Your information is worth money to firms who want to sell you things. So, ANY way this information can be gathered is 'a good thing' as far as the companies are concerned.
In the case of programs, the only way to go is with Open Source. Think of it...a trojan is all about allowing others to see your data. Be it the whole system, or just other misc. bits. With Open Source, you can see what is going on. And if you WANT information to be sent back to somewhere, you know it.
Exactly WHY are companies that are loosing money WORTH all this cash? (Hint: I don't really want to hear all about how the future will be better, and the losses will become profits.)
Every one in the CNN article showed a loss. 94,000 last year, 2.3 million this year and yet this is worth having an IPO over. Boggles MY mind.
I guess if the US government can run a shop where more money is spent than taken in, then why not every one else?
When Steven Chen left Cray to start (SuperComputer systems?) they took over the old PC Board facilites in Eau Claire.
This was back in the days when the model for a fast machine was a big processor. And lo and behold, with the funding they had (read: NSA) they were able to produce a big Al clad box that DID run.
The OS they used for that project?
Linux.
What happened? Well, processors got faster and cheaper. So the need for a hi dollar mondo machine has fallen off. And today, the whole supercomputer industry is hurting.
So, a Cray/Chen/SGI/Linux connection. And I'm betting the 'linux champions' from Chen's venture are now back working for Cray/SGI. (and Intel picked up the other stragglers)
Something else to think about: The OS is nothing more than a way to make the hardware useful. And, if the company can use the work of others, it lowers their development costs. Thus, it is now a race to the bottom (cost wise) with OpenSourced BSD and GNU/Linux being the lowest development costs and licencing fees.
SGI is fighting to exist, and OpenSource will help them do just that.
Hrmmm. uname -a Linux test 2.2.12-20 #1 Mon Sep 27 10:25:54 EDT 1999 i686 unknown cd/usr/bin strings ftp | grep -i copy bcopy @(#) Copywrite (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of Califorina.
Seems that even in a GPLed system, this 'proof' you offer up exists.
I asked for proof, not penis waving. Now, does ANYONE HAVE REAL PROOF of the 'rip-off artist' theory? Do you have any proof that Micro$oft has changed anything in ftp.exe to *BE* given back?
>If you use BSD, the rip-off artists love you, but they don't share back.
Please provide PROOF of where the 'rip off' artists don't 'share back'. Not rumors, but actual proof.
Apple, a company that has a history of making promises and then breaking them, has shared back with the BSD community.
Whistle Coomunication took what was called 'broken code' (IPFW) and helped make it work.
Locks keep honest people honest. If your GPLed code is so wonderful, what is going stop the rip-off artists from copying the ideas or the code? Not much, for once the source is released, the code and its methods are known and copiable.
(And given how hard some of the GPL centric Linux community wants to run commerical software, liking the GPL because it is not liked by commerical companies doesn't make sense. EVERY TIME a new product is announced, a whole bunch of GNU/Linux uses say "YEA!" But, if the GPL is anti-commerical, then why the "YEA!" everytime a commerical venture supports GNU/Linux?)
FreeBSD - optimized for X86 op-code processors OpenBSD - The line by line security audit gives it a claim to security. Security, however is what one makes of it on thier box. NetBSD - likes running on as many different platforms as possible. From x86 to toasters to dreamcasts. And, the NetBSD developers have been cast by others as as giving a damn about hacking an OS, not trying to peddle one.
FreeBSD is prob. the best bet for x86. Only because that was the original focus.
Linux emulation on FreeBSD has worked on every program I have tried...but that is hardly useful praise.
For stability, FreeBSD gets the nod, only because you can point to Yahoo and cdrom.com and go, yup, yup, lotsa uptime, lotsa traffic. (for most purposes almost any modern Unix-like OS will be stable enough for most people) I'm sure the defenders of the Net and OpenBSD will submit big net/open BSD sites. (just like if one said RedHat was used on the biggest, a swarm of SUSE would point out big SUSE sites)
Its good to see BSD *AND* GNU/Linux getting the nod of support from "the big boys"
IBM uses BSD in their whistleJet boxes, and as I understand in the NC's they sell. It would be nice to see another of the 'big boys' say that, yes, we support BSD too.
What would be interesting (and something we will never know) is how many systems Compaq sells because of the test drive, and how many are going to be Linux/BSD/Tru64. (and for yucks...how much the Test Drive program cost them...to prove that OpenSource PAYS!)
I find the 'why not include linux' comments interesting.
