". ..it's the use of header files during development."
And this gets into those arguments which I said could last all day - because it's not really clear whether using a header file during development actually creates a derivative work. I don't have the URL handy right now, but I seem to recall during the SCO Saga that SCO made a claim about a header file violation by the Linux Kernel and ELF libraries, and it seems like the resolution of that claim was something to the effect that header files (in particular, symbolic constant names, values, and function/class/variable names) are not protected by copyright because they are necessary for interoperability or something along those lines. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I just remember reading that and thinking that kind of blows a hole in the claim that a dynamic library violates copyrights (in general) of the work it is linked against.
But, there might be counterarguments that can be made. So, I go back to my original point, technical merits notwithstanding, so far as I know, this is not a settled matter of law, and so it is at least *possible* that you could actually legally link a commercial library or client app against MySQL without violating the GPL (the claims the GPL itself makes notwithstanding). But, since it's not settled, the first person/company to try this is making a real legal crap-shoot, and better hope they have the right lawyer to make the argument to the courts for why this *should* be legal.
There's an interesting thing hidden in this whole mess. . . The argument that Monty makes for why he doesn't think MySQL can survive as a strictly GPL product is that it would cut off the ability of him and others to make money selling non-GPL products which *link* to MySQL. This is based upon the notion that dynamically linking an executable with a GPL library (or linking a non-GPL library with a GPL executable) violates the GPL - which of course is an assertion the FSF likes to make. I am not a lawyer, but I've tried to research this and find an answer to the following question: does dynamic linking actually create a copyright infringement situation (i.e. a derivative work)?
From a technical standpoint, you can argue back and forth on the merits all day. But, from a standpoint of the law, so far as I've been able to tell, this is a question that has never been addressed by courts or legislation. Personally, I feel the most reasonable interpretation (from the standpoint of being consistent and, well, logical) would be that linking does *not* create a derivative work (for example, is Firefox a derivative of the Flash plugin, or Flash plugin a derivative of Firefox? Seems to me they are fairly independent works that use the mechanism of dynamic linking to work together.)
But, I also agree with other posters that Monty got a Billion bucks, and now wants to get MySQL back, and that's just kind of shady. You sell something, you get paid, it's not yours anymore. Maybe Monty can *buy it back* from Sun before they sell to Oracle - seems like that would be fair to all parties involved, and clear the way for the Oracle/Sun merger.
Well, at least the following occurs to me why it will be more expensive: any switch to IPv6 necessarily involves a transition period where IPv4 and IPv6 must run side-by-side. When we hit the point where all IPv4 addresses are 'owned', it might be very expensive to get the necessary IPv4 addresses to enable a smooth transition to IPv6 (artificial scarcity will drive up the price of IPv4 addresses, I would presume based upon usual market economic forces - I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years' time, IPv4 addresses are 10x or 100x more expensive than they historically have been).
Or you could get a router which supports IPv6 *today* and use 6to4 to use a single public v4 address to address multiple IPv6 hosts on your network, and to talk to other IPv6 capable hosts. If you want a router that's ready out of the box, my understanding is that Apple's Airport routers support IPv6. If you don't mind a little bit of tinkering, you can get a router which is compatible with a third-party firmware replacement (such as OpenWRT, load OpenWRT on it, and use IPv6 (I just got a Linksys WRT54GL for $70 at Microcenter - it's a bit more expensive than some of the other 802.11g routers, but still not too bad - and I'm going to flash it sometime in the next week or two, as I get time).
I think the rational goes that ISPs don't want to begin migrating to IPv6, because they are afraid it will cause problems for customers, incur lots of expense, generate no new revenues, and currently there is no customer demand for IPv6 (or negligible demand). Basically, everyone will migrate when it become too much of a pain in the ass to keep using IPv4, and no sooner. It'll probably be more expensive to migrate at that point, but oh well.
