* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

WikiLeaks releases full searchable US secret cable files

Ian Michael Gumby
Trollface

Sorry no...

The death penalty isn't an option.

Never really was.

Besides, Bubba says Assange has a pretty mouth....

All WikiLeaks' secret US cables are on BitTorrent in full

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

Ok,

So lets get this straight.

Assange and Wikileaks puts the files on a private computer that they then use to share with journalists.

They then pull the files off the system.

Ok...

So why did they then re-encrypt them with the same password and put it out on bit torrent?

Wouldn't you use a different password?

Silly me.

We didn't leak names of US agents, insists WikiLeaks

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Graham,

I'm afraid that Wikileaks won't change anything of how governments do business. Maybe tighten security and maybe perform better due diligence and security background checks....

The point is that in the past we've had the press who've done a pretty good job of rooting out crime and corruption in government, which is why they have a bit more protection in the courts. However, unlike the press, Wikileaks doesn't show caution or have the same 'ethical' standards. (Note that ethical standards vary by country and by time period...)

So to your point, governments will continue to do business as usual. Perhaps they will be more guarded in what they say and or publish... in fact it could mean that less information will be documented and captured. :-(

I don't disagree that we will see more whistle blowing sites, however I think that they will be less about the egos of their creators and more about their cause.

The key is that there truly are some things that we as a public shouldn't know... at least not for 50+ years, under our current laws.

Ian Michael Gumby
Holmes

discredit Wikileaks?

Please give me a break. Good Ol Julian does that well enough by himself.

So much for the boy blunder hacker securing his own site.

If Der Spiegel had access to the file along with the pass code, to decrypt it, you can bet others already have it.

I smell this as more of 'please ignore the man behind the green curtain.'

Google's anonymity ban defied by Thomas Jefferson

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Paul

No, you cant.

Oh I agree about creating an online persona but Google+ won't let you. It will detect that the online persona isn't real and therefore you can't shop with anonymity.

You really don't get how much of your information is out there for Google to snarf.

Are you going to get a drivers license or a state ID for your online persona? (I think not)

Are you going to set up a CC info for your online persona along with a credit history report?

(I think not)

Google can purchase public records or credit info from sites and aggregate it to their existing data.

If Google continues down this path, they will create or buy their own thift/bank.

(Although with the current scrutiny... that would be difficult. More so than WalMart's attempt.)

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

@Armando

The earth's magnetic field is primarily influenced by the iron within the earth's crust and its volcanic activity. Less so than from the Sun.

What do you think will happen when the earth's core continues to cool?

Ian Michael Gumby
Devil

@ChiliKwok

Its not just the sun.

Its also the earth's own magnetic field at work too.

So when you have changes in the magnetic field (which have been demonstrated to have occurred in the past), you have changes in the effect cosmic rays have on the planet along with solar flares you have an increase in the amount of solar radiation from the sun.

Just more food for thought.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

From the blog referenced in the article:

Personal rivalries aside, the important question is what the new CLOUD paper means for the Svensmark hypothesis. Pick your way through the cautious prose and you’ll find this:

“Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere].”

It’s so transparently favourable to what the Danes have said all along that I’m surprised the warmists’ house magazine Nature is able to publish it, even omitting the telltale graph shown at the start of this post. Added to the already favourable Danish experimental findings, the more detailed CERN result is excellent. Thanks a million, Jasper.

-=-

The point is that besides this experiment there were other earlier experiments that also indicated that there were other non-man made factors which had a greater impact on the earth's climate.

While I would love to see less man made pollutants in the atmosphere, I never bought in to the theory that short of nukes, man was responsible for global warming. (Detonating nukes in an effort to create the same effects that a volcanic eruption would have.)

So to your point, yeah we do. But climate gate was all about bending the scientific research in an effort to get man to stop polluting the atmosphere.

Vogel's RingO iPad mounting system

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

@Eponymous Cowherd

Tree Killer!

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Why stick it on the wall?

So you can keep your hands free to do something else.

Using your imagination, think about if you're in the kitchen and are following a recipe you found online. On the wall you don't lose counter top space.

Or if you want to use it to talk to someone over Skype or facetime....

Apple wins (another) Samsung Android injunction in EU

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ThomH

"To put it another way: the court hasn't told Apple that they're wrong, just that they're not sufficiently obviously right and that they'll return to the topic in the future."

