated by the copyrights of the books they sell, but book stores don't make copies. A book store buys a physical copy of the book, and the doctrine of first sale gives them the right to do whatever they want with those phyisical copies (unless they contracted otherwise). Also, books bought by or sold at a book store don't typically come with EULAs. A more apt analogy would be an e-book that requires a copy to be made in order to distribute it.
I do, though, agree with the points you make about FUD in your post.
"the reason being that it takes decades to warm the oceans, which are THE significant source of C02 on the planet."
The oceans are a carbon dioxide sink, not a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink/
Strictly speaking, you're examples are not of geo-thermal energy production, but of ground source coupled heat pumps.
It is much more efficient at heating using 55F ground water to reject heat than rejecting it to 95F air for summer A/C and much more possible to extract heat from 55F ground water than to extract it from 0F air in the winter (frost buildup on the evaporator coil at those low air temperautres causes you to do so much defrosting that it pays to use direct electric heat instead.)
Still, that's not using geothermal heat for energy production, rather it is using the earth at relatively shallow depths as an efficient constant+/- temperature heat source/sink for conventional refrigeration cycles.
"It was a risky play, but one that could have paid off handsomely, . . . " ."
"It was an impossible play, but one that could have paid off in your neo-con dreams, . .
There, fixed that for you.
'Also wind is very viable provided you have you farms spread around the country, smaller nations may have a problem with "no wind" '
I just got back from a very small country, Danmark. I was impressed by the number of wind turbines there, and was told that about 1/4 of their electricity is generated by wind, which is a greater percent than any other nation.
"Besides if worse comes to worse, we can just use the electricity to power A/Cs... ...yes, i know they actually increase the amount of heat, it was a joke."
Joke or not, if you use ground source coupled heat pumps for the A/C, you would be pumping the heat back into the ground (though much shallower), and you could really offset (some of) the imbalance of heat extracted from deeper in the ground.
n/t
"A voucher to get software from Novell isn't distribution by Microsoft"
Care to test that theory in a US court of law? Or at least cite some case law backing up your legal theory?
Selling coupons for those wishing to license Novell/Suse software may indeed be considered distribution under US law. Do you think Microsoft would want to test this in court by suing Gnu/Linux users over patents that might or might not be held valid, or do you think they'd rather let the current confused atmosphere of FUD contintue?
The sale of vouchers for Novell software is conveying and/or propagating the software, and under US law may be considered as distribution. There's a good chance that MS has already, under GPL2, waived their right to sue Gnu/Linux users over patents covering Gnu/Linux.
The term "distribution" used in the GPL2 is a US law term of art. There is a very good chance that the deal Micrsoft made with Novell makes them a distributor subject to the terms of the GPL2, at least in the US. If so, Microsoft may have already waived their right to sue Gnu/Linux users for patent infringement. Don't expect Microsoft to test this in court, FUD is more valuable than the chance of suing free software users over patents that may or may not be valid.
The use of the words "conveying" and "propagating" was meant to clear up international differences in legal definitions of terms. In the US, "distribution" includes many forms of "making available to the public" or "communicating to the public", so, GPL2 or GPL3, MS may already be obligated by a waiver to not sue Gnu/Linux users for any patents that might be infringed by the software. I doubt they'll ever take the chance to test this in court, so I don't fear them suing me for patents that might cover GPL2 software that I use.
A license is a grant of permission for use or waiver of the right to sue. It can be considered as a one-way deal. Though it is usually granted as part of a contract, there is considerable debate about whether it by itself should be considered an agreement of two parties, i.e. a contract.
Not abiding by the terms of the license shouldn't mean anything about using the software (MS may disagree), but if you don't abide by the terms of the license, you don't get the waiver of the right to sue for copyright infringement, and so you can't copy or distribute the software or any derivatives.
The GPL3 doesn't affect MS unless MS copies, modifies, or distributes software published under the GPL3. If they do, then they either agree to the conditions or they can get sued for copyright infringement. My guess is that under many conditions they would be more willing to pay the costs of losing a copyright suit than abide by the GPL3. It won't be clear that they get off the hook for automatic patent licences and the like until court cases and appeals create precendents.
And the GPL3 was not custom crafted to specifcally attack Microsoft. It was specifically crafted to increase protections against patent attacks and to prevent companies like Tivo from avoiding the intent of the license.
"Wrong on faster and cheaper. As the recount in some Florida counties showed in the 2000 US presidential election."
I can't see the logic in that example.
The recount in Florida was a recount, not a count. A recount of a close, contested vote has a lot of inherent diffuclties not necessarily found in the first count.
Also, it was a visual recount of punch cards, and punch cards are designed for machine counting, not human reading. Hanging chads would not have been a problem in a paper ballot. I know ambiguities will always be possible in marking ballots, even paper ones. But humans are more accurate (even though maybe less consistent) than machines at interpreting ambiguities.
Your idea is right, but your math is a little off.
You should be able to get down below 1.5 kW per Ton of A/C. (efficient systems can get down below 1.0 kW/T, even including all the pumps and fans)
That works out to close to 0.4 kW of A/C power used per 1.0 kW of heat cooled. But first add about 0.15 kW UPS per 1.0 kW power delivered, so you might as much as 0.5 kW per 1.0 kW of server power.
The maximum rated power supply does not correlate to power consumed, but an over-sized or under-sized power supply will be less efficient.
Also, is that 80W power differential the average over 24hrs/7days a week, or is it closer to a peak use difference?
"Sure, but most desktops don't run more than one or two apps at a time."
At work I'm likely to have CADD, spreadsheet, word processor, e-mail client, web browser, instant messenger, and pdf viewer open simultaneuously, each with multiple documents open.
At home, I'm likely to only have 3 or 4 of those open at a time. (I currently have BricsCad, Firefox, Adobe Acrobat, Evolution, and Nautilis open.)
That doesn't count background services that the OS might have running.
I don't completely agree with the AC, but AC was talking about basic research, which IMO is very underfunded, and your answer was about R&D, which you would expect any company to do.
Nonetheless, patents are useful in encouraging the development of drugs, especially because trades secrets are out of the question if you want assurances of drug safety.
The drug companies do try to game the system - doesn't almost everyone?
"google started the trend: information is the most valuable thing in the world"
This "trend" was started millenia before google existed.
TFA didn't address what a programmer needs to know, it did claim that computer science was not rooted in math.
The point about not using MS Excel for statistics was that there are errors in the Excel statistical package that went unfixed for years (maybe fixed in MS Office 2007 ?, does anybody know?); similar errors got fixed quickly in Gnumeric.
Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these?
"A mathematician thinks in terms of numbers and functions, which naturally helps in creating numeric algorithms."
0 2/23/068219
Expand your definition of maths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_calculus
". . . if there are any numbers involved, we do it in Excel."
If you are doing any serious statistics, please consider using gnumeric instead.
http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~jcryer/JSMTalk2001.pdf
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/
1. Define the math of computer science as algorithms.
2. Narrowly define algorithms so that they don't include all computer expressions.
3. Proclaim that computer science doesn't need math.
4. ????
5. Profit!!
"There are many fundamental programming tools that don't require math above the level of addition, subtraction multiplication and division."
And when you explore searching, trees, program flow, etc., and develop theories and algorithms about them, you are doing more advanced math.
Having done some work for a well known packaged food brand, in a research and development lab and pilot plant, I can definitely confirm that there is such a thing as cooking science and food science.