Thuts th reeson ey alwayz uus wurds uf miy oon spling. Soo farr eyve mnaged tu sayv ovr ahundrd dlrs ths yere, thow miy teechrs kp komplaining aboot miy wirk. Ey stil kep grammer rles, soe ey hev tu payy th sintax (ey cn stl mek jikes, evn thow ets moore wirk. Ey'v hird tht th lrge cmpny hsn't trdemirkd hoomor, becauz thy down't inderstand et).
Heureusement, je puis employer le français. Je trouve ceci beaucoup meilleur marché, parce que l'Acadamy m'ont donné non-pour-profiter-emploient le permis.
Fair point, though Newsblaster does link to the original stories so you can read them and check what they actually say if, having read the summary, you're interested.
Having said that, my preferred source for real-world news is Radio 4 (especially
Today
and
PM), which is especially good for listening to as I'm waking up or going to sleep, apart from the moments when a politician says something so outrageous that my blood boils...
There is a little information available; the headlines are selected automatically, though that's all the info that they're willing to give out at the moment.
The Museum is in Greenwich England...I don't
remember what its longitiude is
I'm assuming that you mean the National Maritime Museum. Given it's location (Greenwich), I'd say it's longitude is pretty close to zero; it looks like the far eastern point of the building might be exactly zero, in fact. The zero line runs through Greenwich (that's how zero longitude is defined).
A piece of software can be included in Debian if it meets the DFSG. If a particular release of a piece of software (eg foo version 1.0) meets these guidelines now, it'll meet them forever. If the foo copyright holder then decides that foo version 1.1 will be closed source (or otherwise not meet DFSG), then foo 1.1 won't be included in Debian. Once a piece of software has been released under a particular licence, anyone who's received it under that licence then has the right to use it under the terms of that licence. In the case of open source licences, that means forever, and so foo 1.0 will always be Free.
How long is the security initiative? ISTR "one month with no new development" to concentrate on security. Of course, it's daft to think that you can turn a large organisation which concentrates on adding lots of features into an organisation which concentrates on absolute security in products and processes in a month, the training issues alone prevent that being realistic or effective.
Debian aren't restricted to GPLed stuff; any piece of software which fits the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which includes stuff with the GPL, BSD, and Artistic licences) can be included in main. Other stuff can be included in non-free too.
It's OK for me if my system crashes when I'm in bed: I just powercycle when I get up. If I'm running a bank (say) which depends on its machines to stay in business, it's a different matter: denial of service is more than a pain, it's a P45 (pink slip??) kind of thing.
That's OK in principle, but how can anyone who looks at a piece of code know whether it really was written by MS or was GPLed with the serial number (erm, copyright notice) filed off? MS removed the copyright notice of zlib, according to the article, so it's not beyond them to do that with a piece of GPLed code. Not that I'd ever suggest that they'd do such a thing, but it's obviously very hard to check for plagarism (unless MS put all their code through turnitin!).
There is the extra risk of using a proprietry product which incorporates OS products. I've fixed (nearly...) all the software on my machine that uses zlib, because it's OS, and I can do it/use someone else's patch and check that it's been done.
How long will we have to wait for a "patch" from MS, and how will we know that it does exactly what it says on the tin? ISTR that the DCMA (if that's the correct acronym) would prevent people in the US reverse engineering any patch to verify that it works, so it's down to testing (insert comment about testing not showing the absence of bugs).
ISTR that MS are nominally in favour of open source, as long as it's not that nasty cancerous GPL open source. Now we see why: if they can use others' work without having to reciprocate, it makes life better for them (in the short term, that it).
Of course, if zlib had been GPL, they couldn't (legally...) have used it without releasing their source, and in this case, they might have avoided the security risks: either non-use of zlib (not affected by this vulnerability) or use of zlib + release of code (easy and quick for anyone to release a patch, instead of having to wait for the "official" version with all it's "added extras").
There is a pressure of 400lbs aexerted by this gadget
No; there's a pressure of 400lbs (per square inch? per square mile? Who knows!) exerted within it. I'm not sure that the vibration from listening to music will have that much effect for a while: depends on how loud you listen, I guess.
It also doesn't jump up and down. The unit itself vibrates. Because the unit is in direct contact with the sheet of glass (etc.), this vibrates too. It would only damage the surface if it was repeatedly coming into contact and then moving away, which it isn't.