Have you ever asked the LSB or the linuxhardware sites about 'why don't you include BSD'?
The answer is 'we are a linux site' This is a BSD site. It wouldn't exist if the Linux sites were 'more inclusive'.
As it is, the Linux Binary mode in BSD is ignored by most vendors. I'm sure once you get vendors/people to think BSD and Linux together in one thought, then you will see more merging of projects like the hardware database to cover both BSD and Linux.
Write the company, and inform them you wish to discuss terms and costs for the 6000 patents, some of these are in use right now in your body.
When they don't respond, this lack of response is forwared to: 1) Patent office, informing them they are unwilling to defend the patent 2) Human Genome project, again, non-defense
If they respond, and want money, refuse to pay. Ask them to take you to court. When they don't, repeat step 1/2 above.
As any person who understands the present issues with space travel, any long-term exposure to the conditions of space, causes you to loose bone mass and causes heart problems, among other things.
Not to mention the large expenditure of resources just so ONE MAN can be 'feeling fine'
So, using 'Zero G and feeling fine' is VERY appropriate.
For the 'feeling fine' is at a cost. The cost of health. The cost of resources. The cost of environmental contamination.
And, is the way Americans live a long-term healthy choice...either for the people or the planet?
1) The e-college bidding is run by the same person as priceline.com. 2) The 'interviewed expert' was stating that he saw this site as a way to validate the patent. AKA, see here is someone who paid for the patent. (The college site is paying licencing fees to pricewatch.) 3) 12 schools were mentioned as participating. 4) The college spokesperson found the idea of reverese auction rather silly, claiming the pricing model didn't fit how the college experience works.
If you think the patent idea is bogus, the tone of the interviewer/interviewee was that this patent was a bad one.
The only heart around here being eaten out is a 2 timing snake that hangs out in the grass.
"On the other, it's gonna make building anything without a giantf actory (ie in your bedroom....hardware geeks with me?) much more difficult. I don't know what to think. "
You don't HAVE to be an EE to get free electronic samples. Most of the time, you CAN get them for free.
You *CAN* do some hacking, be it hardware OR software on the cheap. But to become Woz, and create a company out of your garage (HP, Apple etc la) just isn't gonna happen. And soon, the same will be said for software, when software moves past the artist stage its in now to mass production stage its heading for.
The big push these days is SOC (System On a Chip). This involves buying IP (intellectual property) from the vendor and making said project. None of this is bedroom material.
The $5 billion figure is for STORED food products. (Lord knows how you would figure a realistic number for insect damage in the field.)
Keep in mind, the insects that affect stored food are not a 'bug found in the wild', but are able to thrive BECAUSE we humans make habitats for the bugs.
As far as pollinators go, simple solution: 1 release the nannites at planting 2 Issue a recall signal 2 days before you bring in the portable bees 3 Let the portable bees do their work 4 re-release the nannites
Most of the time, pollinators are NOT pest species.
The only real difference between the biological agents and nannites is Monsanto and others can make money year after year on nannites, just like the do on seed and pesticides. Once you have a good biological plan going, it is self-regulating.
Thing of the market: Biodegradable nannites!
(Hermos is actually a taste tester in this new market. Notice how any time Nannites come up he says yum)
Yes, you can eat the bugs Re:The Monsanto thread
on
Rise of the Nanobots
·
· Score: 1
Yes and in fact the Mayan and Incan civilizations ate bugs. I believe the Mayans are speculated to have planted reeds for some forms of water bugs to lay eggs and then harvested the eggs to be fried up. This is all speculation, for the Mayans didn't have web pages where they could share with the entire world the best way to fix bugs.
And within the last 8 months, some archeologists have found grasshopper remains in human fecal matter that is some 10,000 years old.
Its just that here in the USA, the FDA and Ag departments say that bugs are not a food supplement, but the nasty toxic chemicals we spray on foods ARE ok to eat.
If the US Ag business wants to BE in the business of selling product to farmers, the best product of the future looks to be hunter/killer nannites, whos job it is to hunt and kill bugs.
The one use for nanites that no one seems to focus on is pest control. (and by pests I don't mean Microsoft Windows(tm) NT(tm))
The reading I now have done, points out that we lose 5 billion a year in stored food due to bug contamination.
Nanites would work well for this job of bug zapping. They don't even have to 'zap' the bug, just puncture the outer layer of the bug, and let dehydration do the rest.
All that has to be done is solve the problems of: 1) Power to the nannite 2) Controling them 3) Have them not run amok and re-programming themselves. 4) Making them taste good with milk or in baked goods.