Not quite true. When the courts grant a TRO, they do so for a couple of reasons. With respect to this case, it means that the judge feels that based on the evidence of the case as presented to the courts that Apple would most likely win in court. Therefore they are granted a TRO in an effort to stop further damages from happening.

This isn't to say that Apple is going to win, but that Samsung wasn't able to refute Apple's claims at the time of the TRO request.

You are correct in that the judge based its TRO on the other counts than what people see as being dismissed.

The law isn't always a simple thing to follow....

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Vic

The comment was in response to an earlier post raising Google vs Apple.

To your point... I said the case has merit, meaning that its not frivolous. You really don't know much about US law.

Also to your point, it only takes one count of guilty and if you can raise 50-100 counts that past the first blush test... you will win.

But getting back to my original point that started this thread.

Even if Apple loses their suit against Samsung, they still win. For Apple, it doesn't matter how real or valid the patent is. It allows them to control for the short term, the market and raises the barrier to entry. I'm going to assume that if you sat down, had your cup of tea and thought about the economics involved, Apple could fund the lawsuit from the *profits* of just keeping competitors out of the market.

But its not just Apple. Look at any other company that has a patent war chest and wants to keep competitors out of their markets. IBM (Mainframe) , Microsoft just to name two others.

There's more to this, but it would go over your head...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

yes lets look at what Google has done...

They have ignored patent altogether and have pretty much stolen ideas rather than innovate.

Sorry but as a software professional, I believe that Oracle's lawsuit has merit against Google. Will Oracle win? I don't know and I'm not in the fortune telling business. The point I'm raising is that on a first blush review of Oracle's complaint, if taken as true, they have raised enough arguments for their case to proceed to trial.

Google has also refused to indemnify those that built phones on Android as well as not treated vendors equally when releasing android. Google also has shown a total disregard for the law in other instances.

The point is that Google has shown a behavioral pattern of disregard for the law.

But this is outside of the scope.

The point I was trying to make was that companies are filing patents on things that shouldn't get patent approval on the off chance that they get a patent. The whole issue of the patent 'war chest' is that you now create artificial barriers to entry such that you have a competitive advantage in being first to market. Its not about protecting the innovator and allowing them to recoup their investment, but slowing down the rate competitors can compete.

Even if ultimately Apple loses the lawsuits and Samsung can sell their tablets, the damage is already done.

You're right, no one is forcing Apple to sue, but Apple is choosing to sue because they'll end up making more money by 'protecting' their rights.

Ian Michael Gumby
Holmes

Apple doesn't care about winning in the longer term.

You have to understand that the patents, even dubious patents serve a purpose. It slows down the competition by raising the barrier to entry.

If you were Apple, millions/billions on the line, what would you do?

(Its a rhetorical question)

Don't blame Apple, blame the patent process.

WikiLeaks admits insider deleted loads of its data

Ian Michael Gumby

Funny thing...

Had I not made this post as an AC, I would probably had gotten down voted.

Lawyer touts new legal time-bomb for Android

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Vic

While I admit to not being a lawyer, that doesn't mean I can't read a contract. ;-)

The reason I published the entire clause #3 is that you're again misinterpreting what you're reading.

Paragraph 3 has 3 sub clauses. The person distributing the code has to chose 1 of the 3 options.

A) You ship the code with your distribution.

B) You provide in writing an offer to produce the source code on request.

C) An option only reserved for non-commercial use of the code, but is based on your source being one from a source that exercised option B. (You should read it to understand it.)

Now you're suggesting that if someone makes a written request for the source code, you don't have to be responsive. That is not correct. I'm not suggesting that when you send a request that they ship your the source overnight via fed ex. The reasonableness is subjective and if you have the time to make the request and then sue, clearly they are not being responsive.

With respect to Naughton, It appears that these companies are not in compliance with sub clause A, B and since these are commercial enterprises C isn't an option.

The point you apparently are missing is that if you ship a product, you have to ship the code or a written offer. Having it available on your website for download would appear to satisfy sub clause A. Not having it available on your website, and not providing a written offer violates both sub clauses A and B.

Therefore these sites are not in compliance and are open to litigation.

And lets be clear. Just responding to a request for the source code isn't enough if you don't actually make the written offer to do so. You are still not in compliance with clause B.

Clearly reading and understanding what is written in a contract is not your strong suit.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Vic

Again, reading is fundamental. According the the site that has the list, Archos is compliant on all but one product. the Archos 7.

Thus Archos isn't in full compliance and has potential litigation issues. However I think the point is that there are other companies that are not compliant at all.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@btf

Unless your computer can read and compile the code from paper, then the answer is no.

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

@Vic

"Show me where in that it says that you have to "ship the source, or make it available"... "

It doesn't do you any good if you make statements and clip only sub sections of the code.

You can see the entire GPLv2 here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

In the preamble it says the following:

-=-

"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. "

-=-

While the preamble isn't the exact T's and C's, it does however show the clear intent on the burden of redistributing the source code or making it available.

If we go in to the T's and C's section 3 as a whole it says the following:

-=-

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

-=-

As you can clearly see that section A says to ship the source code with the distribution.

Section B says if you don't ship the source code with the distribution you have to provide in writing an offer to provide the source code at their request for free. (This offer is good for 3 years and you can charge for S&H)

So as you can see, RIF.

BTW, I thought I was being clear that if you don't ship the source, but provide a link to your site where you host the source (for free) and document it, you would be in compliance. In fact that is in part of what the author of the list of tablets did do when he indicated their compliance.

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

RIF

Reading is fundamental.

Did you happen to follow the link:

http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/

The point is either you ship the source, or make it available.

So if you don't ship it, you can easily set up a site for distribution.

Note this site isn't Naughton or Florian but set up by some guy named Mathew.

I would suggest you learn more about the law (tort and contract law) before you cry foul. In general I hate lawyers as much as most people here, but I do respect the law.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Uhmmm.

"2: the GPL doesn't specify a time limit on supplying source and it's (unfortunately) fairly common for it to take a few weeks. There's slop in the system because of that and swift enforcement isn't really an option."

No it doesn't, however there is an implied reasonableness.

Please understand what it would take for someone to raise a lawsuit against said company that is in violation...

1) A written request has to be made asking for the source and notifying said company that they are not in compliance with the GPL.

2) There has to be some amount of time for said company to respond to the letter.

3) Person goes to lawyer. Repeats step 1 & 2

[Note: They could go directly to a lawyer...]

4) Lawyer files lawsuit and starts the process rolling.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but it takes time to start a lawsuit.

With respect to point 4:

"4: Naughton misrepresents how enforcement is usually handled. Delay too long and yes, the licence is declared void but getting compliant and saying 'sorry' almost always get's it reinstated - albeit often with a legally binding agreement not to do it again. Less of a time-bomb, more of a rubber mallet to compel compliance!"

Naughton isn't misrepresenting anything.

To your point, one way to end litigation is to become compliant. But that does mean that you are open to litigation in the first place. And that's the point.

I like the GPL and GPL friendly companies like Apple. They modded the Gnu C compiler to handle Objective-C so they gave back their modded version. They played by the rules and we all prospered.

People don't want tablets, they want iPads

Ian Michael Gumby

Why do you want an iPad?

Look,

Some people buy because they are lemmings. Everyone has an iPhone or an iPad so they want one too.

Others look at price vs functionality.

If you could build a better tablet that is as thin as the iPad2, works as well as the iPad2 and costs the same... I'd buy it too. The iPad2 isn't perfect and there is still room for improvement.

Like being able to be tethered to your cell so you don't need two different data plans...

Books promo

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

@TeeCee

Sorry but its been a while. Refresh my memory. Duplo blocks are bigger right?

So if you *could* make a rubber band gun out of Duplo you could fire those industrial sized and strength rubber bands, right?

Now that would be a bad ass.

Google told to delete people from search results

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Not really true.

Publishing this information is actually a good thing.

The only problem is that the newspaper should have put up a flag so that Google's web crawlers don't traverse the site or pages. (Sorry I forget the name of the file and I want to say robots.txt)

Unless of course Google is ignoring these and scarfing the pages anyways which would then be Google's fault.

Is there any proof of that?

If not, then its the publisher's own fault.

Lightning strikes cloud: Amazon, MS downed

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Alastair 7

That's true and that's part of the point.

You control your own data centers and you control your own DR.

You build in the duplication such that you don't have the down time.

But when you go to the 'cloud' like Amazon, you don't necessarily have people doing the due diligence and setting up replication to a different cloud. They don't account for the costs associated with having the second cloud.

Ian Michael Gumby
Holmes

Cute

But the issue is that when people sell 'the Cloud' to the bean counters they fail to price in the need to duplicate the costs so that the data could also reside in a second cloud in a different data center in order to provide for the up time.

The bottom line is that this could have happened to a private 'cloud' as well.

Google fights to hide incriminating emails

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@David Dawson -- Almost

IANAL and now you're getting in to an issue of international law.

I think the short answer is that if the US courts allow a TRO injunction against Google, since both Google and Oracle are in the US it would have a world wide impact.

I don't know what's in the licenses between Google and the manufacturers. Do you?

At the same time, if a TRO was granted, and HTC, Samsung, and Moto all do business in the US. (Moto is HQ'd in the US btw) Do you honestly think that they will go against such an injunction?

Note: This is hypothetical because I don't know even if Oracle will take this route or if it will be granted if they do.

The bottom line. The TRO will hurt Google. It also sends the message to Google that the odds are if going to trial, then they would lose. It would send a clear message to Google that they would be better off negotiating a settlement than go to trial. Which is what we all want as innocent bystanders.

Ian Michael Gumby
Devil

@Tom13 Huh?

Sorry no.

This isn't hearsay evidence.

That's my point in that Annihilator's point makes no sense. There is no jury to instruct one way or another. This is an issue of discover and a motion to compel.

To your point... the auto save feature saved several copies of the draft.

All of this is in fact evidence that should have been turned over to Oracle because its a saved copy sitting on the hard drive.

Should this be considered privileged because the intent was to cc their in house counsel? That's one ruling that will go against Google if only for the reason that it would set a very bad and dangerous precedence.

Your logic for excluding this falls flat. Suppose it were a handwritten draft that a secretary has not yet transcribed? Or a dictaphone recording? Or a short hand dictation that hadn't been transcribed? Putting the technology aside the information contained in the drafts are important and while they themselves may not be evidence, they are information that Oracle can use to guide their depositions. Oh yeah, even when you're not on trial, going through a deposition isn't fun.

Just because Oracle doesn't present the draft in court doesn't make it meaningless. ;-)

And yes, you are very correct that the other letter is very problematic to Google.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Skelband

No read what he wrote again. Slowly. He didn't make a complete thought.

As to what you thought he said...

Yes, the judge can tell a jury to ignore a piece of evidence even though its been put out in the public eye. An example would be if the police caught a serial killer but all of the evidence they found was based on an illegal search. The judge could tell the jury to ignore the evidence even though that the evidence is already known.

However, this isn't a jury trial and they are still in the discovery phase of a trial. So what's more amazing that this idea is even mentioned. Clearly neither of you have been involved in court cases. His comment had no relevance to issue at hand.

The issue is that somehow the drafts of the e-mails were saved and were handed over to Oracle in the first place. (At least that's how Google puts it.) The truth is that they should have been handed over.

If you bother to read the link to the document written by Oracle's lawyer you will get a better picture of the 'he said/she said' situation.

So it will be interesting to see what the judge has to say.

Note also that if the judge does grant the motion to compel, Google had better not drag their feet. Judges don't like that.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Paul Shirley

Oracle is asking for the return of at least 12 document which Google now claims to be privileged.

Ignore Florian and focus on the document written by Oracle's counsel. You know the one where Google's lawyer also agreed to the content? (It was linked to the story.)

Google's argument for privilege is joke and it sends a bad precedence. (I liked the post where the guy says he was about to send all his child pornography to his lawyer so its privileged.) But the point I made earlier along with Oracle's writing is that just cc'ing the legal counsel on an e-mail that said 'Hi Andy!' doesn't give it privilege. (And yes, you need a judge to rule.)

I just love your comment about 'paid shills'. I think we both know that both sides aren't above such tactics. But I make a lousy shill. And Google has deep pockets and can afford to buy a few out of their loyal fan base.

So I suggest you just wait and see.

I'm going to bet Oracle wins this one.

If we're all lucky, Oracle gets the TRO. But I doubt you see what that's actually the best thing for everyone involved.

