The problem is that the algae requires something around 13% CO2 gas to grow in any useful amount. The level of CO2 naturally occuring in the atmosphere is about 0.035%. The only economical source to generate that much CO2 is burning Coal.
Hmm. I wonder if there is a process which would remove some of the non-CO2 gases from other kinds of exhaust, raising the percentage of CO2. If so, you could make a closed-loop and eliminate the fossil fuels. For example, an electric plant which used diesel generators runs on biodiesel. The exhaust is processed to remove non-CO2 gasses. The result is then bubbled back through algae ponds to create more biodiesel.
It would still release some CO2, but it should result in a net improvement over coal.
What happens when you burn the methanol and biodiesel? Doesn't that just release the stored CO2 and Nitrogen Oxides back into the atmosphere, or am I missing something here?
The only thing your missing is what it's replacing. When you use diesel made from petroleum you release carbon that's been sequestered below ground for millenia. Furthermore, petrochemical diesel has a high sulfur content, which leads to acid rain. Biodiesel -- whether from algae or other sources -- is "carbon neutral" because the process of making more (i.e., growing algae) takes just as much carbon out of the air as burning the fuel puts back.
It doesn't clean up the air, but it doesn't make it dirtier either. Theoretically, you could grow algae -- or trees, for that matter -- and just bury them to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but that costs money. Biodiesel production, in theory, could pay for itself by replacing petrochemical use.
Has SCO actually shown that its UnixWare System V code exists in SuSE Linux or another distribution?
Carey: SCO has not shown that its code exists in Linux. SCO now seems to be grounding its case on 'unauthorized disclosures', which is a very different kettle of fish than copied code.
This seemed to me to be the only really interesting bit in the piece. IBM has asked (and is expected to ask again) for the judge to enter a "summary judgement" that Big Blue's Linux activities do not infringe SCO's copyrights. If that happens, any copyright issues will be dropped from any jury trial. By avoiding the copyright issue, SCO appears to be looking for a way to still get to trial in spite of a summary judgement. But this also disrupts their claims against Linux.
While SCO likes the vague term "intellectual property" the law only recognizes three items in that class: copyrights, patents and trade secrets. SCO has never claimed patents or trade secrets, so that leaves copyright. If SCO can't establish copyright, they have no hold over anyone except those with whom they have a contract.
While the court cases with Novell and IBM may drag on for years, this -- as far as Linux is concerned -- is another step into irrelevancy for SCO.
If you'd just paid Novell a few million to get them to sign such a contract "selling you the Unix business", or taken a high corporate office in a company that had done so, wouldn't YOU think that's what it meant?
It doesn't matter what the current SCO execs think, it only matters what the Santa Cruz execs who signed the contract thought it meant. Whatever they meant, it's clearly only a conditional transfer. If any unconditional copyright transfer was contemplated, it would have occurred by now. The condition in the amendment says the copyrights won't transfer except as required "to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies." In order to trigger the transfer, SCO needs to find something in their current activities that meet that clause.
the maintainers of linux - and other open software - should be prepared for the courts to accept SCO's arguments on the copyright ownership issue and should stay squeaky-clean by avoiding inclusion of any code that was in UNIX prior to 9/19/1995 (or even 10/18/1966) or derived from such code
Regardless of SCO's arguments about who owns the code, it's still under copyright and should not be included in any open source project. To date, nobody has been able to present any evidence that there was ever any copyrightable material improperly added to Linux and that's not likely to change. Not that you're likely to find anything worth taking in ten-year old code in any case.
SCO is suing about the copyrights, which they admit are owned by Novell, and weren't even part of the deal?
It gets kind of complicated in here. The original Asset Purchase Agreement explicitly excludes copyrights, but Amendment 2 says that copyrights are excluded, "except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
SCO is hoping to use this vague wording to override the clear wording of the original contract. They're claiming that the conditional clause has been met and that all the copyrights should be transferred. Novell is going to argue that SCO doesn't need the copyright to exercise their rights "with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies". No doubt they're going to ask what technologies SCO is seeking to acquire and why they'd need the copyrights to do so. It's going to be up to the courts to decide this one.