On the upside: If you can't control them, at least EVERY box of Fruit Loops(tm) will have a toy suprise! MMMMM crunchy, and they have my daily dose of iron:-)
The Garage/bedroom hardware hacker is, for the most part, dead.
There WAS a time when you visited 3M's surplus, bought dead boards by the pound, desoldered the chips and tested the gates individually.
Then you built your own machine.
As we moved from MSI to VLSI (and beyond), the hardware hacking oppertunities have become the thing you do if you have a simple project (and you can reduce them to a PAL or perhaps a FPGA).
Because the OLD method was: Design on paper Build the prototype Look for errors put the logic scope on to find the errors loop to build prototype till fixed. (Anyone wanna buy a CP/M based logic analyzer prototype? one of 10 in the world)
The *NEW* method is Design on computer in test environment Test on computer Build on silicon Do a bit of testing (cuz it should work on the 1st time) Ship.
*IF* you are looking to be a Hacker: Software hacker - get machines thrown out in dumpster, and old software you beg, borrow, or GPLed $0 Hardware hacker - newer machine, DSP or FPGAs, prototyping boards, software (hard to have GPLed tools here) - $5000-$25000-How deep are your pockets...
Being a bedroom/garage hardware hacker is no longer cheap, and based on simple tools, like it used to be.
Software hacking is the last low-cost (Bedroom/garage) hacking frontier. You may not be as productive with cc and make as you are in an intergrated environment, but tools are only part of hacking..the grey matter you have to manuplate the tools matter most.
Small proprietorships do not survive the change of CEO most of the time. Small companies who can't write out a blank check for the CEO have a hard time surviving the change. Big companies regularly change CEO's and the only people who care (for a time) are the shareholders.
Corel is *NOT* the same company it was 5 years ago. Or 10 even. The same can be said for Borland, who's CEO 'qualifies' for 'celebrity' status.
Corel will CHANGE because of a different leader. They may contract, expand, or be bought out. But they will change. And if the collective "we" that is/. Readers were afraid of change, none of us would be using OpenSource, involved with computers, or all the other quickly changeable things that makes up a 'nerds' life.
I woudn't worry about Corel. If OpenSource is correct, if Unix is correct, there will be people making office suites for Unix. And graphic apps. So, if Corel drops the ball, another will pick it up. The bigger threat to *ALL* the software writers is *WHEN* (not if) all major applications classes have OpenSourced BSD/GPLed/blah blah licensed software. (Word processors, spreadsheets, etc la) Then, the support staff for the products will carry the authors. (This was the case years ago. You leased hardware, and a staff of programmers came along with the machine. The programmers were 'free')
>Obviously, if you find entire subroutines copied from the GPLed product and just pasted in,
But what if they sit with 2 monitors and re-type the GPL code from one monitor to the other? Is that still GPLed code?
And exactly HOW will the GPL help you if you never see the closed source product sourcecode?
>This means they are wrong, but does not prove they are the Bad Guys.
If they are wrong, arn't they 'bad guys'?
What I see it boiling down to is this: The GPL falls under the same concept of 'locks keep honest people honest'. If you are going to STEAL source, consider it gone. Because, to date, nothing is being done to 'stop' the 'thiefs'. (because there is nothing that anyone is willing TO do.)
And if people can take GPL code and do what they want with it, what good is the GPL?
Apple, like allmost all big companies have a habit of breaking promises.
But the people doing the biggest whining were, for the most part, applauding Apple when they broke past promises.
Like: "The Newton is an important part of our product line" (This one was even said 3 days AFTER the product was cancelled) "Any machine made in 1997 will run Rhapsody" and older statements like "Apple ][ forever" "We intend to make and support the Apple/// for five years" (it made 3) (If you want to figure out how long this list is, just read some books on Apple's history.)
Now, when the Newton was dumped, Rhapsody was made a g3 only product, etc...the biggest whiners on this G4 issue were saying that 'Apple was making tough business choices, needed for profitability' WRT the past broken promises.
So, why don't they say the same when the G4 orderes were cancelled? The cancellation was a simple business decision, made to help Apple's profitability.
Years ago, non network entites registered.net and non orgs registered.org. In fact, back in the dawn of time before the earth cooled, (the mid to late 80's) you would be steered to the proper TLD. But as soon as you had to pay for the domain, as long as you had the money, you were able to register what you want.
The time to complain was back when the first non.net and.org registrations happened.
