I disagree with the parent totally. Hydrogen is completely worth it.
Hydrogen can be transported much more safely than fossil fuels. An article in Scientific American a few months back discussed a "Superpipeline" which would carry both electricity and hydrogen, which would double as a coolant. See: This report from IEEE for details.
Hydrogen can be created more easily than any other fuel and more cleanly too. For those of you naysayers who obviously missed that day in Chem 101, Water + energy = Hydrogen. Hydrogen + air = energy + cleaner air than you put in. Hydrogen-burning engines are MINUS EMISSIONS VEHICLES. To quote The American Hydrogen Association:
To improve air quality some states have set zero emission standards for cars. A vehicle converted to operate on hydrogen easily meets this standard and can actually improve upon it by cleaning the air through which it travels by reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon monoxide, diesel soot, tire particles and unburned hydrocarbons and converting these pollutants into carbon dioxide and water. This air cleaning capability provides a Minus Emissions Vehicle (MEV).
This quote refers to hydrogen combustion. In fact, this same association had a book published in 1982 (I forget the title) which claimed a then-modern car could be converted to run on hydrogen/gasoline or pure hydrogen fuel for $500 per car, get 80 miles to the gallon, and when running on pure hydrogen, emit cleaner air than it took in. They had several proof-of-concept vehicles. Needless to say, those claims are pretty wild, but if there was even a kernel of truth to them, why didn't we hear about it? Oil lobbyists anyone?
Hydrogen could be created by solar panels on your roof, stored in a tank by your house, and pumped into your car as needed. You could sell your excess to others. Infrastructure is nice, but not strictly necessary. If you could spend $10,000 on equipment and never buy gasoline again, and help the environment, and potentially have some spare hydrogen to sell, wouldn't you?
I think spyware writers are more foul than virus writers: while virus writers do what they do for the technical thrill and bother a lot of people in the process, spyware writers do it just to get money.
Actually, there was a time when this was probably true, but no longer. A great many viruses and exploits today, well over half, are purely for financial gains. The recent ANI exploit is just one example.
I think this is a good thing. Anyone who read the Cathedral and the Bazaar know that this is just a normal part of open-source development. It is a Darwinian society, and different projects evolve and vie for developer mind share. RPM was revolutionary and innovative - then APT came about and did it one better. RPM remains more popular thanks in part to it's better timing and wider-spread use. APT, however, was the first major player in the package management area which satisfied dependencies. Installing software using APT (when the given distro has their apt repository set up properly) is a joy. Additionally, though more complex to create the DEBs, they seem much better adapted to do their job than RPMs and SRPMs. I don't know a lot about Fedora but I know that their goals are not in line with the mainstream Linux user's needs, and the prevalence of Ubuntu and Debian show this.
Now, other distros (knoppix, ubuntu) which are Debian based are showing people better technology and results and are consequently gaining mind share. IMO, the Debian way of having strict free-ness guidelines (the DFSG), while still supporting additional repositories with non-free solutions ( non-free, contrib, etc) is the ideal solution. It continues to encourage free solutions while providing a means to make it "just work" when necessary, until free solutions are available.
Ubuntu takes this one step further - with a different goal from Debian, Ubuntu has the potential to be a real desktop OS suitable for average users (maybe not yet, but soon), and all by leveraging and increasing the mind share of Debian and the source code it (and many other distributions) rely on.
Perhaps the way his goodbye email was worded offend some people, it is clear he was frustrated when he reached this decision, but as long as he is working on open source and contributing to a major distribution, he is doing us (users of open source) a service. It is my hope that Debian-based distros continue to grow in market share and mind share (as they already are compared to older distros), which only fuels their continuing advancement.
I just realized I never have to write a new post for patents again. I can just link these, which clearly and concisely describe IP companies (like LSI seems to be heading towards) and non-IP companies, and why they have to get patents and why the system is broke and sucks.
When it comes to companies the size of Amazon, no patent is about protection. If they wanted to protect their "invention", they could have published it, thereby putting it in the public domain and preventing anyone else from suing Amazon at a later date. If a company like Amazon patents something, the implication is that they plan to extract money from others using the invention (through licensing or legal action). This is not a defensive action, it's an Intellectual Property land grab - an offensive action.
This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the patent system. As obvious as an idea is, it still might be a business advantage over those who do not yet do it, so publishing every single idea a company has is not a good way to stay in business. Additionally, as Jeff says in the quotes I linked in the parent post, many ideas seemed so obvious they weren't patented, but in retrospect, it was a mistake.
Patents are only made valid when companies enforce them. Take trademarks, for example... this is why Google had to make at least an effort to prevent people from using the term as a verb - only by doing so can they purport to keep the trademark. Patents are the same, only by "defending their patent" can they ensure someone else couldn't have it thrown out in court. Then the next time some company sues Amazon for something mind-numbingly obvious, Amazon won't be able to say "yeah, but you are accepting orders here with one click, so drop it and we'll call it even".