I would say a 'commodity' is the wrong analogy here. More like real estate in Manhattan or London or some other very expensive place where all available land is already owned. The thing about commodities, like food or toothbrushes, is that you can always make more. Not so with real estate, or IPv4 addresses. Once we hit the IP crunch, IP addresses will get *very* expensive, I think. I wonder how many people are just sitting on blocks of IP addresses waiting for 'the day', so they can sell them off at 1000x what they paid for them?
One of the things that modern medicine has done which I think most people would agree has been highly effective is vaccines against virii. As a kid growing up in the U.S., I think I got something like 8 different vaccinations. Those vaccinations protect against a lot of those things which used to kill people, which don't anymore.
This is basically implied in your #2, but I'd just call out modern sewer and waste water treatment systems, as well as garbage collection. I'm not sure, but I think things like pest/rodent control probably played a big role too - wasn't the bubonic plague spread by rodents?
As for antibiotics, I do agree with you - they are sort of a last line of defense for severe/rare cases.
I've been with Verizon in the past. Their network is great, but I just don't like the way the company operates. I switched to T-mobile about 6 months ago, and plan to stick with them. The great irony is, T-Mobile is the subsidiary of a state monopoly (Germany's Deutsch Telecom), but at least in the U.S. operates the least like a monopoly of the 4 major national mobile carriers. They recently made some plan changes which are downright good to consumers - like introducing plans which give you a cheaper monthly rate if you bring your own phone (or purchase one from them outright instead of subsidizing it with the monthly service plan). So far as I know, they are the *only* carrier which discounts your service if you aren't subsidizing a phone. What a great way to treat your customers.
Also, they've generally lowered costs on their monthly service plans, to the point where they are the best value of all the national carriers. They have pretty decent customer service from my experience, and a pretty good selection of phones (though, like I say, I still want an updated G1).
Not much, not in depth. Only a little bit, while studying for an Amateur Radio Technician license. But, enough to know that the following statement isn't completely accurate:
"88.1 mHz to 107.9 mHz requires a much smaller antenna than anything in the gHz-plus range."
I call BS on that. The length of the antenna that is required is *inversely* proportional to the frequency, because the length of the antenna is a function of the wavelength of the frequencies being tuned. You can have antennas that are approximately 1/4 wavelength, 1/2 wavelength, or 1 wavelength (I suppose it's possible to design an antenna which is some other fraction, but in ham radio, those seem to be the most common lengths).
So, IIRC correctly, wavelength is derived thusly: Wavelength is the distance the radio wave travels (at the speed of light) in one cycle
C = 299 792 458 m / s f_1 = 100 Mhz = 100 * 10^6 cycles / s f_2 = 1700 Mhz = 17 * 100 * 10^6
So, I don't know why you're going on about antenna size. A cell phone has to have an antenna, *anyhow*, and neither the T-mobile or AT&T cellphones have giant antennas, so that should be reason enough to dispel your argument about the antenna. The only question, really, is the tuner circuitry. Perhaps a 200 or 300 Mhz range really is too much range to pack into one cheap radio chip?
I just wish it had a real keyboard. I have tried playing with the phones with on-screen keyboards, and it just doesn't work for me. I'd love a Nexu One + G1 Keyboard. I like the new OLED display tech and faster cpu on the Nexus One. I love the keyboard on a G1. Wish I could get both in one phone.
"why give the T-Mobile users hardware they don't need"
I have a bit of a question about this. . . is it *really* any more expensive to create a radio frequency generator that can tune *either* set of frequencies? Why would the phone need additional hardware? Every radio has a tuner mechanism to choose the frequency. I mean, my 30 year old FM radio can tune 88Mhz *and* 107Mhz. Why can't a cell phone radio tune 1700Mhz *and* 1900Mhz? It's not fundamentally different technology, it's just a different frequency?