The flexing of the surface will have an effect, you're right. I don't know enough physics to know whether this is significant or not. I guess that over time it'd loosen the putty on your window, or cause your table's legs to unscrew, though I don't know if it would have any effect on the actual sheet of glass/table top. Glass is a strange substance at the best of times; it's not really a solid, but a very viscous liquid. If you look at really old windows (hundreds of years), you can apparently see that they've flowed downwards very slightly. Perhaps if you set a soundbug in the middle of a horizontal sheet of glass and played a constant note for a few hundred years you'd eventually get waveforms in it...
The 400 pound pressure (presumably this means 400psi, or something?) applies inside the device, to the components which are moved. These components are moved quickly in order to induce vibrations in the object to which they are attached. The sheet of glass (or whatever) doesn't get 400lb (psi? again) pressure applied to it, it just picks up the vibrations.
So basically it is a way to pound, rythmically, on the surface, to replicate sound from a source[...]
No: basically, it's a way to make a surface vibrate. All the moving parts are enclosed. If you go to the website of Newlands Scientific, you can find some pictures which show a thing similar in shape and size to a mouse, with a suction cup to attach them to smooth surfaces. There isn't a little hammer sticking out to pound on your table!
OTOH, it's apparently OK to use this on a big sheet of glass (which is much more brittle than your skull, I hope), without shattering it. The force won't do you much harm, but the vibrations will probably do nasty things after a while; coal miners and others who use pneumatic drills often suffer from vibration white finger, which damages blood vessels (of which there are quite a few in your head), nerves (ditto), and other body parts. I guess I wouldn't want any of this to happen to my head! It can (in miners) lead to the loss of your fingers. I suppose if it happens to your head, you'd lose that, too:(
Soundbug is made by Newlands Scientific, a company based in Hull (UK), and comes in a variety of colours, some of which (pink and purple) are pretty disgusting, some of which (grey and blue) aren't...
Their website has plenty more glossy pictures, and a bit more info about "smart materials", which are used to make the wall/glass/whatever vibrate. They seem to be similar to piezo-electric materials, though better (at least, that's what the company would have you believe).
This U-238 is basically harmless waste... Why not use it to make bullets more heavy?
Depends on your definition of "harmless". Sure, it's not overly radioactive, but it's pretty toxic, even in small doses.
Re:Stealing other countrys ideas
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 1
Japan? I assume that they're signed up to WIPO. How about patenting in, say Australia? It's easy to
patent the wheel, for example (though this was a joke, just to prove how daft patent offices can be).
Good job my bike fell to bits; I don't think I could afford the licencing fees!
Funny how selling cheap "generic" versions of AIDS treatments to African nations was regarded as a Bad Thing, but that buying cheap generic versions of anthrax treatments is a Good Thing. Whoops! There goes that drawbridge again!
No; the things mentioned in the article (eg Milk Chocolate, cereals) were invented by people who started their own companies, not by large GM/Dell-a-likes. Nestle, for example, are large now, but they weren't always.
You're making the mistake of bundling patents and copyright up as one and the same: they're not! Copyright is about protecting your work, patents about protecting your ideas, more or less.
Switzerland is one of the richest countries in Europe. When you think of anonymous numbered bank accounts, which country springs to mind? Of course, the reality is more prosaic, but Swiss banks are among the most successful in the world.
If you read the article, you'll notice that the periods in question were over 90 years ago, so arguing about what's happening in the computing field is kind of irrelevant.
For that matter, where are any billion dollar tech startups, these days? How many of the companies you mentioned will still be going in 100 years time and be the same size as Nestle?
Slashdot Mirror
Heureusement, je puis employer le français. Je trouve ceci beaucoup meilleur marché, parce que l'Acadamy m'ont donné non-pour-profiter-emploient le permis.
Having said that, my preferred source for real-world news is Radio 4 (especially Today and PM), which is especially good for listening to as I'm waking up or going to sleep, apart from the moments when a politician says something so outrageous that my blood boils...
There is a little information available; the headlines are selected automatically, though that's all the info that they're willing to give out at the moment.
A piece of software can be included in Debian if it meets the DFSG. If a particular release of a piece of software (eg foo version 1.0) meets these guidelines now, it'll meet them forever. If the foo copyright holder then decides that foo version 1.1 will be closed source (or otherwise not meet DFSG), then foo 1.1 won't be included in Debian. Once a piece of software has been released under a particular licence, anyone who's received it under that licence then has the right to use it under the terms of that licence. In the case of open source licences, that means forever, and so foo 1.0 will always be Free.
How long is the security initiative? ISTR "one month with no new development" to concentrate on security. Of course, it's daft to think that you can turn a large organisation which concentrates on adding lots of features into an organisation which concentrates on absolute security in products and processes in a month, the training issues alone prevent that being realistic or effective.
zlib has it's own licence, which doesn't prohibit what MS have done. At the moment, that is... :)
Debian aren't restricted to GPLed stuff; any piece of software which fits the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which includes stuff with the GPL, BSD, and Artistic licences) can be included in main. Other stuff can be included in non-free too.
It's OK for me if my system crashes when I'm in bed: I just powercycle when I get up. If I'm running a bank (say) which depends on its machines to stay in business, it's a different matter: denial of service is more than a pain, it's a P45 (pink slip??) kind of thing.
That's OK in principle, but how can anyone who looks at a piece of code know whether it really was written by MS or was GPLed with the serial number (erm, copyright notice) filed off? MS removed the copyright notice of zlib, according to the article, so it's not beyond them to do that with a piece of GPLed code. Not that I'd ever suggest that they'd do such a thing, but it's obviously very hard to check for plagarism (unless MS put all their code through turnitin!).
How long will we have to wait for a "patch" from MS, and how will we know that it does exactly what it says on the tin? ISTR that the DCMA (if that's the correct acronym) would prevent people in the US reverse engineering any patch to verify that it works, so it's down to testing (insert comment about testing not showing the absence of bugs).
Of course, if zlib had been GPL, they couldn't (legally...) have used it without releasing their source, and in this case, they might have avoided the security risks: either non-use of zlib (not affected by this vulnerability) or use of zlib + release of code (easy and quick for anyone to release a patch, instead of having to wait for the "official" version with all it's "added extras").
The flexing of the surface will have an effect, you're right. I don't know enough physics to know whether this is significant or not. I guess that over time it'd loosen the putty on your window, or cause your table's legs to unscrew, though I don't know if it would have any effect on the actual sheet of glass/table top. Glass is a strange substance at the best of times; it's not really a solid, but a very viscous liquid. If you look at really old windows (hundreds of years), you can apparently see that they've flowed downwards very slightly. Perhaps if you set a soundbug in the middle of a horizontal sheet of glass and played a constant note for a few hundred years you'd eventually get waveforms in it...
The 400 pound pressure (presumably this means 400psi, or something?) applies inside the device, to the components which are moved. These components are moved quickly in order to induce vibrations in the object to which they are attached. The sheet of glass (or whatever) doesn't get 400lb (psi? again) pressure applied to it, it just picks up the vibrations.
OTOH, it's apparently OK to use this on a big sheet of glass (which is much more brittle than your skull, I hope), without shattering it. The force won't do you much harm, but the vibrations will probably do nasty things after a while; coal miners and others who use pneumatic drills often suffer from vibration white finger, which damages blood vessels (of which there are quite a few in your head), nerves (ditto), and other body parts. I guess I wouldn't want any of this to happen to my head! It can (in miners) lead to the loss of your fingers. I suppose if it happens to your head, you'd lose that, too :(
Their website has plenty more glossy pictures, and a bit more info about "smart materials", which are used to make the wall/glass/whatever vibrate. They seem to be similar to piezo-electric materials, though better (at least, that's what the company would have you believe).
Good job my bike fell to bits; I don't think I could afford the licencing fees!
Funny how selling cheap "generic" versions of AIDS treatments to African nations was regarded as a Bad Thing, but that buying cheap generic versions of anthrax treatments is a Good Thing. Whoops! There goes that drawbridge again!
No; the things mentioned in the article (eg Milk Chocolate, cereals) were invented by people who started their own companies, not by large GM/Dell-a-likes. Nestle, for example, are large now, but they weren't always.
\end{sarcasm}
You're making the mistake of bundling patents and copyright up as one and the same: they're not! Copyright is about protecting your work, patents about protecting your ideas, more or less.
If you read the article, you'll notice that the periods in question were over 90 years ago, so arguing about what's happening in the computing field is kind of irrelevant.
For that matter, where are any billion dollar tech startups, these days? How many of the companies you mentioned will still be going in 100 years time and be the same size as Nestle?