Unless you've published a paper on "A method by which one clicks submit on a Slashdot post which contains false, misleading, or uninformed claims" some company could patent it and sue you right now and despite the obvious nature of posting BS on Slashdot, without patents of your own to throw in their face, you could be stuck loosing millions fighting it in court.
It all boils down to a broken system allowing BS patents in the first place, but don't hate the player, hate the game.
If anything, this is a perfect example of why Amazon must keep patents. Our patent system is so broke the only way to defend yourself from "evil" companies like SCO is to stock your own ammunition.
It's like nuclear proliferation, until every company in the world signs a treaty, you have to continue to stockpile patents. Amazon officials have said in numerous interviews, patents are taken whenever they can be granted under the current (broken) system to prevent someone else from patenting an idea and turning around and suing THEM.
Amazon is not playing the IP company (like SCO and others) that sits around and looks for people to sue, they sue when needed to protect their patents, which they taken whenever possible to protect themselves from being on the other end of the warhead. If we could just fix this broke system none of this would be needed. As long as the patent office will allow something like 1-Click to be patented, companies like IBM, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, and others must aggressively seek patents just to protect themselves.
I don't know where you live, but there's mafia around here. If a gunshop is consistently selling to the family, the police raid them. If a used car salesman continually sells them black cars with tinted windows, to the family the police raid them. If your tools -- the "car or gun or two by four" or whatever -- are continually used to commit piracy like DVD Jon's, you're going to get fingered. Regardless if you committed the act or not.
Yeh, but in Soviet Russia...erm...wait a minute...
In a FREE country (or even in the crappy sembalance of one we have now in the US) buying a gun (or 4000 guns) is not a crime untill you use one to shoot someone, and even still you are innocent until proven guilty. Or did you forget about that one?
Add Transgaming's SHIT license and restrictions (We steal from Wine. We Do not GIVE to Wine. And don't even think about adding Cedega to your distribution.) and you have a complete turd of a product.
This is actually what stops me, not the poor quality of the software. You've got to start somewhere, right? But they promised to give back to Wine in a timely fashion and they are not doing so. People who break their promises to other people will probably break their promises to you, too.
I have never seen so many uninformed, ignorant opinions (yeh, I know this is slashdot). If you knew ANYTHING about Transgaming you'd know they work closely with the WINE project, and have contributed more to it than any other commercial project. They regularly backport fixes, and comply fully with the GPL and other licenses to provide access to all non-proprietary source code.
Reverse engineering the whole fucking DirectX API just might be a Hard Thing, and wanting to charge a measily 5$/month for it's use and continued support might just be a Good Thing. It simply wouldn't happen with the legal and technical issues, if it was being attempted by a bunch of distributed, open-source developers working in their free time. These guys are a team of dedicated engineers working to acomplish this.
Transgaming is the quintessential example of how a commercial company can make a product based on open source software, and the result benefits them, customers, AND open source. I am all for open source, and fighting to keep things free and open - but commercial software will always have a place, and what Transgaming provides would not be possible for free.
-Carl
Your comment is true, but your examples are misleading. The system sucks, but "it is all we have", so to speak. You don't change the laws by breaking or ignoring them. Companies like Amazon.com and Google must aggressivly seek patents, lest they open themselves up to lawsuits by companies who really ARE building their business model around lawsuits.
Amazon spends millions a year, and employs thousands of engineers developing their software. Google is no different. Top-ranking Amazon officials have constantly, publicly stated that they want to reform patent law. Go to your favorite small time online retailer... thinkgeek, sheetmusicplus.com, or pretty much anyone - and you'll see more patent infringments than you can count. Amazon seeking a patent on one-click isn't ludicrous - it is ludicrous that it was GRANTED, meaning if some other company had done the same, they could have sued Amazon for millions.
Stop painting companies as the bad guy without knowing what you are talking about. Actions speak louder than words, and when was the last time Google, Amazon, etc, agressivly and unprovoked, sued anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen can be transported much more safely than fossil fuels. An article in Scientific American a few months back discussed a "Superpipeline" which would carry both electricity and hydrogen, which would double as a coolant. See: This report from IEEE for details.
Hydrogen can be created more easily than any other fuel and more cleanly too. For those of you naysayers who obviously missed that day in Chem 101, Water + energy = Hydrogen. Hydrogen + air = energy + cleaner air than you put in. Hydrogen-burning engines are MINUS EMISSIONS VEHICLES. To quote The American Hydrogen Association
This quote refers to hydrogen combustion. In fact, this same association had a book published in 1982 (I forget the title) which claimed a then-modern car could be converted to run on hydrogen/gasoline or pure hydrogen fuel for $500 per car, get 80 miles to the gallon, and when running on pure hydrogen, emit cleaner air than it took in. They had several proof-of-concept vehicles. Needless to say, those claims are pretty wild, but if there was even a kernel of truth to them, why didn't we hear about it? Oil lobbyists anyone?