I don't see how this can be read the way SCO wants to read it. SCO doesn't want the copyrights to acquire UNIX technology (which they did a decade ago); they want the copyrights to sue Linux users. This clause was put in so SCO could co-develop Monterey with IBM, so the historical context doesn't help SCO out either.
Sorta. According to this article, their legal fees were capped, but it does not include "expert, consulting and other expenses". I just wonder how motivated their lawyers are going to be now that they know they're not going to make any more money from the case.
According to this article, SCO got another ten million from a private placement of stock with existing institutional investors. Since every rational assessment of the stock suggests that the ten million is not going to pay off on the stock market, it's reasonable to assume that these "investors" have some motive other than profiting from the stock directly.
The amendment is hysterically funny if you keep in mind that the original charge was for Slander of Title. In other words, SCO sued Novell because Novell claimed title to copyrights owned by SCO. Now we have SCO asking the court for this:
(a) requiring Novell to assign to SCO any and all copyrights Novell improperly registerd in UNIX and UnixWare following the Asset Purchase Agreement: (b) preventing Novell from representing in any forum that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights; and (c) requiring Novell to retract or withdraw all representations it has made regarding its purported ownership of the copyrights;
So, having sued Novell because Novell said it owned the copyright, SCO asks the court to transfer those same copyrights from Novell to SCO and -- having transferred those rights -- to admit that Novell no longer has them.
The problem with biodiesel isn't that it's too expensive to produce. The problem is that there simply isn't enough oil to replace significant amounts of fossil fuel. And there is the issue of what happens to the price of food oil if too much vegetable oil is converted to fuel usage. According to this study by the University of New Hampshire, it is possible to make the necessary oil using oily varieties of algae which can be produced on non-arable land.
Making soybean biodiesel cheaper won't solve the problem because the limited supply will only meet so much of the required energy needs. It might even cause more problems by creating economic pressure to convert food oils into fuels.
In addition to the improvement to the environment, reduction in oil imports -- if significant enough -- would have beneficial political effects as well. Currently the US is engaged in a number of problematic policies, from supporting oppressive regimes to tinkering with markets, in order feed the appetite for oil. And, as China's need for energy increases, we're moving into having to compete with them for that resource as well. Moving to eliminating that dependence is inherently a Good Thing.
To get the real humor, you need to read the transcript of the last hearing. In a nutshell, they were telling Judge Wells that she ordered IBM to produce tons of Linux discovery. Wells -- bluntly -- said she ordered no such thing. Moreover, she points out that SCO had never actually asked about Linux code in the first place.
In this new motion, SCO is not only saying that she really did order IBM to produce Linux code, but adds a new version (which they also have not previously mentioned) to the list. They're telling Kimball that Wells misunderstood her own orders.
With the cajones on these guys, it's a wonder they can walk.
If you really want to get involved, according to Groklaw the meeting Monday, October 31, in Boston, at the State House, room A1, from 1 to 5 that's open to the public. If you can't make that kind of commitment, Mass.gov. One useful page is this one which lets you type in your city and find out which state congress critters are yours. They're the ones who want your vote next time around. We also already know that Romney is in favor of ODF and Galvin (who wants to run for Romney's job) is against it, so writing them won't hurt either.
As for what to write I'd suggest you be nice, be brief and use your own words. That's more effective than just cranking out form letters. Let them know what you think and that you're paying attention.
The Supreme Court changed the rules and the RIAA is trying to use it to prop up their broken business model. As Lawrence Lessig observes, the old rule was that a technology was okay if it had "significant non-infringing uses." But, in the Grokster ruling, they ruled that Grokster was illegal because it was the service was "promoting" infringement. The RIAA apparently figures this is their license to go after any technology which does not promote their business model.
A good, sturdy pocket knife. Not a Swiss Army jobber. A single blade, like are sold to hunters. Metal, not ceramic.
I'm sorry, but I'll have to ask you to turn in your geek card. Yes, the knife is important, but -- when everything is broken -- we'll have to fix everything. Knives are good for many tasks, but an advanced civilization leaves behind things that can be used or reused if you can get them repaired. Automobiles, even if they can't run, are a treasure trove of raw materials and can provide all sorts of useful and unexpected functions. If you have a few basic tools.
I have a couple of good sturdy knives, but I am never ever without a Leatherman. I'd recommend the Surge. It's the same size as a good pocketknife (and has a good blade), but includes pliers, bolt grips, wirecutters, file, can opener and an assortment of screwdrivers. Not as good for skinning a deer or winning a knife fight, but perfect if you plan to skip past the stone age and into the industrial age.
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney plans to start buying them for all 500,000 middle and high school pupils in the state.
Can someone please tell these people that computers are, barring a massive paradigm shift in how they are used for education, merely 90% distraction from the real learning that must go on in schools at these ages?
I would, but my wife is a schoolteacher in Massachusetts. Eat your hearts out. BWAHAHAHA!
That's really a shame, because that was just about everything I was looking for in a "travel laptop". Plus, it's so cheap that if it gets damage/destroyed, I don't feel so bad. . . . On the other hand, it has what appears to be a membrane keyboard. That's a dealbreaker right there.
Well, TFA did say that they're considering licensing the design to third parties in order to fund the project. That sounds like a win all around. And any third party would do enough market research to know they need to add a few "frills". Like a keyboard port.
Personally, I'd keep the membrane keyboard. Not so much because of monsoon season or anything; just to keep out the occasional cup of Starbuck's.
According to the report, 25 vendor-confirmed vulnerabilities were disclosed for the Mozilla browsers during the first half of 2005, "the most of any browser studied," the report's authors stated.
and
at the time of writing, no widespread exploitation of any browser except Microsoft Internet Explorer has occurred
Doesn't this imply that the Mozilla-family problems are being found and patched before exploitation, while IE problems are taking longer to find and address?
Known bugs are -- by definition -- limited in both number and scope. Unknown bugs are -- also by definition -- are unlimited in both number and scope.
Is it ignorant to believe an IT manager should be a knowledgeable in technology as a whole?
I've worked with a few folks who were pretty clueless with technology, but were surprisingly good managers. They typically set things up so that they focused on matters they knew (like scheduling and procedures) and let us get on with what we knew (estimating, analyzing and coding). I'd be less worried about the fact that your boss doesn't know your job and more worried that he doesn't seem to know his.
A good manager needs to know whether to push, pull or get out of the way.
Either the guy was authorized to use the access point or he wasn't.
Actually, under the law the important issue is whether he believed he was authorized. If he had to circumvent some kind of protection or read a "keep out" message, he would clearly have been unauthorized. With none of these things in place, there would have been no way to prove that he did not believe he was using a deliberately open connection if it was not for the fact that his state of mind was betrayed by his own actions.
Currently, legal practice is undefined because the technology is new. I believe that, in time, it will be decided that transmitting an open connection into public areas without some form of security constitutes authorization to use the connection.
By doing this they're making Open WiFi illegal, because not only does your computer have to get permission to connect to the network (via the login) but now extra permission is needed too.
The key to the problem is the phrase "unauthorised access." If you read the original article, you'll see that the guy messed up because, when the network owner approached him, he hid his laptop and acted, well, guilty. He clearly knew he wasn't authorised to access that point.
What if, on the otherhand, he had smiled and said, "Oh, there's an open access point here; I'm just checking my email?" He could have claimed he thought it was an Open WiFi connection. Others do it, so it's not like there are no examples. Also, the owner knew he could have secured his access point and didn't. It would have been easy to argue that -- by not doing so -- he was effectively giving permission to use the connection.