I was referring to Medicine as the entire field/industry of Medicine, not just MD.s. As you yourself state, a lot of PhDs are employed by biotech and pharma companies. Even doctors are trained in science, and effective use the scientific method every day. You may scoff at them as 'auto-mechanics', but even auto-mechanics, to a degree, employ the tools and techniques of science. As for MDs, as I pointed out, in order to practice, they need to learn a lot of science, even if they don't do 'research' day to day. Heck, some M.D.s specialize in research at research hospitals.
You know, I'm always. . . impressed. . . by the ability of the 'news' media (and people in general) to turn things around completely ass-backwards. The anecdote that the CNN story leads off with is about the Dan Brown book "The Lost Symbol". The book sold millions of copies, but was pirated over a hundred thousand times in the first few days. To me, that says "9 out of 10 People willing to pay for stuff they *could* have downloaded for free". The *real* story, which CNN apparently wishes to ignore, is that the vast majority of people are honest, and wish to pay the authors whose books they like, *instead* of pirating. The *real* story is the pirates are the vast minority of people. Of course, that doesn't generate page views.
As for Sherman Alexie . . . why do I care if he (she?) is terrified? People get terrified about all sorts of irrational things. Many children are terrified of the dark. Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?
"Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability. They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart."
I'd just like to point out that Medicine *is* science. To get a degree in medicine (whether as a nurse or doctor, or lab technician) you have to take all sort of chemistry, biology, and other science courses. All medical progress/research is science-driven. The part about law and MBA's is a good point, but throwing medicine in there strikes me as a bit odd given the argument of the statement.
Yeah, I kind of have to agree with the parent. I guess, honestly, I don't really know the state of U.S. science vs the rest of the world, but while I generally respect Dr. Tyson, his line of reasoning strikes me as a bit shallow. Basically, he says that because the Russian space agency is planning to try to deflect an Asteroid named Apophis so it has a reduced chance of colliding with Earth in a couple decades, and because CERN's LHC is currently leading theoretical particle physics, that the U.S.A. has fallen behind in science leadership.
It kind of sounds like Tyson is claiming that because anyone, anywhere, other than the U.S.A. is engaging in science, the U.S. has lost leadership of science. I realize that's not really what he's trying to say, but you read the article, and that's basically what you come to. That, and because there've been a few court cases where creationists LOST when trying to either restrict the teaching of evolution in public schools, or LOST when trying to force public schools to teach Intelligent Design. As far as I know, there is nowhere in the U.S.A. where the teaching of evolution is actually banned from public school curriculums, but apparently Tyson thinks that a very small but vocal minority, who caused a couple court cases which they lost, but which got big media attention, spells the end of science education in the U.S.
Oh noes! The sky is falling (well, if the Russians are unsuccessful, it might. ..)
Nobody ever said the Internet wasn't global. When interpreting pronouns like 'we' in a quote like that posted on slashdot, context matters. The person who constructed the sentence made it very clear that the 'we' pronoun was citizens and residents of the United States. 'We' isn't always a universal that is meant to encompass everyone who reads the text. For example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence was written by the Continental Congress, to be sent both to people within the American Colonies, *AND* to foreign nations (in particular, England). The second paragraph starts "We hold these truths to be self evident. .."
It's obvious that the writers of the Declaration of Independence weren't including all possible readers in the "We", as the King of England and his privy council, as well as the parliament of England, probably didn't hold that view at that time.
'We' is a perfectly useful pronoun, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way it was used in the quote posted to slashdot. If the article author hadn't made it clear from context who 'we' encompassed, then I might have agreed with your position, but I personally find your argument lacks merit.
I kinda know what you mean, but there's been times where I've been working in a block of code, written by someone else, where a short, very-high level comment about what the code, in general, was *supposed* to be be doing, would have helped out a little bit. But, you say, can't you tell what the code was supposed to be doing from a) the function name, and b) the code itself? Well, IIRC, the function was ambiguously named, and the code was broken - the code wasn't even correct, hence the reason I was working in that block of code, trying to fix it, but it wasn't clear what the code *should* have been doing, from a high level.
I mean, I still wasn't completely stuck. I knew the code wasn't working, and how it was effecting the rest of the program, so I *was* able to kind of work backwards from the rest of the program and make a good guess what the code probably should do, and just kind of worked from there to get the desired results that would make the rest of the program work. But, a one or two line comment from the original code author might have helped save some time.
Every time this conversation comes up, I feel obligated to point something out: There's no reason the phone company couldn't provide power on a digital line, similar to what they do with analog lines. The reason your phone works when the power is out is because the phone line carries it's own current (I think it's 48V DC, but I might be wrong on the exact value). There's no reason a fiber optic or DSL connection can't provide some power to the equipment plugged into it. (Yes, a fiber optic cable normally only carries light, and is made of glass fiber, a non-conductor, *but* the phone companies *could* bond a pair of copper conductors to the glass fiber, for carrying a DC current to power equipment on the customer premises, seems like; the cable companies could do something similar with coax).
*If* the FCC does ever decide to kill analog service, I do hope that the standards they adopt for digital service includes power.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the N900 basically run Linux? I believe that Duke 3D is old enough that it runs very well under something like dosemu , doesn't it? I mean, wasn't Duke 3D one of the last games to use a pure software renderer instead of hardware accelleration?
Because the $290M only covers past 'infringements'. i4i would settle with Microsoft in order to get a royalty on all future sales of Word. Trust me, if Microsoft doesn't think they can prevail at the SCOTUS, they *will* settle with i4i instead of not selling Word any longer (even if it's just to buy them time to work around the patent, unless they already have a new version of Word ready to launch which has such a work-around).
i4i will settle with Microsoft, if Microsoft offers them enough cash, because any money they get from the settlement will be *in addition* to the already awarded amount.
"Microsoft must now pay $290M and either stop selling Word (and probably Office) by January 11, or somehow work around the patent by that date."
They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think i4i's patent is legitimate (I'm not really very familiar with this case - somehow missed it before this, will need to study up on it more later). I'm just saying, the list of options seems to leave out one pretty big possibility.
Wait, explain to me again how the US comes out *ahead* by spending a Billion dollars a day in Iraq, instead of just paying higher oil prices? People have been beating this horse about the war in Iraq being 'blood for oil' ever since the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the given reasons for invading Iraq were right (the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda have, afaik, never been shown to have any evidence, although he did have some link to terrorism, in general, [it has been reported that he did financially reward the families of suicide bombers in Palestine]), and as we learned after the war was over, there weren't any WMDs left in Iraq.
But, I fail to see any real evidence this war was ever about oil, except in the most tenuous sense (that, possibly, by putting in a stable, democratic government in Iraq which was 'friendly' with the West, it might help make the entire region more democratic, and as a secondary result, someday help make regional politics in the Middle East more conducive to trade on more favorable terms).
I have a question: it seems to me that, if climate change is destroying some areas that were previously suitable habitat for different coffee varieties, wouldn't it also be converting areas which were previously un-suitable, into suitable areas?
Now I remember why I almost never read/watch Fox news. I was scratching my head wondering what the connection is between a domain name, and lieing to the Federal Elections Commission. Last time I checked, a DNS registration is not submitted to the FEC.
Reading that statement, I knew there had to be more to this story, but good luck getting it from Fox News. They must really think everyone is stupid (or maybe they just *don't* care about non-stupid people - we aren't in their demographic, I guess).
I might be wrong, but it sounded, from the article, like Broussard was a co-owner of the company. As such, he didn't need to string along the company to draw a paycheck, because it was *already* his money. If anything, he pissed away his own fortune (and that of his fellow owners).
Slashdot Mirror
". . .it's the use of header files during development."
And this gets into those arguments which I said could last all day - because it's not really clear whether using a header file during development actually creates a derivative work. I don't have the URL handy right now, but I seem to recall during the SCO Saga that SCO made a claim about a header file violation by the Linux Kernel and ELF libraries, and it seems like the resolution of that claim was something to the effect that header files (in particular, symbolic constant names, values, and function/class/variable names) are not protected by copyright because they are necessary for interoperability or something along those lines. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I just remember reading that and thinking that kind of blows a hole in the claim that a dynamic library violates copyrights (in general) of the work it is linked against.
But, there might be counterarguments that can be made. So, I go back to my original point, technical merits notwithstanding, so far as I know, this is not a settled matter of law, and so it is at least *possible* that you could actually legally link a commercial library or client app against MySQL without violating the GPL (the claims the GPL itself makes notwithstanding). But, since it's not settled, the first person/company to try this is making a real legal crap-shoot, and better hope they have the right lawyer to make the argument to the courts for why this *should* be legal.
There's an interesting thing hidden in this whole mess. . . The argument that Monty makes for why he doesn't think MySQL can survive as a strictly GPL product is that it would cut off the ability of him and others to make money selling non-GPL products which *link* to MySQL. This is based upon the notion that dynamically linking an executable with a GPL library (or linking a non-GPL library with a GPL executable) violates the GPL - which of course is an assertion the FSF likes to make. I am not a lawyer, but I've tried to research this and find an answer to the following question: does dynamic linking actually create a copyright infringement situation (i.e. a derivative work)?
From a technical standpoint, you can argue back and forth on the merits all day. But, from a standpoint of the law, so far as I've been able to tell, this is a question that has never been addressed by courts or legislation. Personally, I feel the most reasonable interpretation (from the standpoint of being consistent and, well, logical) would be that linking does *not* create a derivative work (for example, is Firefox a derivative of the Flash plugin, or Flash plugin a derivative of Firefox? Seems to me they are fairly independent works that use the mechanism of dynamic linking to work together.)
But, I also agree with other posters that Monty got a Billion bucks, and now wants to get MySQL back, and that's just kind of shady. You sell something, you get paid, it's not yours anymore. Maybe Monty can *buy it back* from Sun before they sell to Oracle - seems like that would be fair to all parties involved, and clear the way for the Oracle/Sun merger.
"Why more expensive?"
Well, at least the following occurs to me why it will be more expensive: any switch to IPv6 necessarily involves a transition period where IPv4 and IPv6 must run side-by-side. When we hit the point where all IPv4 addresses are 'owned', it might be very expensive to get the necessary IPv4 addresses to enable a smooth transition to IPv6 (artificial scarcity will drive up the price of IPv4 addresses, I would presume based upon usual market economic forces - I wouldn't be surprised if in a couple years' time, IPv4 addresses are 10x or 100x more expensive than they historically have been).
Or you could get a router which supports IPv6 *today* and use 6to4 to use a single public v4 address to address multiple IPv6 hosts on your network, and to talk to other IPv6 capable hosts. If you want a router that's ready out of the box, my understanding is that Apple's Airport routers support IPv6. If you don't mind a little bit of tinkering, you can get a router which is compatible with a third-party firmware replacement (such as OpenWRT, load OpenWRT on it, and use IPv6 (I just got a Linksys WRT54GL for $70 at Microcenter - it's a bit more expensive than some of the other 802.11g routers, but still not too bad - and I'm going to flash it sometime in the next week or two, as I get time).
I think the rational goes that ISPs don't want to begin migrating to IPv6, because they are afraid it will cause problems for customers, incur lots of expense, generate no new revenues, and currently there is no customer demand for IPv6 (or negligible demand). Basically, everyone will migrate when it become too much of a pain in the ass to keep using IPv4, and no sooner. It'll probably be more expensive to migrate at that point, but oh well.
I would say a 'commodity' is the wrong analogy here. More like real estate in Manhattan or London or some other very expensive place where all available land is already owned. The thing about commodities, like food or toothbrushes, is that you can always make more. Not so with real estate, or IPv4 addresses. Once we hit the IP crunch, IP addresses will get *very* expensive, I think. I wonder how many people are just sitting on blocks of IP addresses waiting for 'the day', so they can sell them off at 1000x what they paid for them?
One of the things that modern medicine has done which I think most people would agree has been highly effective is vaccines against virii. As a kid growing up in the U.S., I think I got something like 8 different vaccinations. Those vaccinations protect against a lot of those things which used to kill people, which don't anymore.
This is basically implied in your #2, but I'd just call out modern sewer and waste water treatment systems, as well as garbage collection. I'm not sure, but I think things like pest/rodent control probably played a big role too - wasn't the bubonic plague spread by rodents?
As for antibiotics, I do agree with you - they are sort of a last line of defense for severe/rare cases.
Two words, Verizone Sucks. *grin*
I've been with Verizon in the past. Their network is great, but I just don't like the way the company operates. I switched to T-mobile about 6 months ago, and plan to stick with them. The great irony is, T-Mobile is the subsidiary of a state monopoly (Germany's Deutsch Telecom), but at least in the U.S. operates the least like a monopoly of the 4 major national mobile carriers. They recently made some plan changes which are downright good to consumers - like introducing plans which give you a cheaper monthly rate if you bring your own phone (or purchase one from them outright instead of subsidizing it with the monthly service plan). So far as I know, they are the *only* carrier which discounts your service if you aren't subsidizing a phone. What a great way to treat your customers.
Also, they've generally lowered costs on their monthly service plans, to the point where they are the best value of all the national carriers. They have pretty decent customer service from my experience, and a pretty good selection of phones (though, like I say, I still want an updated G1).
"You apparently never studied RF physics."
Not much, not in depth. Only a little bit, while studying for an Amateur Radio Technician license. But, enough to know that the following statement isn't completely accurate:
"88.1 mHz to 107.9 mHz requires a much smaller antenna than anything in the gHz-plus range."
I call BS on that. The length of the antenna that is required is *inversely* proportional to the frequency, because the length of the antenna is a function of the wavelength of the frequencies being tuned. You can have antennas that are approximately 1/4 wavelength, 1/2 wavelength, or 1 wavelength (I suppose it's possible to design an antenna which is some other fraction, but in ham radio, those seem to be the most common lengths).
So, IIRC correctly, wavelength is derived thusly: Wavelength is the distance the radio wave travels (at the speed of light) in one cycle
C = 299 792 458 m / s
f_1 = 100 Mhz = 100 * 10^6 cycles / s
f_2 = 1700 Mhz = 17 * 100 * 10^6
L_1 = C/f_1 = 299 792 458/(100 * 10^6) = 3 m / cycle
L_2 = C/f_2 = 299 792 458/(17 * 100 * 10^6) = 0.176 m / cycle
So, I don't know why you're going on about antenna size. A cell phone has to have an antenna, *anyhow*, and neither the T-mobile or AT&T cellphones have giant antennas, so that should be reason enough to dispel your argument about the antenna. The only question, really, is the tuner circuitry. Perhaps a 200 or 300 Mhz range really is too much range to pack into one cheap radio chip?
I just wish it had a real keyboard. I have tried playing with the phones with on-screen keyboards, and it just doesn't work for me. I'd love a Nexu One + G1 Keyboard. I like the new OLED display tech and faster cpu on the Nexus One. I love the keyboard on a G1. Wish I could get both in one phone.
"why give the T-Mobile users hardware they don't need"
I have a bit of a question about this. . . is it *really* any more expensive to create a radio frequency generator that can tune *either* set of frequencies? Why would the phone need additional hardware? Every radio has a tuner mechanism to choose the frequency. I mean, my 30 year old FM radio can tune 88Mhz *and* 107Mhz. Why can't a cell phone radio tune 1700Mhz *and* 1900Mhz? It's not fundamentally different technology, it's just a different frequency?
I was referring to Medicine as the entire field/industry of Medicine, not just MD.s. As you yourself state, a lot of PhDs are employed by biotech and pharma companies. Even doctors are trained in science, and effective use the scientific method every day. You may scoff at them as 'auto-mechanics', but even auto-mechanics, to a degree, employ the tools and techniques of science. As for MDs, as I pointed out, in order to practice, they need to learn a lot of science, even if they don't do 'research' day to day. Heck, some M.D.s specialize in research at research hospitals.
You know, I'm always. . . impressed. . . by the ability of the 'news' media (and people in general) to turn things around completely ass-backwards. The anecdote that the CNN story leads off with is about the Dan Brown book "The Lost Symbol". The book sold millions of copies, but was pirated over a hundred thousand times in the first few days. To me, that says "9 out of 10 People willing to pay for stuff they *could* have downloaded for free". The *real* story, which CNN apparently wishes to ignore, is that the vast majority of people are honest, and wish to pay the authors whose books they like, *instead* of pirating. The *real* story is the pirates are the vast minority of people. Of course, that doesn't generate page views.
As for Sherman Alexie . . . why do I care if he (she?) is terrified? People get terrified about all sorts of irrational things. Many children are terrified of the dark. Why do I care if someone is irrationally terrified of something?
"Students are staying away from science and math because of a short term (or maybe a long term) worry about employability. They also realize that law, medicine and MBA-type pursuits are much more lucrative if they're smart."
I'd just like to point out that Medicine *is* science. To get a degree in medicine (whether as a nurse or doctor, or lab technician) you have to take all sort of chemistry, biology, and other science courses. All medical progress/research is science-driven. The part about law and MBA's is a good point, but throwing medicine in there strikes me as a bit odd given the argument of the statement.
Yeah, I kind of have to agree with the parent. I guess, honestly, I don't really know the state of U.S. science vs the rest of the world, but while I generally respect Dr. Tyson, his line of reasoning strikes me as a bit shallow. Basically, he says that because the Russian space agency is planning to try to deflect an Asteroid named Apophis so it has a reduced chance of colliding with Earth in a couple decades, and because CERN's LHC is currently leading theoretical particle physics, that the U.S.A. has fallen behind in science leadership.
It kind of sounds like Tyson is claiming that because anyone, anywhere, other than the U.S.A. is engaging in science, the U.S. has lost leadership of science. I realize that's not really what he's trying to say, but you read the article, and that's basically what you come to. That, and because there've been a few court cases where creationists LOST when trying to either restrict the teaching of evolution in public schools, or LOST when trying to force public schools to teach Intelligent Design. As far as I know, there is nowhere in the U.S.A. where the teaching of evolution is actually banned from public school curriculums, but apparently Tyson thinks that a very small but vocal minority, who caused a couple court cases which they lost, but which got big media attention, spells the end of science education in the U.S.
Oh noes! The sky is falling (well, if the Russians are unsuccessful, it might. . .)
Nobody ever said the Internet wasn't global. When interpreting pronouns like 'we' in a quote like that posted on slashdot, context matters. The person who constructed the sentence made it very clear that the 'we' pronoun was citizens and residents of the United States. 'We' isn't always a universal that is meant to encompass everyone who reads the text. For example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence was written by the Continental Congress, to be sent both to people within the American Colonies, *AND* to foreign nations (in particular, England). The second paragraph starts "We hold these truths to be self evident. . ."
It's obvious that the writers of the Declaration of Independence weren't including all possible readers in the "We", as the King of England and his privy council, as well as the parliament of England, probably didn't hold that view at that time.
'We' is a perfectly useful pronoun, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way it was used in the quote posted to slashdot. If the article author hadn't made it clear from context who 'we' encompassed, then I might have agreed with your position, but I personally find your argument lacks merit.
