No, of course it isn't. What we are forgetting is all of the other environmental contributions that are missing from these simplified analyses... sure they guzzle less gas, but what about the batteries that will need replacing and go through some nasty proceses in construction and disposal (yes, I know you say you will recycle them... but who knows if your dealer will hold up his end of the bargain.) Plus you have to consider the fact that you aren't mass producing these vechicles - the manufactureres are making really a token number of hybrids. There is a cost - not just monetary, but in tooling, reconfiguring assembly lines, etc. which takes a toll on our environment - to make a few thousand hybrid vehicles. If you add it all up, all hybrids are is a way for grown up hippies with (1) too much money to burn to feel good about themselves or (2) not enough money to run themselves unnecessarily into debt. Buying a decent traditional car with good fuel economy in the long run is almost assuredly better for the environment when you look at the total life cycle from end to end, not just from the showcase to you selling it to the next guy, a better deal for all parties involved including the environment.
If your house was broken in to you would still have legal right to your CD's they would just not be in your posession for the time being. Note the "or" in "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product..."
Quite frankly I'm dissapointed in the EFF for being so sensational.
If the work depends on the NDA elements it really isn't an "original" contribution to his field since its been done already. I'm under the assumption that this is a toolkit that will enable him to pursue original research.
Assuming that is the case he has nothing to worry about (that's the case I am operating under... I've published peer-reviwed papers and given two presentations at major conferences on my research...)
Re:C++ is cross-platform, dont know what your smok
on
Write Portable Code
·
· Score: 1
In all honesty I'm not the one who manages those... but basically the makefiles are broken into parts and it looks for the section appropriate for the operating system, exports the appropriate compiler / linker options, and your good to go.
-everphilski-
C++ is cross-platform, dont know what your smoking
on
Write Portable Code
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I write simulations with GUI's in C++ exclusively and I develop in both Linux and XP (depends on the customer as to the final platform, but I code on both depening on where I am). Its easy to do c++ cross-platform. The only difference is I type "make" on the Linux box and "nmake" on the Windows box:P
hint: use standard C++ calls, don't get locked in to vendor-specific functions, use cross-platform libraries for the rest (opengl, xerces, etc.)
and "you" account for what.... 1% of users? He won't complain. But by making it easy for the developer to make drivers for Linux, you make it easier for people to use linux with their existing hardware you raise your market penetration.
You're going off on a tangent. I was saying there are two big issues that people keep coming back to, and this would address one of them. I happen to agree with you about the desktop.
Linux is about quality software.
And theres nothing about a binary kernel driver layer that would preclude that.
There are many devices that don't work under Linux. Good devices. They arent "pieces of crap." But due to the nature of business the drivers just can't be open sourced. Someone has to give. Why can't there be a binary kernel driver layer? Because the ideologies of a few kernel developers and open source "philosphers" say no. Yes it might take a little work. I mean hell, making linux wasn't a cakewalk. Doing so would open up a host of devices whose manufacturers are willing to do the legwork of making the drivers but who are unable - contractually or otherwise - to open the drivers up to public scrutiny. But again, the ideas are coming before the user, and that is what I consider a failure. (whats the number 1 and 2 turnoff th linux in the desktop? lack of a good UI and interoperability with the hardware a given user already has. IMO, there are GUI's that are almost there, and you could knock #2 off the list if a binary kernel driver layer was pulled off well... why not try?)
The point of contention is open source vs. standardized distribution. Once you make a modification, your code base is no longer the "standard" distribution, be it RedHat, gentoo, or Slack. Therefore you really can't get support for it, free or otherwise (what, are you going to post on a forum "well, I tweaked this and this..."). So as Linux pushes towards standardization effectively the open-ness is still there and available to you but is marginalized in the sense that once you make changes then you aren't standard anymore.
It's not a distribution thing its a philosophical thing.