My personal favorite is wildwildwest.net - a domain to promote a movie has exactly WHAT to do with offering network services? Warner Brothers didn't answer my e-mail asking that question, and the InterNIC's e-mail was like "So what".
If they allow GOP.gov, then.edu and.gov are fair game.
Here on Slashdot, in one of the discussions of CodeWarrior, someone made a claim that they used GPL code in their closed-source product.
Are they a bad guy? Are they a bad guy if someone steals their source and shows GPL code?
That chinese Linux release that was claimed to not follow the GPL, are they a bad guy? Or, are they un-touchable because of international copywite issues?
>By your reasoning, a clean-room implementation of a JVM like Japhar is a 'derivative'.
Yup.
And you agree also.
>Saying that GNU/Linux was derived from Unix/POSIX/whatever specifications would be a more accurate statement, although a cumbersome one to make.
(Here you are agreeing)
>I would call it a clone. Why? Because it did not evolve from the original code.
Word Game time!
>When you clone an animal you take a single cell and grow it into a full animal (or whatever).
When you take DNA (Biological source code) and execute it, you get (or don't) a full animal. Your example of DNA uses clone as a direct DNA copy. And GNU/Linux is not a direct source code copy of AT&T Unix. So, does the word clone apply?
>When you clone a piece of software, you take the idea (or specifications) and 'grow' the code from there.
Can you take the individual DNA components, map them? (the human genome project) Now *IF* you take DNA parts and make them look like the original is it a clone or a derivitive?
If you have no original parts (DNA example), just pieces re-assembled to be like the original, is the resulting lifeform a clone still?
Isn't taking words from one field, and applying them to another fun?
>Oh, well, I'm convinced.
Good, I'm glad we've had this word game.
>I'll go back to playing around on my MacOS derivative (Windows) now, seeing as it is derived from the idea of a graphical point-and-click hell. =P
I'm sorry to inform you that you are, sadly, incorrect. It is a Star derivative, for the Xerox Star was the 1st GUI.
>One day someone will actually read my posts and ponder what I said before replying.
Your ORIGINAL post said It seems odd that he would refer to GNU/Linux as a derivative of Unix (I would assume from the context that he is referring to the entire system), since it is clearly not. And then you said in the above post >Saying that GNU/Linux was derived from Unix/POSIX/whatever specifications would be a more accurate statement, although a cumbersome one to make.
Your original post says GNU/Linux is not a derivative, then, after reading my argument, you say GNU/Linux IS a derivative. Seems the reading part is fine. And, obviously my rhetoric was good enough to change your mind. My job is done. You have rethought clone/derivative.
When you take DNA (Biological source code) and execute it, you get (or don't) a full animal. Your example of DNA uses clone as a direct DNA copy. And GNU/Linux is not a direct source code copy of AT&T Unix. So, does the word clone apply?
>When you clone a piece of software, you take the idea (or specifications) and 'grow' the code from there.
Can you take the individual DNA components, map them? (the human genome project) Now *IF* you take DNA parts and make them look like the original is it a clone or a derivitive?
If you have no original parts (DNA example), just pieces re-assembled to be like the original, is the resulting lifeform a clone still?
Isn't taking words from one field, and applying them to another fun?
>Oh, well, I'm convinced.
Good, I'm glad we've had this word game.
>I'll go back to playing around on my MacOS derivative (Windows) now, seeing as it is derived from the idea of a graphical point-and-click hell. =P
I'm sorry to inform you that you are, sadly, incorrect. It is a Star derivative, for the Xerox Star was the 1st GUI.
>One day someone will actually read my posts and ponder what I said before replying.
Your ORIGINAL post said It seems odd that he would refer to GNU/Linux as a derivative of Unix (I would assume from the context that he is referring to the entire system), since it is clearly not. And then you said in the above post >Saying that GNU/Linux was derived from Unix/POSIX/whatever specifications would be a more accurate statement, although a cumbersome one to make.
Your original post says GNU/Linux is not a derivative, then, after reading my argument, you say GNU/Linux IS a derivative. Seems the reading part is fine. And, obviously my rhetoric was good enough to change your mind. My job is done. You have rethought clone/derivative.
Slashdot Mirror
Your information is worth money to firms who want to sell you things. So, ANY way this information can be gathered is 'a good thing' as far as the companies are concerned.