Of course, then we would have never even heard about the case. The owner only called the cops because he thought the guy might be a burglar. If the "thief" had been open about his actions, the guy would have either said "okay" or told him to buzz off and then secured the connection like he should have in the first place.
The internet also allows multitasking "wasted" and "productive" time because it's the only activity that keeps your butt firmly lodged in it's seat. I can check news or stock reports while waiting for that email to come back or for a compile to complete. If I actually got up and did something else, I wouldn't know when those things actually finished.
Would it save my employer anything for me to be staring at the blank screen instead?
Just how much of the planning do these guys think the terrorist will do from their plane seats? And, assuming they have enough foresight to coordinate an attack, do you think they'll still be dumb enough to use plain language rather than something obtuse about "package delivery" or "message receipt" times?
Honestly, sometimes I think these guys have about as much intelligence gathering savvy as Sgt. Schultz.
Enderle has proven time and again that he is pro-Microsoft, anti-IBM and anti-Linux. He has as much as said so in his SCOForum speech. Furthermore, he has stated that he feels SCO will win because the case won't be decided on the facts of the case. His "analysis" of Linux needs to be read in this light.
My read is that this is a pathetic attempt to link "Linux" and "union" in the minds of IT management. The article is absurd on it's face. It relys on a redefinition of the words "Linux" and "union" in order to make it work, thus rending the entire ridiculous screed meaningless.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
-- Lewis Carroll, "Alice Through The Looking Glass"
It's not a question of if she'll show up again, but when. There's too much at stake for the other side to allow such a willing tool to go unused.
Her willingness isn't the problem, her usefulness is. Her last article was so clearly over the top -- both in terms of journalistic integrity and good taste -- that she's probably too much of a liability for any major publication.
That doesn't mean she's been silenced. She owns G2 News and, presumably, hasn't fired herself. So you can still get her viewpoint if you are inclined to pay the $595 a year for her LinuxGram or the amusingly named ePostalNews. I'm sure she'll find a few folk with the spare cash spend so they can read her version of the news.
Slashdot Mirror
It would still release some CO2, but it should result in a net improvement over coal.
It doesn't clean up the air, but it doesn't make it dirtier either. Theoretically, you could grow algae -- or trees, for that matter -- and just bury them to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but that costs money. Biodiesel production, in theory, could pay for itself by replacing petrochemical use.
While SCO likes the vague term "intellectual property" the law only recognizes three items in that class: copyrights, patents and trade secrets. SCO has never claimed patents or trade secrets, so that leaves copyright. If SCO can't establish copyright, they have no hold over anyone except those with whom they have a contract.
While the court cases with Novell and IBM may drag on for years, this -- as far as Linux is concerned -- is another step into irrelevancy for SCO.
SCO is hoping to use this vague wording to override the clear wording of the original contract. They're claiming that the conditional clause has been met and that all the copyrights should be transferred. Novell is going to argue that SCO doesn't need the copyright to exercise their rights "with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies". No doubt they're going to ask what technologies SCO is seeking to acquire and why they'd need the copyrights to do so. It's going to be up to the courts to decide this one.
I don't see how this can be read the way SCO wants to read it. SCO doesn't want the copyrights to acquire UNIX technology (which they did a decade ago); they want the copyrights to sue Linux users. This clause was put in so SCO could co-develop Monterey with IBM, so the historical context doesn't help SCO out either.
Sorta. According to this article, their legal fees were capped, but it does not include "expert, consulting and other expenses". I just wonder how motivated their lawyers are going to be now that they know they're not going to make any more money from the case.
According to this article, SCO got another ten million from a private placement of stock with existing institutional investors. Since every rational assessment of the stock suggests that the ten million is not going to pay off on the stock market, it's reasonable to assume that these "investors" have some motive other than profiting from the stock directly.