To make an allusion to a situation I have at work: we use a framework for development, and I have a tweaked copy I use for a pet project. But I don't dare ask for support on it, because I made modifications to the code beyond the specifications of the code. I can do that, because I am a developer and have rights to the codebase, etc. but then its no longer a standard. I can't expect it to support other applications built for the main framework and vice versa, etc...
But in truth he makes a point - the core of the OS in general doesn't need to be messed with, most tweaks and alterations do/should occur at the application level.
VC++ Express is awesome, the only gripe I have with it is the fact that you can't explicitly add include/link paths using a find box... to add universal include/link paths you need to edit an xml file, and to add include/link paths to a particular project you have to type the path_to_file... its a nitpick I know but otherwise its a great product for free.
You generally wouldn't upgrade the kernel on flight hardware unless there was a known bug that cropped up after launch. What you might want to upgrade after the fact is your flight code, and if that does go wrong there generally are watchdogs that detect a bad upload and flash from a known good firmware.
Comsats are the big birds of the satellite world; they are power hungry and need huge solar arrays and a huge dish pointed with great accuracy at the surface. They also need something else - geosynchronous orbit. They need to be at a static location in the sky where they can point in one direction... These satellites are aimed at the scientific and possibly educational community, although they tend to do well enough leeching off of NASA. (not a rip, an observation, having been there and done that)
Slashdot Mirror
you suck!
-everphilski-
No, of course it isn't. What we are forgetting is all of the other environmental contributions that are missing from these simplified analyses... sure they guzzle less gas, but what about the batteries that will need replacing and go through some nasty proceses in construction and disposal (yes, I know you say you will recycle them... but who knows if your dealer will hold up his end of the bargain.) Plus you have to consider the fact that you aren't mass producing these vechicles - the manufactureres are making really a token number of hybrids. There is a cost - not just monetary, but in tooling, reconfiguring assembly lines, etc. which takes a toll on our environment - to make a few thousand hybrid vehicles. If you add it all up, all hybrids are is a way for grown up hippies with (1) too much money to burn to feel good about themselves or (2) not enough money to run themselves unnecessarily into debt. Buying a decent traditional car with good fuel economy in the long run is almost assuredly better for the environment when you look at the total life cycle from end to end, not just from the showcase to you selling it to the next guy, a better deal for all parties involved including the environment.
-everphilski-
3 the sig... poor moleman
Why not buy rechargable AAA batteries? Thats what my TI-89 calculator is running on ...
-everphilski-
If your house was broken in to you would still have legal right to your CD's they would just not be in your posession for the time being. Note the "or" in "In the event that you no longer possess or have the right under such license to use the original CD product..."
Quite frankly I'm dissapointed in the EFF for being so sensational.
-everphilski-
regardless of legal loopholes that may exist in ... Microsoft's EULA
/boggle...
So if the EULA says you can do it, your point is?
You don't have to ask permission, even though they already gave it to you?
-everphilski-
They are reselling these licenses with Microsoft's blessings... they aren't grumbling.
-everphilski-
You pay a subscription to use a health club. You don't get any say in who they hire, their usiness practices, etc.
/. ... you probably dont.
o wait... this is
-everphilski-
If the work depends on the NDA elements it really isn't an "original" contribution to his field since its been done already. I'm under the assumption that this is a toolkit that will enable him to pursue original research.
Assuming that is the case he has nothing to worry about (that's the case I am operating under... I've published peer-reviwed papers and given two presentations at major conferences on my research...)
-everphilski-
Choke your pride and sign the NDA. I fail to see what the problem is.
(I use code from work in pursuit of my thesis, they were more than happy to extend a NDA to me, I scratch their back they scratch mine...)
-everphilski-
... when we all said "worst... MMO... Ever..."
-everphilski-
In all honesty I'm not the one who manages those... but basically the makefiles are broken into parts and it looks for the section appropriate for the operating system, exports the appropriate compiler / linker options, and your good to go.