In the case of programs, the only way to go is with Open Source. Think of it...a trojan is all about allowing others to see your data. Be it the whole system, or just other misc. bits. With Open Source, you can see what is going on. And if you WANT information to be sent back to somewhere, you know it.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Exactly WHY are companies that are loosing money WORTH all this cash? (Hint: I don't really want to hear all about how the future will be better, and the losses will become profits.)
Every one in the CNN article showed a loss. 94,000 last year, 2.3 million this year and yet this is worth having an IPO over. Boggles MY mind.
I guess if the US government can run a shop where more money is spent than taken in, then why not every one else?
When Steven Chen left Cray to start (SuperComputer systems?) they took over the old PC Board facilites in Eau Claire.
This was back in the days when the model for a fast machine was a big processor. And lo and behold, with the funding they had (read: NSA) they were able to produce a big Al clad box that DID run.
The OS they used for that project?
Linux.
What happened? Well, processors got faster and cheaper. So the need for a hi dollar mondo machine has fallen off. And today, the whole supercomputer industry is hurting.
So, a Cray/Chen/SGI/Linux connection. And I'm betting the 'linux champions' from Chen's venture are now back working for Cray/SGI. (and Intel picked up the other stragglers)
Something else to think about:
The OS is nothing more than a way to make the hardware useful. And, if the company can use the work of others, it lowers their development costs. Thus, it is now a race to the bottom (cost wise) with OpenSourced BSD and GNU/Linux being the lowest development costs and licencing fees.
SGI is fighting to exist, and OpenSource will help them do just that.
Hrmmm. /usr/bin
uname -a
Linux test 2.2.12-20 #1 Mon Sep 27 10:25:54 EDT 1999 i686 unknown
cd
strings ftp | grep -i copy
bcopy
@(#) Copywrite (c) 1985, 1989 Regents of the University of Califorina.
Seems that even in a GPLed system, this 'proof' you offer up exists.
I asked for proof, not penis waving. Now, does ANYONE HAVE REAL PROOF of the 'rip-off artist' theory? Do you have any proof that Micro$oft has changed anything in ftp.exe to *BE* given back?
>If you use BSD, the rip-off artists love you, but they don't share back.
Please provide PROOF of where the 'rip off' artists don't 'share back'. Not rumors, but actual proof.
Apple, a company that has a history of making promises and then breaking them, has shared back with the BSD community.
Whistle Coomunication took what was called 'broken code' (IPFW) and helped make it work.
Locks keep honest people honest. If your GPLed code is so wonderful, what is going stop the rip-off artists from copying the ideas or the code? Not much, for once the source is released, the code and its methods are known and copiable.
(And given how hard some of the GPL centric Linux community wants to run commerical software, liking the GPL because it is not liked by commerical companies doesn't make sense. EVERY TIME a new product is announced, a whole bunch of GNU/Linux uses say "YEA!" But, if the GPL is anti-commerical, then why the "YEA!" everytime a commerical venture supports GNU/Linux?)
FreeBSD - optimized for X86 op-code processors
OpenBSD - The line by line security audit gives it a claim to security. Security, however is what one makes of it on thier box.
NetBSD - likes running on as many different platforms as possible. From x86 to toasters to dreamcasts. And, the NetBSD developers have been cast by others as as giving a damn about hacking an OS, not trying to peddle one.
FreeBSD is prob. the best bet for x86. Only because that was the original focus.
Linux emulation on FreeBSD has worked on every program I have tried...but that is hardly useful praise.
For stability, FreeBSD gets the nod, only because you can point to Yahoo and cdrom.com and go, yup, yup, lotsa uptime, lotsa traffic. (for most purposes almost any modern Unix-like OS will be stable enough for most people) I'm sure the defenders of the Net and OpenBSD will submit big net/open BSD sites. (just like if one said RedHat was used on the biggest, a swarm of SUSE would point out big SUSE sites)
*clap clap*
Its good to see BSD *AND* GNU/Linux getting the nod of support from "the big boys"
IBM uses BSD in their whistleJet boxes, and as I understand in the NC's they sell. It would be nice to see another of the 'big boys' say that, yes, we support BSD too.
What would be interesting (and something we will never know) is how many systems Compaq sells because of the test drive, and how many are going to be Linux/BSD/Tru64. (and for yucks...how much the Test Drive program cost them...to prove that OpenSource PAYS!)
I find the 'why not include linux' comments interesting.
Have you ever asked the LSB or the linuxhardware sites about 'why don't you include BSD'?
The answer is 'we are a linux site' This is a BSD site. It wouldn't exist if the Linux sites were 'more inclusive'.