Does SCO even know what they're suing for?
Making soybean biodiesel cheaper won't solve the problem because the limited supply will only meet so much of the required energy needs. It might even cause more problems by creating economic pressure to convert food oils into fuels.
In addition to the improvement to the environment, reduction in oil imports -- if significant enough -- would have beneficial political effects as well. Currently the US is engaged in a number of problematic policies, from supporting oppressive regimes to tinkering with markets, in order feed the appetite for oil. And, as China's need for energy increases, we're moving into having to compete with them for that resource as well. Moving to eliminating that dependence is inherently a Good Thing.
In this new motion, SCO is not only saying that she really did order IBM to produce Linux code, but adds a new version (which they also have not previously mentioned) to the list. They're telling Kimball that Wells misunderstood her own orders.
With the cajones on these guys, it's a wonder they can walk.
If you really want to get involved, according to Groklaw the meeting Monday, October 31, in Boston, at the State House, room A1, from 1 to 5 that's open to the public. If you can't make that kind of commitment, Mass.gov. One useful page is this one which lets you type in your city and find out which state congress critters are yours. They're the ones who want your vote next time around. We also already know that Romney is in favor of ODF and Galvin (who wants to run for Romney's job) is against it, so writing them won't hurt either.
As for what to write I'd suggest you be nice, be brief and use your own words. That's more effective than just cranking out form letters. Let them know what you think and that you're paying attention.
The Supreme Court changed the rules and the RIAA is trying to use it to prop up their broken business model. As Lawrence Lessig observes, the old rule was that a technology was okay if it had "significant non-infringing uses." But, in the Grokster ruling, they ruled that Grokster was illegal because it was the service was "promoting" infringement. The RIAA apparently figures this is their license to go after any technology which does not promote their business model.
I have a couple of good sturdy knives, but I am never ever without a Leatherman. I'd recommend the Surge. It's the same size as a good pocketknife (and has a good blade), but includes pliers, bolt grips, wirecutters, file, can opener and an assortment of screwdrivers. Not as good for skinning a deer or winning a knife fight, but perfect if you plan to skip past the stone age and into the industrial age.
Eat your hearts out.
BWAHAHAHA!
Personally, I'd keep the membrane keyboard. Not so much because of monsoon season or anything; just to keep out the occasional cup of Starbuck's.
Known bugs are -- by definition -- limited in both number and scope. Unknown bugs are -- also by definition -- are unlimited in both number and scope.
A good manager needs to know whether to push, pull or get out of the way.
Currently, legal practice is undefined because the technology is new. I believe that, in time, it will be decided that transmitting an open connection into public areas without some form of security constitutes authorization to use the connection.
What if, on the otherhand, he had smiled and said, "Oh, there's an open access point here; I'm just checking my email?" He could have claimed he thought it was an Open WiFi connection. Others do it, so it's not like there are no examples. Also, the owner knew he could have secured his access point and didn't. It would have been easy to argue that -- by not doing so -- he was effectively giving permission to use the connection.
Of course, then we would have never even heard about the case. The owner only called the cops because he thought the guy might be a burglar. If the "thief" had been open about his actions, the guy would have either said "okay" or told him to buzz off and then secured the connection like he should have in the first place.
Would it save my employer anything for me to be staring at the blank screen instead?
Honestly, sometimes I think these guys have about as much intelligence gathering savvy as Sgt. Schultz.
My read is that this is a pathetic attempt to link "Linux" and "union" in the minds of IT management. The article is absurd on it's face. It relys on a redefinition of the words "Linux" and "union" in order to make it work, thus rending the entire ridiculous screed meaningless.
That doesn't mean she's been silenced. She owns G2 News and, presumably, hasn't fired herself. So you can still get her viewpoint if you are inclined to pay the $595 a year for her LinuxGram or the amusingly named ePostalNews. I'm sure she'll find a few folk with the spare cash spend so they can read her version of the news.