While I'm a little disappointed in Palm, it's only a little. Stupid stuff happens in large projects and Palm has so far played nicely with the GPL crowd.

This was a weekend release from Australia. Palm will need a bit of time to respond.

Plus there seems to be a difference of opinion through the GPL community if dynamic linked libraries can be "infectious" or not, at least according to the Wikipedia article on the GPL. If that's accurate, Lawrence Rosen isn't sure that a court would enforce the GPL on dynamic libraries.

And you might be surprised at how reprogrammable the Pre is. With a simple code (june062009) you unlock the phone and can then install .ipkg files over usb, like on-device terminal access as root. You're pretty much in charge of the device once you've got root access.

There are limits based on hardware drivers and the like but you can reconfigure most anything that isn't in a binary driver. Although as OpenMoko showed, coming up with open source drivers for modern cell hardware is not easy.

I do not know if it is "tivoized" and will hork under unsigned kernels or if you can install anything you might want. That'd probably be delimiter for a "completely reprogrammable phone".

Now I *really* want to know if I can put a different kernel on my Pre....

I've got Preader on my Palm Pre and it has a slider bar that you can drag. Open an ebook and drag your thumb along the slider just like riffling through the pages. I suppose you could even request haptic feedback to give you some semblance of the page-flipping sensation.

It also had the normal go to page/percentage options.

Most e-book sites excluding amazon have DRM-free books (see Fictionwise.com, ebooks.com, etc) but the presence of DRM is up to the publishers.

So use a publisher who doesn't have DRM or device lock-in, like Baen, Del Ray, Night Shade, SRM, Subterranean, and Tor (all at webscription.net). Their e-books are available in rtf, html, pub, etc. I'll point out that they also tend to discount vs. hardcopy as well as offering advanced reader (pre-release) copies for addicts.

Plus there are different kinds of DRM. I detest the Adobe and Mobireader approach that requires a remote server. External authentication or device-specific encryption == devil. You can't trust that you'll be able to get to your book when you want it.

The alternative is password protected encrypted files. The eReader format sets a password on your books based on your name and credit card number. As long as you have the info and the device supports the format you can read it on anything you want. The "safety factor" to the publisher is that if you post the book on a warez site they know who did it, since you also have to post the password (name+cc). Plus, you know, your credit information gets out on the net, which is almost punishment enough by itself.

If you're interested in an ebook reader check this wiki page on ebook formats that shows what hardware will read what format.

Based on that little tidbit, the Nook, and therefore Barnes & Nobles' ebook store, has the advantage that all their formats are either unencrypted or devoid of remote authentication. