This was BEFORE WNT4 was unveiled to the public, and before the later press releases that NT4 was not, in fact, going to be the Cairo OS that they'd been touting over the previous months. Then people were talking about NT5 being Cairo, but alas, that also wansn't to be. In the end, Cairo fell by the wayside and we've got what M$ are currently putting out.
And you've not bothered to mention that the possibility for SCO to mitigate the 'damage' being done to them, i.e. sort out what is infringing and give the user (who's apparently liable, though unknowingly and unwillingly) the chance to sort the problem out to the satisfaction of both parties.
Well... yes... of course. This will obviously happen when the computation is to dependant on results of earlier computations that the parallelism and interconnect speed of Earth Simulator cannot help at all! I expect you can do similar with a P4 (though almost all such examples are probably heavily contrived.)
(Recall that the clock speed of an individual processor in the ES is 500Mhz, and each processor has only 1 scalar unit, the rest being specialised vector units.) Thus you could probably contrive an example where the raw clock speed of a P4 could get the work done more quickly. I can't think of such an example myself, but someone out there probably can....I may be wrong.
You're getting confused. There were two methods mentioned (assuming its the same article that/. linked to a while back.)
The first came from Russia, and involved high pressure in some kind of ceramic container. This produced the yellow diamonds you talked about. The gas plasma method did not. (The latter was being developed with a view to producing diamond wafers for semiconductor chips.)
It will require heavy involvement of competition commisions to make this work. Without that cartels controlling the production of gems (i.e. cut and polished diamonds) will come about. You should remember that if you spend your $5 on a carat, you'll probably have to by it by the 100 carats, and then get someone to do the cutting and polishing.
Expect the diamond preparation business to become a high markup business, and hope that competition regulators keep a close eye on whats going on. (Even then, the likes of DeBeers know who to send their bri^H^H^Hcampaign contributions to.)
The point it, however, that the expensiveness of diamonds is a sham. People should be spending their money on truly rare gems.
That said, it is of course the thought and the gesture that count when were talking about rings, not the price your friend down the road can get it in three years time.
But the history of DeBeers and its marketing makes for interesting reading: the 'A diamond is forever', and 'diamonds are a girls best friend' slogans, together with the idea that diamonds should be cherished as hierlooms far more than other things are due to clever marketing by DeBeers. (The latter thing with hierlooms is a clever way to get second hand diamonds off the market!)
But you'd spend more power on the Peltier device to keep the Stirling engine cool enough then you'd generate with it, and the processor would probably overheat if there isn't an efficient conductor to take the heat away (which a Stirling engine going forwards, as pointed out by others, most certainly is not.)
Suppose that program A is distributed under the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not grant any right to use the program (it presumes none is required.) (It is an interesting question of law whether rights to use a program, legitimately obtained, can be covered by copyright law, and to what extent. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm clueless on this one.)
Thus it may (however unlikely) turn out to be the case that SCO's claim and licensing stuff is valid, yet only pertains to actually using the software. Note that they are selling per-CPU licences to use the software, and are placing no restrictions on usage. Thus they place no restriction modification or redistribution, but people who obtain a copy, whilst allowed to copy and modify it to their hearts content, are not allowed to use the kernel without a license from SCO.
Maybe the GPL 3.0 should explicitly include sections pertaining to use of the program (so that it is explicitly agains the license to freely allow redistribution, yet restrict usage of the code on a CPU.)
I suspect there are some serious flaws in the above. I hope there are, and I hope someone can explain where the problems lie.
*If* there actual SysV code found in Linux (that is copyrighted SCO/AT&T/Whoever) in Linux then they still have a bunch of problems.
Another problem being that, in cases such as these (as I understand anyhow), SCO must first try to get the copyright problems sorted out before going to court. Not telling the defendants which bits of code are the ones that they are claiming as their own, hoping to spring it on the defendants unawars in the middle of the trial, undermines this. (Basically, the defendants, especially a Linux user/using company, could well say to the court that they'd like to take action to resolve the problem by removing the affected code and getting replacements written asap, but SCO is not cooperating, hoping to get inflated damages through litigation.)
When designing a replacement, it's worth giving thought to the relevant protocols for sound, and storage local to the machine the server is running on. That is, if I launch a server somewhere with, e.g. a local CD-ROM, the applications I use should be able to see and use the contents of the CD-Rom.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, it does not explicitly grant the right to bear arms, and does anything about the situation in which the people do not have the right to bear arms (it only says that those rights shall not be infringed, which only has any weight when those rights exist.)
(As a thought experiment, suppose California passed a law recalling any rights previously granted by the state legislature that citizens could keep and bear arms, which it can do, not being the federal congress, and then passes a law explicitly outlawing guns.) (Excepting the fact that this would be de facto political suicide over there...)