Ian Michael Gumby
Mushroom

Time warp?

I'm sorry, but when was the memo written?

Are you sure that it was written after the lawsuit was filed?

Also there's the exec's e-mail from 2005 which is also subject to the same argument too.

No need for a timewarp.

As to your

"Google have certainly finessed the law to bypass various licence issues and you and others have bitched relentlessly about it. "

You call it finessed. Others, namely Oracle find it to be illegal.

You do realize that if Oracle gets these documents, then files for a TRO based on them along with other evidence, and its granted... Google will be in a world of hurt.

Even if they settle with Oracle, the hardware manufacturers will then have their bite at the apple so to speak.

You can only tread so far along the razor's edge before you cut yourself or worse.... so much for 'finesse'

Ian Michael Gumby
Holmes

@David Dawson -- Almost

"This is a patent case, pure and simple. These emails are wanted to prove wilful infringement, which increases damages; they are of no use to prove the infringement itself.

Whether Google win or lose this case will be decided based on what is inside Dalvik, not some email trail."

I believe its been said that these are enough to also get an injunction against Google and stop the sale and shipment of any more Android devices until the trial has been concluded.

That is to say... HTC, Motorola, Samsung, etc ... will have to idle any production of their tablets and smart phones for the next couple of years as the patent fight continues.

You can do the math on that one.

The clear winner here are HP (Palm OS) and Apple.

You can also include Nokia, and Microsoft along with RIM too...

In terms of losers... AT&T, Sprint, and the other Telcos around the world who will have to pull Android phones from their online shops and wait it out too.

Ian Michael Gumby
Trollface

@AC you're missing the point and its not Bollocks.

Look,

Here's the simple argument.

The document shows that Google didn't want to pay licensing fees. So they decided to look at alternatives. so that they don't have to pay licensing fees. The document shows that they tried several and they were all failures. (Paraphrasing)

This then leads Google to commit patent and copyright infringement in their efforts to bypass the licensing fees.

The document shows that Google knowingly committed the acts and it wasn't done by some 'rogue programmer'. (That was a reference to Google's WAR Driving activities...)

Google's argument is that they inadvertently provided this 'privileged' document to Oracle and that they didn't waive privilege in court.

Somehow I doubt that its going to fly.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@AC

Knowing something to be true and being able to prove it are two different things.

<Insert an OJ reference here... >

Oracle needs this letter to show mens rea. That Google acted with a 'dirty mind' or rather they knew what they were doing was in fact illegal (civil not criminal).

If you read the linked document, it goes to show that these documents were already discussed in court where Google, after the fact attempted to claim that they were privileged. Oracle's hired guns in plain English walk through the reasons why they are not privilege.

Also in the document there's a comment from the judge that says...

"Judge Alsup warned Google that at trial “you are going to be on the losing end of this

document” with “profound implications for a permanent injunction.” (Id. 41:5-12)"

and then this...

"After arguing the substance of the Lindholm document at two separate hearings; after asserting

on the merits that the document related only to the Java programming language; after

representing to Judge Alsup that Mr. Lindholm was writing in response to a “question from the

CEO,” not at direction of counsel; after being told by the Court that a good trial lawyer could use

the simple combination of the Lindholm document “and the Magna Carta” to win Oracle’s case

and get an injunction (id. 41:1-4); Google reversed course and claimed that the Lindholm

document was privileged."

Hence this is the smoking gun that pretty much should bring Google to the table to settle this case.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ Analator Re: Legalease...

Dude!

Did you bother to read the linked article?

Here's a snippet:

"Ten of the documents at issue here are purportedly drafts of an inculpatory email written by TimLindholm, a Google engineer and former Sun employee, in August 2010; two are copies of the version of that email that was eventually sent. One of the drafts has already been discussed withYour Honor and in open court at Judge Alsup’s insistence. Google did not object on privilege orother grounds either time.Judge Alsup has

twice held that document not privileged. (Dkt Nos. 255, 271). In anextraordinary act of defiance of Judge Alsup’s orders, Google has repeatedly refused to re-produce it, or any others. In light of Judge Alsup’s orders, Oracle should not have to bring thismotion at all, and accordingly reserves its right to seek its fees."

Do you not understand that Google's attorneys are trying to claim privilege after the fact?