As it is, the Linux Binary mode in BSD is ignored by most vendors. I'm sure once you get vendors/people to think BSD and Linux together in one thought, then you will see more merging of projects like the hardware database to cover both BSD and Linux.
An idea:
/. their laywers.
Write the company, and inform them you wish to discuss terms and costs for the 6000 patents, some of these are in use right now in your body.
When they don't respond, this lack of response is forwared to:
1) Patent office, informing them they are unwilling to defend the patent
2) Human Genome project, again, non-defense
If they respond, and want money, refuse to pay. Ask them to take you to court. When they don't, repeat step 1/2 above.
Bury their legal department.
>and this is the same thing.
As any person who understands the present issues with space travel, any long-term exposure to the conditions of space, causes you to loose bone mass and causes heart problems, among other things.
Not to mention the large expenditure of resources just so ONE MAN can be 'feeling fine'
So, using 'Zero G and feeling fine' is VERY appropriate.
For the 'feeling fine' is at a cost. The cost of health. The cost of resources. The cost of environmental contamination.
And, is the way Americans live a long-term healthy choice...either for the people or the planet?
I look forward to your reply KingJawa.
Linus is on record as stating
If BSD had not had the legal issues, he would have used BSD.
But, these 'what if' games are rather useless.
>priceline.com, eat your heart out."
According to what I remember about the story:
1) The e-college bidding is run by the same person as priceline.com.
2) The 'interviewed expert' was stating that he saw this site as a way to validate the patent. AKA, see here is someone who paid for the patent. (The college site is paying licencing fees to pricewatch.)
3) 12 schools were mentioned as participating.
4) The college spokesperson found the idea of reverese auction rather silly, claiming the pricing model didn't fit how the college experience works.
If you think the patent idea is bogus, the tone of the interviewer/interviewee was that this patent was a bad one.
The only heart around here being eaten out is a 2 timing snake that hangs out in the grass.
"On the other, it's gonna make building anything without a giantf actory (ie in your bedroom....hardware geeks with me?) much more difficult. I don't know what to think. "
You don't HAVE to be an EE to get free electronic samples. Most of the time, you CAN get them for free.
You *CAN* do some hacking, be it hardware OR software on the cheap. But to become Woz, and create a company out of your garage (HP, Apple etc la) just isn't gonna happen. And soon, the same will be said for software, when software moves past the artist stage its in now to mass production stage its heading for.
The big push these days is SOC (System On a Chip). This involves buying IP (intellectual property) from the vendor and making said project. None of this is bedroom material.
I was not clear in my original post.
The $5 billion figure is for STORED food products. (Lord knows how you would figure a realistic number for insect damage in the field.)
Keep in mind, the insects that affect stored food are not a 'bug found in the wild', but are able to thrive BECAUSE we humans make habitats for the bugs.
As far as pollinators go, simple solution:
1 release the nannites at planting
2 Issue a recall signal 2 days before you bring in the portable bees
3 Let the portable bees do their work
4 re-release the nannites
Most of the time, pollinators are NOT pest species.
The only real difference between the biological agents and nannites is Monsanto and others can make money year after year on nannites, just like the do on seed and pesticides. Once you have a good biological plan going, it is self-regulating.
Thing of the market:
Biodegradable nannites!
(Hermos is actually a taste tester in this new market. Notice how any time Nannites come up he says yum)
Yes and in fact the Mayan and Incan civilizations ate bugs. I believe the Mayans are speculated to have planted reeds for some forms of water bugs to lay eggs and then harvested the eggs to be fried up. This is all speculation, for the Mayans didn't have web pages where they could share with the entire world the best way to fix bugs.
And within the last 8 months, some archeologists have found grasshopper remains in human fecal matter that is some 10,000 years old.
Its just that here in the USA, the FDA and Ag departments say that bugs are not a food supplement, but the nasty toxic chemicals we spray on foods ARE ok to eat.
If the US Ag business wants to BE in the business of selling product to farmers, the best product of the future looks to be hunter/killer nannites, whos job it is to hunt and kill bugs.
Got me thinking:
:-)
The one use for nanites that no one seems to focus on is pest control. (and by pests I don't mean Microsoft Windows(tm) NT(tm))
The reading I now have done, points out that we lose 5 billion a year in stored food due to bug contamination.
Nanites would work well for this job of bug zapping. They don't even have to 'zap' the bug, just puncture the outer layer of the bug, and let dehydration do the rest.