I kinda know what you mean, but there's been times where I've been working in a block of code, written by someone else, where a short, very-high level comment about what the code, in general, was *supposed* to be be doing, would have helped out a little bit. But, you say, can't you tell what the code was supposed to be doing from a) the function name, and b) the code itself? Well, IIRC, the function was ambiguously named, and the code was broken - the code wasn't even correct, hence the reason I was working in that block of code, trying to fix it, but it wasn't clear what the code *should* have been doing, from a high level.
I mean, I still wasn't completely stuck. I knew the code wasn't working, and how it was effecting the rest of the program, so I *was* able to kind of work backwards from the rest of the program and make a good guess what the code probably should do, and just kind of worked from there to get the desired results that would make the rest of the program work. But, a one or two line comment from the original code author might have helped save some time.
Every time this conversation comes up, I feel obligated to point something out: There's no reason the phone company couldn't provide power on a digital line, similar to what they do with analog lines. The reason your phone works when the power is out is because the phone line carries it's own current (I think it's 48V DC, but I might be wrong on the exact value). There's no reason a fiber optic or DSL connection can't provide some power to the equipment plugged into it. (Yes, a fiber optic cable normally only carries light, and is made of glass fiber, a non-conductor, *but* the phone companies *could* bond a pair of copper conductors to the glass fiber, for carrying a DC current to power equipment on the customer premises, seems like; the cable companies could do something similar with coax).
*If* the FCC does ever decide to kill analog service, I do hope that the standards they adopt for digital service includes power.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the N900 basically run Linux? I believe that Duke 3D is old enough that it runs very well under something like dosemu , doesn't it? I mean, wasn't Duke 3D one of the last games to use a pure software renderer instead of hardware accelleration?
Because the $290M only covers past 'infringements'. i4i would settle with Microsoft in order to get a royalty on all future sales of Word. Trust me, if Microsoft doesn't think they can prevail at the SCOTUS, they *will* settle with i4i instead of not selling Word any longer (even if it's just to buy them time to work around the patent, unless they already have a new version of Word ready to launch which has such a work-around).
i4i will settle with Microsoft, if Microsoft offers them enough cash, because any money they get from the settlement will be *in addition* to the already awarded amount.
"Microsoft must now pay $290M and either stop selling Word (and probably Office) by January 11, or somehow work around the patent by that date."
They could, you know, settle with i4i and license the patent from them?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think i4i's patent is legitimate (I'm not really very familiar with this case - somehow missed it before this, will need to study up on it more later). I'm just saying, the list of options seems to leave out one pretty big possibility.
Wait, explain to me again how the US comes out *ahead* by spending a Billion dollars a day in Iraq, instead of just paying higher oil prices? People have been beating this horse about the war in Iraq being 'blood for oil' ever since the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the given reasons for invading Iraq were right (the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda have, afaik, never been shown to have any evidence, although he did have some link to terrorism, in general, [it has been reported that he did financially reward the families of suicide bombers in Palestine]), and as we learned after the war was over, there weren't any WMDs left in Iraq.
But, I fail to see any real evidence this war was ever about oil, except in the most tenuous sense (that, possibly, by putting in a stable, democratic government in Iraq which was 'friendly' with the West, it might help make the entire region more democratic, and as a secondary result, someday help make regional politics in the Middle East more conducive to trade on more favorable terms).
I have a question: it seems to me that, if climate change is destroying some areas that were previously suitable habitat for different coffee varieties, wouldn't it also be converting areas which were previously un-suitable, into suitable areas?
Now I remember why I almost never read/watch Fox news. I was scratching my head wondering what the connection is between a domain name, and lieing to the Federal Elections Commission. Last time I checked, a DNS registration is not submitted to the FEC.
Reading that statement, I knew there had to be more to this story, but good luck getting it from Fox News. They must really think everyone is stupid (or maybe they just *don't* care about non-stupid people - we aren't in their demographic, I guess).
I might be wrong, but it sounded, from the article, like Broussard was a co-owner of the company. As such, he didn't need to string along the company to draw a paycheck, because it was *already* his money. If anything, he pissed away his own fortune (and that of his fellow owners).