Besides, it is probably not the case that 'A well regulated militia' is 'necessary to the security of' a free market. Given how things are going in the capitalist world these days, it may only be a matter of time before the free state is totally subsumed by the free market.
I don't quite read it that way (though I'm British.) What it seems to say is that _if_ a person has a _right_ to keep and bear arms, then the constitution does not take that right away. It does not say: 'The people have the right to keep and bear arms.'
The questions to be asked are: 1) Do we have a basic human right to keep and bear arms? (I should suggest no.) 2) Does the US constitution explicitly state that all citizens are granted the right to keep and bear arms? (I would think that this would need some explicit right being granted somewhere else in the legislature, probably in each individual state's legislature: the 2nd amendment then states that federal laws cannot be passed that would infringe those rights, once granted.)
That said, it may well be the case that the spirit of the 2nd is: people have the right to own arms. That said, what arms? Surely the right of individuals to keep and bear nuclear bombs in their own homes shouldn't be infringed? Surely the right of a religious fanatic to bear a few kilos of C4 around their waist whilst walking down the local high street shouldn't be infringed?
My basic points are, however, that it isn't as plain as you say (that is common concensus as to the spirit of the wording, probably as backed up by the rather less plain kind of (U.S.) English that lawyers love to speak in.)
In any case, surely the right of the looters to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed in equal measure, even if they've got bigger guns than you and want to use them to raid your property...
I'm afraid that I see the American's love affair with guns as a misguided fallout of the colonial era and the war of independance (when the need for guns for security etc. was rather easier to explain.)
The time involved in opening and indexing a large mbox format mailbox can be considerable. (I recall, for example, someone using pine on our department Solaris server with ~5000 messages in his inbox---since he doesn't like deleting or organising them, and the time it takes to do things is ridiculous!) maildir (I think) was supposed to help by getting the (increasingly advanced) filesystems to do the indexing and access, but that is not an option for Windows on FAT32 (possibly not even NTFS.) Thus some other format is called for. There isn't a standard for what is required, so an ad hoc solution needs to be written, and that is what we have in OE.
Though why OE and Outlook don't use the same storage format is another matter, and the fact that there isn't a freely downloadable.dll from microsoft which houses the Outlook/OutlookExpress message storage system is another matter.
Yes, but the people making the laws are old enough that they will not live to see the collapse when it happens. When it does, influence, wealth, foresight-due-to-inside-info, etc. will help the families of the political classes to relocate early, leaving the rest behind.
Furthermore, chips are extra greasy, come with battered fish and mushy peas, and a wrapped in pages of yesterday's newspaper... at least until health and safety busibodies stopped stopped the use of old newspaper.
1) cannabis was reclassified to class C (see here for a guide to british classifications of illegal drugs;)
2) market traders were prosecuted for selling fruit and vegetables in imperial measurements.
The joke was that it was only a matter of time before cannabis dealers would get prosecuted not for actually selling the drug, but for selling it in pounds and ounces.
The 'English' system of measurements is pretty much a hotchpotch mix of metric and imperial, with people using whichever is more convenient, though there is a slight drift to metric.
Given that market sellers in England have been prosecuted successfully for selling fruit (IIRC) in pounds and ounces (due to a directive from those unelected Eurocrats in Brussels), I think you overestimate our 'metricisation'. We still work in miles, and many people still think in 'pounds per pound'. Far more still buy their beer by the pint or half (though I wouldn't complain at buying beer by the litre glass...)
Continental europe are far more metric than we are (and since that includes France, it probably increases the determination of 'mericans to avoid it in the current climate...) That said, to those who grow up with it, metric tends to make a lot of sense, and I can quite easily see it taking over.
The shuttle accelerates the entire time it is in the lower atmosphere. Even if the event had taken place in a vaccum, the shuttle
would still be exerting a fixed forced, and increasing speed at the square of that force. One second after the foam detatches, in a
vaccum, the shuttle is traveling much faster than the foam.
But if the shuttle is accelerating at, say, 4G, then after 1 second, the relative velocity will be 40 metres per second (about 90mph.) This is rather slower than the 400-500 mph mentioned in the article, so the acceleration of the shuttle is only part of the story.
Possibly an easier solution, though one that will take a little while to get accepted:
Have each user's whitelist associated with a bypass code, which can be entered into online ordering systems, website account registration, etc.
If standardised in an RFC, one could require the email to have 'Spamfilter:xxxxxxxx' as the first
line in the message (how to do this with html
and html/text emails is a bit of a problem...
possibly headers could be used, but this would
require email user agent support for the user
to be aware that the bypass code was used.)
If spammers somehow get hold of the code,
the user should notice, and can do something
(e.g. complain somewhere, change the code,
etc.) Companies that use the bypass code for
things other things than confirmations (and
do this to multiple users) could get blacklisted
somehow. (Again, blacklist policy needs thinking
out.)