All that has to be done is solve the problems of:
1) Power to the nannite
2) Controling them
3) Have them not run amok and re-programming themselves.
4) Making them taste good with milk or in baked goods.
On the upside: If you can't control them, at least EVERY box of Fruit Loops(tm) will have a toy suprise! MMMMM crunchy, and they have my daily dose of iron
The Garage/bedroom hardware hacker is, for the most part, dead.
There WAS a time when you visited 3M's surplus, bought dead boards by the pound, desoldered the chips and tested the gates individually.
Then you built your own machine.
As we moved from MSI to VLSI (and beyond), the hardware hacking oppertunities have become the thing you do if you have a simple project (and you can reduce them to a PAL or perhaps a FPGA).
Because the OLD method was:
Design on paper
Build the prototype
Look for errors
put the logic scope on to find the errors
loop to build prototype till fixed.
(Anyone wanna buy a CP/M based logic analyzer prototype? one of 10 in the world)
The *NEW* method is
Design on computer in test environment
Test on computer
Build on silicon
Do a bit of testing (cuz it should work on the 1st time)
Ship.
*IF* you are looking to be a Hacker:
Software hacker - get machines thrown out in dumpster, and old software you beg, borrow, or GPLed $0
Hardware hacker - newer machine, DSP or FPGAs, prototyping boards, software (hard to have GPLed tools here) - $5000-$25000-How deep are your pockets...
Being a bedroom/garage hardware hacker is no longer cheap, and based on simple tools, like it used to be.
Software hacking is the last low-cost (Bedroom/garage) hacking frontier. You may not be as productive with cc and make as you are in an intergrated environment, but tools are only part of hacking..the grey matter you have to manuplate the tools matter most.
Historically:
/. Readers were afraid of change, none of us would be using OpenSource, involved with computers, or all the other quickly changeable things that makes up a 'nerds' life.
Small proprietorships do not survive the change of CEO most of the time.
Small companies who can't write out a blank check for the CEO have a hard time surviving the change.
Big companies regularly change CEO's and the only people who care (for a time) are the shareholders.
Corel is *NOT* the same company it was 5 years ago. Or 10 even.
The same can be said for Borland, who's CEO 'qualifies' for 'celebrity' status.
Corel will CHANGE because of a different leader. They may contract, expand, or be bought out. But they will change. And if the collective "we" that is
I woudn't worry about Corel. If OpenSource is correct, if Unix is correct, there will be people making office suites for Unix. And graphic apps. So, if Corel drops the ball, another will pick it up. The bigger threat to *ALL* the software writers is *WHEN* (not if) all major applications classes have OpenSourced BSD/GPLed/blah blah licensed software. (Word processors, spreadsheets, etc la) Then, the support staff for the products will carry the authors. (This was the case years ago. You leased hardware, and a staff of programmers came along with the machine. The programmers were 'free')
>Obviously, if you find entire subroutines copied from the GPLed product and just pasted in,
But what if they sit with 2 monitors and re-type the GPL code from one monitor to the other? Is that still GPLed code?
And exactly HOW will the GPL help you if you never see the closed source product sourcecode?
>This means they are wrong, but does not prove they are the Bad Guys.
If they are wrong, arn't they 'bad guys'?
What I see it boiling down to is this: The GPL falls under the same concept of 'locks keep honest people honest'. If you are going to STEAL source, consider it gone. Because, to date, nothing is being done to 'stop' the 'thiefs'. (because there is nothing that anyone is willing TO do.)
And if people can take GPL code and do what they want with it, what good is the GPL?
uname on a Mac OS X box says
Rhapsody
Looks like its a G3 only product.
is this:
/// for five years" (it made 3)
Apple, like allmost all big companies have a habit of breaking promises.
But the people doing the biggest whining were, for the most part, applauding Apple when they broke past promises.
Like:
"The Newton is an important part of our product line" (This one was even said 3 days AFTER the product was cancelled)
"Any machine made in 1997 will run Rhapsody"
and older statements like
"Apple ][ forever"
"We intend to make and support the Apple
(If you want to figure out how long this list is, just read some books on Apple's history.)
Now, when the Newton was dumped, Rhapsody was made a g3 only product, etc...the biggest whiners on this G4 issue were saying that 'Apple was making tough business choices, needed for profitability' WRT the past broken promises.
So, why don't they say the same when the G4 orderes were cancelled? The cancellation was a simple business decision, made to help Apple's profitability.
is long past.