Google definitely stepped in to it and I don't mean Chocolate Goo...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

The smoking gun...

"Google claims that the mail was a draft, autosaved by its systems, and was about to have the attorney's name appended to the "to" field. If true that would make it privileged communications and beyond the reach of the court. Oracle, rather delightfully, points out that the first line of the mail read "Hi Andy" which it calls "a reference to Andy Rubin, the business executive in charge of Android". That would make it a business mail, and thus outside privilege."

This is the smoking gun.

Regardless of which side of the peanut gallery you're sitting on, Oracle should win its motion.

First, 'auto saved' or not, the memo is not to legal counsel and thus not privileged. Just CC'ing an email to counsel should not be made or considered privileged. If this were the case then automatically cc'ing everything to counsel would mean all e-mails sans 3rd party communications would be privileged. That's nasty precedence.

The fact that its written 'Hi Andy', shows that even if it were cc'd to legal, the intent was communication to Andy Rubin and not counsel thus should not be considered privileged. Thus the contents of the e-mail is in fact admissible.

Its really bad for Google because it does show that their actions were planned and it is an admission of guilt. Add to this Oracle's other evidence of code being reversed engineered... It could open the door to punitive damages.

Because of the number of Android phones and tablets on the market... with punitive damages... It could bankrupt Google. Well maybe not. All they would have to do is to ramp up their ad machines to print more cash...

My guess is that it will force Google to settle and still pay a shit load of cash to Oracle....

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

"Not really, it can still be dismissed as evidence regardless of how widespread it is - common knowledge can be excluded from trials if its deemed to have been obtained. "

What exactly are you trying to say here?

And no, it can't be excluded unless the communication was considered privileged. (Which its not, btw)

Windows Phone dev GM splits with Microsoft

Ian Michael Gumby
Devil

So wrong, but so funny

""Remember, every time you use Google, a puppy dies.""

Can you handle LOHAN's substantial globes?

Ian Michael Gumby
Alien

Clearing the balloon isn't the problem...

There are a couple of ways to do this...

1) connect the aircraft to the balloon at the center of its mass. When you drop it, it should go in to a normal, 'flat' glide path. Delay, ignite the engine and then after a second delay you alter the control surfaces in to a climb. You should be clear of the balloon. (Someone says that the kit to do this exists already.)

2) You drop the aircraft with a weighted tail so that the aircraft drops tail first. (like a tail first stall.)

After a calculated delay, you start the engines which also removes the excess weight on the tail.

(Dry ice maybe?) This should launch the aircraft at a high angle but it should miss the balloon.

3) Look back at some physics of a rotating arm and the atlatl. At launch the arm and aircraft are parallel to each other hanging straight down. At launch, the arm swings the aircraft on an arc. You can calculate the length of the arm based on the size of the balloon. You can determine the launch point and use a small explosive bolt to release the plane from the launch platform. The engine ignites some time after detaching from the launch arm.

The key to #3 is that you need to have a strong flexible arm. My suggestion is a graphite pole like you see in a golf club. You also need an explosive bolt to aide in the release. And you'd have to deal with the timing of the release. (mercury switch or something...)

This allows you to have 1 balloon and a relatively simple launch platform. Also easier to test the components like the detaching bolt, and also ignition tests on the engine. You could also preset the launch altitude too.

But what do I know?

I'm not a rocket scientist. :-)

Google failing to pay Android developers

Ian Michael Gumby
Holmes

@Jean-Luc

I'm sorry, but when a vendor screws me, the first thing I do is look for another vendor who can provide the service.

Being vocal is good, because it alerts others to the same problem and serves as a warning.

Now are you suggesting that there are no other options to using Google?

:-)

Oh and if you're looking after a site for a friend, then you should do the due diligence on their behalf and then make a recommendation to move. If they don't move, then its a good sign to stop 'looking after the site for your friend.'

Ian Michael Gumby
Holmes

And this is google's problem?

Sorry but really, its your choice to use google.

They really don't care about your business because if you leave there is still another suck ...er.. ready to come around and take your place.

You have the choice to walk away and use another commerce infrastructure provider, but you don't do that, instead you bitch about it.

My suggestion is to do both. Bitch and vote with your feet.

Facebook facial recognition tech 'violates' German privacy law

Ian Michael Gumby
Devil

I am Spartacus!

So if you want to mess with them, you can a movement to get everyone to name everyone in their photos as Spartacus.

I wonder how FB would react to that. :-)

Reg readers ponder LOHAN's substantial globes

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Richard 12

Ok... you have a plane that is perfectly balanced. That is the center of the plane is also the center of gravity.

You add a weight to the tail. This shifts your center of gravity.

Add to this...you're not doing free fall in a vacuum. ;-)

(Do I have to spell that out to you? especially when you're talking about lifting bodies? :-)

Ian Michael Gumby
Angel

The point is to make the plane tail heavy on launch

Assume that the plane is perfectly balanced.

All you need is a small weight large enough to force the tail to drop as the plane falls from the balloon.

the idea is to make the tail just heavy enough to force the nose up in free fall and when the engines ignite the weight is lost.

Depending on how much weight is required, you could use something like dry ice or something combustible that gets burned on ignition. (The later would be more difficult and more dangerous.)

Ian Michael Gumby
Alert

Not a bad idea...

On the one end you have the connection to the balloon. The connection is a spring loaded hinge so that upon release it launches the plane in an upward arc like a catapult.

I'd say depending on the weight of the plane, look at some graphite tubing like from a golf club. Its light and durable. The only downside is that you've increased the size of your debris that could come falling down...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

How complicated do you want LOHAN to be?

Its not just a question of putting in tiny accelerometers but building the flight control computer behind it and then writing the software that will change the control surfaces as needed.

You then have to test it, retest it, and that takes time, effort, and of course money. Essentially you'll end up with an auto pilot capable of landing a plane.

I'm not an RC modeler, but assuming that something exists that could be put in to a model plane, it would be interesting. Assuming that it doesn't exist but could be built, you'd have to shrink it to be small enough and light enough to fit in your plane. That too takes time, expertise and money.

You want to go 'low tech' you could do the following:

Create a detachable weight and make the tail of the aircraft heavy so that when released from the balloon it drops tail first. When ignition happens, the weight detaches and the plane is angled up.

Assume that if you time the delay long enough, your probability of hitting your balloon decreases to a small enough number.

I haven't followed LOHAN enough to know just how complicated of a flight system that El Reg wants to build. The launch scheme I suggested could be done with models (gliders) that contain no flight control systems dropped from a balloon at a controlled height. They key is working out how to get the timer to detach your weight and start the ignition. I'd suggest explosive bolts but I don't know if El Reg has access to aerospace tech like that, but the timer and electronics would be very small and simple.

Game graphics could be 100,000 times better

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Still pretty cool.

Ok, as the narrator admits that they are taking a process in use by the medical community (as Ru points out) and applying it towards games, its still pretty cool.

There are other applications for 3D rendering outside of gaming, but gaming is where the money is.

It does sound like NVidia would be a good partner assuming that you could use CUDA to speed things up a bit. As Ru points out, people are doing this.

With respect to patent issues... how long does a patent last? (14 years in the US)

A lot of the basic voxel patents went out of date before 2005. Granted there are some patents that are still being granted that are based on the voxels... a quick patent search shows one :

http://www.google.com/patents/about/7230617_Voxel_center_smoothing.html?id=UTyAAAAAEBAJ

was granted in 2007 to Intel Corporation.

It would be in Intel's best interest to actually make voxel based tech more reasonable in terms of licensing.

So definitely a thumbs Up.

Note: It could be because of patent issues that the company went dark for a while as they may have worked around some patent issues. Maybe El Reg can dig in to this?

Apple vanishes MySQL from Mac OS X Lion Server

Ian Michael Gumby
Devil

@Samuel

There is a special release for Macs OSX.

Or there used to be.

That is different than just the developer's edition.

Ian Michael Gumby
Pirate

Hmmm

I could have sworn that IBM was giving away IDS (Informix) on this platform for free, so if you wanted a real RDBMS engine that is light years ahead of either Postgres and MySQL, you could get it from IBM aka the Borg.

Or has this too been stopped?

Good news: A meltdown would kill fewer than we thought

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@What caused them to change their tune?

It takes time to digest the data. I mean you wouldn't want us to make snap decisions based on FUD now would you?

Seriously in terms of the aftermath, the data and analysis seems to suggest that Japanese (TEPCO) response to the problems exacerbated the situation.