Hydrogen could be created by solar panels on your roof, stored in a tank by your house, and pumped into your car as needed. You could sell your excess to others. Infrastructure is nice, but not strictly necessary. If you could spend $10,000 on equipment and never buy gasoline again, and help the environment, and potentially have some spare hydrogen to sell, wouldn't you?
-Carl
-Carl
I think this is a good thing. Anyone who read the Cathedral and the Bazaar know that this is just a normal part of open-source development. It is a Darwinian society, and different projects evolve and vie for developer mind share. RPM was revolutionary and innovative - then APT came about and did it one better. RPM remains more popular thanks in part to it's better timing and wider-spread use. APT, however, was the first major player in the package management area which satisfied dependencies. Installing software using APT (when the given distro has their apt repository set up properly) is a joy. Additionally, though more complex to create the DEBs, they seem much better adapted to do their job than RPMs and SRPMs. I don't know a lot about Fedora but I know that their goals are not in line with the mainstream Linux user's needs, and the prevalence of Ubuntu and Debian show this.
Now, other distros (knoppix, ubuntu) which are Debian based are showing people better technology and results and are consequently gaining mind share. IMO, the Debian way of having strict free-ness guidelines (the DFSG), while still supporting additional repositories with non-free solutions ( non-free, contrib, etc) is the ideal solution. It continues to encourage free solutions while providing a means to make it "just work" when necessary, until free solutions are available.
Ubuntu takes this one step further - with a different goal from Debian, Ubuntu has the potential to be a real desktop OS suitable for average users (maybe not yet, but soon), and all by leveraging and increasing the mind share of Debian and the source code it (and many other distributions) rely on.
Perhaps the way his goodbye email was worded offend some people, it is clear he was frustrated when he reached this decision, but as long as he is working on open source and contributing to a major distribution, he is doing us (users of open source) a service. It is my hope that Debian-based distros continue to grow in market share and mind share (as they already are compared to older distros), which only fuels their continuing advancement.
-Carl
Why Companies must seek patents: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208016&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=16961434
Why Companies must protect patents: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=208016&thr eshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=16966532
This demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the patent system. As obvious as an idea is, it still might be a business advantage over those who do not yet do it, so publishing every single idea a company has is not a good way to stay in business. Additionally, as Jeff says in the quotes I linked in the parent post, many ideas seemed so obvious they weren't patented, but in retrospect, it was a mistake.
Patents are only made valid when companies enforce them. Take trademarks, for example... this is why Google had to make at least an effort to prevent people from using the term as a verb - only by doing so can they purport to keep the trademark. Patents are the same, only by "defending their patent" can they ensure someone else couldn't have it thrown out in court. Then the next time some company sues Amazon for something mind-numbingly obvious, Amazon won't be able to say "yeah, but you are accepting orders here with one click, so drop it and we'll call it even".
Unless you've published a paper on "A method by which one clicks submit on a Slashdot post which contains false, misleading, or uninformed claims" some company could patent it and sue you right now and despite the obvious nature of posting BS on Slashdot, without patents of your own to throw in their face, you could be stuck loosing millions fighting it in court.
It all boils down to a broken system allowing BS patents in the first place, but don't hate the player, hate the game.
If anything, this is a perfect example of why Amazon must keep patents. Our patent system is so broke the only way to defend yourself from "evil" companies like SCO is to stock your own ammunition.
It's like nuclear proliferation, until every company in the world signs a treaty, you have to continue to stockpile patents. Amazon officials have said in numerous interviews, patents are taken whenever they can be granted under the current (broken) system to prevent someone else from patenting an idea and turning around and suing THEM.
Amazon is not playing the IP company (like SCO and others) that sits around and looks for people to sue, they sue when needed to protect their patents, which they taken whenever possible to protect themselves from being on the other end of the warhead. If we could just fix this broke system none of this would be needed. As long as the patent office will allow something like 1-Click to be patented, companies like IBM, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, eBay, and others must aggressively seek patents just to protect themselves.
I guarentee you your P4 3Ghz pulls more power than a 3Ghz core duo, or a 3Ghz Athlon X2 would have. probably by a factor of 4.
Your comment is true, but your examples are misleading. The system sucks, but "it is all we have", so to speak. You don't change the laws by breaking or ignoring them. Companies like Amazon.com and Google must aggressivly seek patents, lest they open themselves up to lawsuits by companies who really ARE building their business model around lawsuits. Amazon spends millions a year, and employs thousands of engineers developing their software. Google is no different. Top-ranking Amazon officials have constantly, publicly stated that they want to reform patent law. Go to your favorite small time online retailer... thinkgeek, sheetmusicplus.com, or pretty much anyone - and you'll see more patent infringments than you can count. Amazon seeking a patent on one-click isn't ludicrous - it is ludicrous that it was GRANTED, meaning if some other company had done the same, they could have sued Amazon for millions. Stop painting companies as the bad guy without knowing what you are talking about. Actions speak louder than words, and when was the last time Google, Amazon, etc, agressivly and unprovoked, sued anyone?