.net and non orgs registered .org. In fact, back in the dawn of time before the earth cooled, (the mid to late 80's) you would be steered to the proper TLD.
.net and .org registrations happened.
.edu and .gov are fair game.
Years ago, non network entites registered
But as soon as you had to pay for the domain, as long as you had the money, you were able to register what you want.
The time to complain was back when the first non
My personal favorite is wildwildwest.net - a domain to promote a movie has exactly WHAT to do with offering network services? Warner Brothers didn't answer my e-mail asking that question, and the InterNIC's e-mail was like "So what".
If they allow GOP.gov, then
Here on Slashdot, in one of the discussions of CodeWarrior, someone made a claim that they used GPL code in their closed-source product.
Are they a bad guy? Are they a bad guy if someone steals their source and shows GPL code?
That chinese Linux release that was claimed to not follow the GPL, are they a bad guy? Or, are they un-touchable because of international copywite issues?
Or, is the only bad guy Microsoft?
>By your reasoning, a clean-room implementation of a JVM like Japhar is a 'derivative'.
Yup.
And you agree also.
>Saying that GNU/Linux was derived from Unix/POSIX/whatever specifications would be a more accurate statement, although a cumbersome one to make.
(Here you are agreeing)
>I would call it a clone. Why? Because it did not evolve from the original code.
Word Game time!
>When you clone an animal you take a single cell and grow it into a full animal (or whatever).
When you take DNA (Biological source code) and execute it, you get (or don't) a full animal.
Your example of DNA uses clone as a direct DNA copy. And GNU/Linux is not a direct source code copy of AT&T Unix. So, does the word clone apply?
>When you clone a piece of software, you take the idea (or specifications) and 'grow' the code from there.
Can you take the individual DNA components, map them? (the human genome project) Now *IF* you take DNA parts and make them look like the original is it a clone or a derivitive?
If you have no original parts (DNA example), just pieces re-assembled to be like the original, is the resulting lifeform a clone still?
Isn't taking words from one field, and applying them to another fun?
>Oh, well, I'm convinced.
Good, I'm glad we've had this word game.
>I'll go back to playing around on my MacOS derivative (Windows) now, seeing as it is derived from the idea of a graphical point-and-click hell. =P
I'm sorry to inform you that you are, sadly, incorrect. It is a Star derivative, for the Xerox Star was the 1st GUI.
>One day someone will actually read my posts and ponder what I said before replying.
Your ORIGINAL post said
It seems odd that he would refer to GNU/Linux as a derivative of Unix (I would assume from the context that he is referring to the entire system), since it is clearly not.
And then you said in the above post
>Saying that GNU/Linux was derived from Unix/POSIX/whatever specifications would be a more accurate statement, although a cumbersome one to make.
Your original post says GNU/Linux is not a derivative, then, after reading my argument, you say GNU/Linux IS a derivative. Seems the reading part is fine. And, obviously my rhetoric was good enough to change your mind. My job is done. You have rethought clone/derivative.
When you take DNA (Biological source code) and execute it, you get (or don't) a full animal.
Your example of DNA uses clone as a direct DNA copy. And GNU/Linux is not a direct source code copy of AT&T Unix. So, does the word clone apply?
>When you clone a piece of software, you take the idea (or specifications) and 'grow' the code from there.
Can you take the individual DNA components, map them? (the human genome project) Now *IF* you take DNA parts and make them look like the original is it a clone or a derivitive?
If you have no original parts (DNA example), just pieces re-assembled to be like the original, is the resulting lifeform a clone still?
Isn't taking words from one field, and applying them to another fun?
>Oh, well, I'm convinced.
Good, I'm glad we've had this word game.
>I'll go back to playing around on my MacOS derivative (Windows) now, seeing as it is derived from the idea of a graphical point-and-click hell. =P
I'm sorry to inform you that you are, sadly, incorrect. It is a Star derivative, for the Xerox Star was the 1st GUI.
>One day someone will actually read my posts and ponder what I said before replying.
Your ORIGINAL post said
It seems odd that he would refer to GNU/Linux as a derivative of Unix (I would assume from the context that he is referring to the entire system), since it is clearly not.
And then you said in the above post
>Saying that GNU/Linux was derived from Unix/POSIX/whatever specifications would be a more accurate statement, although a cumbersome one to make.
Your original post says GNU/Linux is not a derivative, then, after reading my argument, you say GNU/Linux IS a derivative. Seems the reading part is fine. And, obviously my rhetoric was good enough to change your mind. My job is done. You have rethought clone/derivative.