What computing system was used to render the video, and is there a paper available which describes some of the math behind the simulation?

It's official, /. has now degenerated into reddit.

Politics thrives over tech. Shills spouting propaganda galore I miss the old days of ./.(when I was AC) before the religion of politics fouled this well.

over on another thread. people are whining about koch bros. citing huffington post.

funny how nobody cries over bullying by George Soros. (Koch of the socialists)

where is there good old fashioned tech without the BS hyperbole. (Like /. used to be, like the early days of digg, etc.)

You need to include those on the hardware end as well. Otherwise companies would just end up shafting a different type of tech worker. So not just programmers but tech workers in general.

Title of my upcoming book "Why Johnny can't use a Surface tablet" in bookstores everywhere.

And why you would lead shield the SOC heavily.

And here we have the question FTDI needed to ask before nuking people's equipment to deal with a crime that already took place.

Any BOM that passes through my hands will get FTDI crossed off. I'm sorry they have a counterfeit problem. They need to improve anti counterfeiting measures instead of inflicting collateral damage. Their abrupt decision is smelly no matter how you look at it.

This is exactly what I was looking at. Are the USB chips covered by FTDI patents? What process are they assigned a PID?

In other words, why not just give it your own Chinese trademark and move on?

Except that the end consumer has zero knowledge about these counterfeit chips inside whatever they bought. And my guess is a most slashdotters do not either, until it stops working because of FTDI.

Tangentially, you manage to bring up a very good point. One huge problem is the software projects might be using. A number of companies open sourced their software before the notion of a 'standardized' license method became prevalent. If a project is not Mozilla, GPL, or BSD compatible then it will have a very hard time attracting new developers. I know would not want to work on something that did not have a useful open source license. I would encourage the submitter to make sure whatever he is working on have a standard, permissive as possible license (if possible) before he closes shop.

I know one interesting project (from a historical perspective) that suffers from this is the Open Watcom compiler with its non-compatible Sybase Public License. This project fits the submitter's description to a tee. I bet there are others like this. At least POV-Ray got around to fixing their license finally.

This was asked back on Slashdot 14 years ago in 2000. As you can see, most of the websites mentioned that archived "ummaintained" software have since evaporated and are unmaintained themselves!

Then it was talked about briefly on stackoverflow in 2009.

Submitter, what I suggest you do is include a text file that describes the history of the project (If it was me - I think it would be nice to thank those by name who made significant contributions), known issues, ideas for direction of the project (if any), and then post it to Github and Sourceforge as an 'ummaintained' software. With as permissive as a license as you can give it, which will encourage it's use down the road. Also, I would post links, notices, and intentions to any associated forums. And give the community as much time to as possible before closing the website down. Maybe someone or some company will have the where with all to continue the project. If it is reasonable to do so and they seem to be reputable and serious, you might let them. Otherwise, when finished, make sure that archive.org has browsed the website for their archives. Also, post a copy the final software there. If it has a domain name, if you can, I'd give it a ten year renewal date and give it a notice of closure and a link to the project on Github.

But the larger issue for me, is that you, your colleagues, and friends spent time and effort on this project. That should be recognized. At least by acknowledging that support is ceasing for this project, it can hopefully move on to other hands in the future. It does happen.

I wish more more programmers were as thoughtful as you. And I wish there were better ways (i.e. more permanent and standardized) of dealing with orphanware.

How incredibly corrupt. How can it be better to feel good about a myth than to face the truth?

Regarding the Score:5 Interesting bull crap you'd like to believe, it's time for propagandists to start an edit war on Wikipedia:

A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on human beings. They are classified as weapons of mass destruction though they are separate from biological weapons (diseases), nuclear weapons, and radiological weapons (which use radioactive decay of elements)

Kill some more jobs.

With congress in reckless cut everything sequestration mode, this will help NASA hold onto the infrastructure and programs that they already have. Even though it involves mixing NASA with the military once again.