Something like that anyway.
Basically, if you get spam with a certain spamfilter code, you go to a webpage on your ISP, request a new code, the old one expires after say 1 week (so as to allow legitimate messages to still get through, 1 week should be enough) and
then you use a new code.
(This is basically a rehash of some other idea
that's been around a while... I can't quite remember which one.)
Slashdot Mirror
This was BEFORE WNT4 was unveiled to the public, and before the later press releases that NT4 was not, in fact, going to be the Cairo OS that they'd been touting over the previous months. Then people were talking about NT5 being Cairo, but alas, that also wansn't to be. In the end, Cairo fell by the wayside and we've got what M$ are currently putting out.
And you've not bothered to mention that the possibility for SCO to mitigate the 'damage' being done to them, i.e. sort out what is infringing and give the user (who's apparently liable, though unknowingly and unwillingly) the chance to sort the problem out to the satisfaction of both parties.
Well... yes... of course. This will obviously happen when the computation is to dependant on results of earlier computations that the parallelism and interconnect speed of Earth Simulator cannot help at all! I expect you can do similar with a P4 (though almost all such examples are probably heavily contrived.)
...I may be wrong.
(Recall that the clock speed of an individual processor in the ES is 500Mhz, and each processor has only 1 scalar unit, the rest being specialised vector units.) Thus you could probably contrive an example where the raw clock speed of a P4 could get the work done more quickly. I can't think of such an example myself, but someone out there probably can.
You're getting confused. There were two methods mentioned (assuming its the same article that /. linked to a while back.)
The first came from Russia, and involved high pressure in some kind of ceramic container. This produced the yellow diamonds you talked about. The gas plasma method did not. (The latter was being developed with a view to producing diamond wafers for semiconductor chips.)
Diamonds can burn in air at around 1560F (see here.)
Diamonds are brittle: you can smash them with a hammer! (see here.)
It will require heavy involvement of competition commisions to make this work. Without that cartels controlling the production of gems (i.e. cut and polished diamonds) will come about. You should remember that if you spend your $5 on a carat, you'll probably have to by it by the 100 carats, and then get someone to do the cutting and polishing.
Expect the diamond preparation business to become a high markup business, and hope that competition regulators keep a close eye on whats going on.
(Even then, the likes of DeBeers know who to send their bri^H^H^Hcampaign contributions to.)
Hmmm... its a silly thought, but a nasty side effect of America's forced separation of church and state is that consumerism is the new mass religion.
The point it, however, that the expensiveness of diamonds is a sham. People should be spending their money on truly rare gems.
That said, it is of course the thought and the gesture that count when were talking about rings, not the price your friend down the road can get it in three years time.
But the history of DeBeers and its marketing makes for interesting reading: the 'A diamond is forever', and 'diamonds are a girls best friend' slogans, together with the idea that diamonds should be cherished as hierlooms far more than other things are due to clever marketing by DeBeers. (The latter thing with hierlooms is a clever way to get second hand diamonds off the market!)
But you'd spend more power on the Peltier device to keep the Stirling engine cool enough then you'd generate with it, and the processor would probably overheat if there isn't an efficient conductor to take the heat away (which a Stirling engine going forwards, as pointed out by others, most certainly is not.)
Minor correction...
If h and c are the values in celcius, then I think you mean (h - (-273)), i.e. (h + 273), so that if e.g. c=0, then we get c+273=273K.
I see a (potential) small problem here.
Suppose that program A is distributed under the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not grant any right to use the program (it presumes none is required.) (It is an interesting question of law whether rights to use a program, legitimately obtained, can be covered by copyright law, and to what extent. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm clueless on this one.)
Thus it may (however unlikely) turn out to be the case that SCO's claim and licensing stuff is valid, yet only pertains to actually using the software. Note that they are selling per-CPU licences to use the software, and are placing no restrictions on usage. Thus they place no restriction modification or redistribution, but people who obtain a copy, whilst allowed to copy and modify it to their hearts content, are not allowed to use the kernel without a license from SCO.
Maybe the GPL 3.0 should explicitly include sections pertaining to use of the program (so that it is explicitly agains the license to freely allow redistribution, yet restrict usage of the code on a CPU.)
I suspect there are some serious flaws in the above. I hope there are, and I hope someone can explain where the problems lie.
Another problem being that, in cases such as these (as I understand anyhow), SCO must first try to get the copyright problems sorted out before going to court. Not telling the defendants which bits of code are the ones that they are claiming as their own, hoping to spring it on the defendants unawars in the middle of the trial, undermines this. (Basically, the defendants, especially a Linux user/using company, could well say to the court that they'd like to take action to resolve the problem by removing the affected code and getting replacements written asap, but SCO is not cooperating, hoping to get inflated damages through litigation.)
Rather irrelevant: just set the system clock to 00:01 1/1/2004, run the executable, then set the system clock back!
When designing a replacement, it's worth giving thought to the relevant protocols for sound, and storage local to the machine the server is running on. That is, if I launch a server somewhere with, e.g. a local CD-ROM, the applications I use should be able to see and use the contents of the CD-Rom.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, it does not explicitly grant the right to bear arms, and does anything about the situation in which the people do not have the right to bear arms (it only says that those rights shall not be infringed, which only has any weight when those rights exist.)
(As a thought experiment, suppose California passed a law recalling any rights previously granted by the state legislature that citizens could keep and bear arms, which it can do, not being the federal congress, and then passes a law explicitly outlawing guns.) (Excepting the fact that this would be de facto political suicide over there...)
Obviously I am not a US Lawyer.
Besides, it is probably not the case that 'A well regulated militia' is 'necessary to the security of' a free market. Given how things are going in the capitalist world these days, it may only be a matter of time before the free state is totally subsumed by the free market.
Hmmmm. An alternative view:
I don't quite read it that way (though I'm British.) What it seems to say is that _if_ a person has a _right_ to keep and bear arms, then the constitution does not take that right away. It does not say: 'The people have the right to keep and bear arms.'
The questions to be asked are:
1) Do we have a basic human right to keep and bear arms? (I should suggest no.)
2) Does the US constitution explicitly state that all citizens are granted the right to keep and bear arms? (I would think that this would need some explicit right being granted somewhere else in the legislature, probably in each individual state's legislature: the 2nd amendment then states that federal laws cannot be passed that would infringe those rights, once granted.)
That said, it may well be the case that the spirit of the 2nd is: people have the right to own arms. That said, what arms? Surely the right of individuals to keep and bear nuclear bombs in their own homes shouldn't be infringed? Surely the right of a religious fanatic to bear a few kilos of C4 around their waist whilst walking down the local high street shouldn't be infringed?
My basic points are, however, that it isn't as plain as you say (that is common concensus as to the spirit of the wording, probably as backed up by the rather less plain kind of (U.S.) English that lawyers love to speak in.)
In any case, surely the right of the looters to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed in equal measure, even if they've got bigger guns than you and want to use them to raid your property...
I'm afraid that I see the American's love affair with guns as a misguided fallout of the colonial era and the war of independance (when the need for guns for security etc. was rather easier to explain.)
The time involved in opening and indexing a large
.dll from microsoft which houses the Outlook/OutlookExpress message storage system is another matter.
mbox format mailbox can be considerable. (I recall, for example, someone using pine on our department Solaris server with ~5000 messages in his inbox---since he doesn't like deleting or organising them, and the time it takes to do things is ridiculous!) maildir (I think) was supposed to help by getting the (increasingly advanced) filesystems to do the indexing and access, but that is not an option for Windows on FAT32 (possibly not even NTFS.) Thus some other format is called for. There isn't a standard for what is required, so an ad hoc solution needs to be written, and that is what we have in OE.
Though why OE and Outlook don't use the same storage format is another matter, and the fact that there isn't a freely downloadable
Yes, but the people making the laws are old enough that they will not live to see the collapse when it happens. When it does, influence, wealth, foresight-due-to-inside-info, etc. will help the families of the political classes to relocate early, leaving the rest behind.
Furthermore, chips are extra greasy, come with battered fish and mushy peas, and a wrapped in pages of yesterday's newspaper... at least until health and safety busibodies stopped stopped the use of old newspaper.
In the last few years:
1) cannabis was reclassified to class C (see here for a guide to british classifications of illegal drugs;)
2) market traders were prosecuted for selling fruit and vegetables in imperial measurements.
The joke was that it was only a matter of time before cannabis dealers would get prosecuted not for actually selling the drug, but for selling it in pounds and ounces.
The 'English' system of measurements is pretty much a hotchpotch mix of metric and imperial, with people using whichever is more convenient, though there is a slight drift to metric.
Given that market sellers in England have been prosecuted successfully for selling fruit (IIRC) in pounds and ounces (due to a directive from those unelected Eurocrats in Brussels), I think you overestimate our 'metricisation'. We still work in miles, and many people still think in 'pounds per pound'. Far more still buy their beer by the pint or half (though I wouldn't complain at buying beer by the litre glass...)
Continental europe are far more metric than we are (and since that includes France, it probably increases the determination of 'mericans to avoid it in the current climate...) That said, to those who grow up with it, metric tends to make a lot of sense, and I can quite easily see it taking over.
(This is basically a rehash of some other idea that's been around a while... I can't quite remember which one.)
Too damnded(sorry...) right! You get what you pay for. I tried it on my computer, threw it in the bin and installed RedHat 8.0 instead.
:-p
So there