-everphilski-
I write simulations with GUI's in C++ exclusively and I develop in both Linux and XP (depends on the customer as to the final platform, but I code on both depening on where I am). Its easy to do c++ cross-platform. The only difference is I type "make" on the Linux box and "nmake" on the Windows box :P
hint: use standard C++ calls, don't get locked in to vendor-specific functions, use cross-platform libraries for the rest (opengl, xerces, etc.)
-everphilski-
and "you" account for what.... 1% of users? He won't complain. But by making it easy for the developer to make drivers for Linux, you make it easier for people to use linux with their existing hardware you raise your market penetration.
-everphilski-
You're going off on a tangent. I was saying there are two big issues that people keep coming back to, and this would address one of them. I happen to agree with you about the desktop.
Linux is about quality software.
And theres nothing about a binary kernel driver layer that would preclude that.
-everphilski-
There are many devices that don't work under Linux. Good devices. They arent "pieces of crap." But due to the nature of business the drivers just can't be open sourced. Someone has to give. Why can't there be a binary kernel driver layer? Because the ideologies of a few kernel developers and open source "philosphers" say no. Yes it might take a little work. I mean hell, making linux wasn't a cakewalk. Doing so would open up a host of devices whose manufacturers are willing to do the legwork of making the drivers but who are unable - contractually or otherwise - to open the drivers up to public scrutiny. But again, the ideas are coming before the user, and that is what I consider a failure. (whats the number 1 and 2 turnoff th linux in the desktop? lack of a good UI and interoperability with the hardware a given user already has. IMO, there are GUI's that are almost there, and you could knock #2 off the list if a binary kernel driver layer was pulled off well... why not try?)
-everphilski-
When an ideology takes precident over the experiance of a user... yes.
-everphilski-
This is the problem with the open source movement. Putting the code before the user.
And this is why you fail.
-everphilski-
gah... not the guy with the wikipedia ref. to the sonic beam... the one with the reference to karma whore... twas funny as hell...
-everphilski-
Wish I had mod points...
The point of contention is open source vs. standardized distribution. Once you make a modification, your code base is no longer the "standard" distribution, be it RedHat, gentoo, or Slack. Therefore you really can't get support for it, free or otherwise (what, are you going to post on a forum "well, I tweaked this and this..."). So as Linux pushes towards standardization effectively the open-ness is still there and available to you but is marginalized in the sense that once you make changes then you aren't standard anymore.
It's not a distribution thing its a philosophical thing.
To make an allusion to a situation I have at work: we use a framework for development, and I have a tweaked copy I use for a pet project. But I don't dare ask for support on it, because I made modifications to the code beyond the specifications of the code. I can do that, because I am a developer and have rights to the codebase, etc. but then its no longer a standard. I can't expect it to support other applications built for the main framework and vice versa, etc...
But in truth he makes a point - the core of the OS in general doesn't need to be messed with, most tweaks and alterations do/should occur at the application level.
Just my 2 cents worth,
-everphilski-
VC++ Express is awesome, the only gripe I have with it is the fact that you can't explicitly add include/link paths using a find box... to add universal include/link paths you need to edit an xml file, and to add include/link paths to a particular project you have to type the path_to_file... its a nitpick I know but otherwise its a great product for free.
-everphilski-
You generally wouldn't upgrade the kernel on flight hardware unless there was a known bug that cropped up after launch. What you might want to upgrade after the fact is your flight code, and if that does go wrong there generally are watchdogs that detect a bad upload and flash from a known good firmware.
-everphilski-
Comsats are the big birds of the satellite world; they are power hungry and need huge solar arrays and a huge dish pointed with great accuracy at the surface. They also need something else - geosynchronous orbit. They need to be at a static location in the sky where they can point in one direction... These satellites are aimed at the scientific and possibly educational community, although they tend to do well enough leeching off of NASA. (not a rip, an observation, having been there and done that)
-everphilski-
multiple primary payloads...SpaceX Falcon I and Orbital Sciences Pegasus.
(from the f*cking article)
-everphilski-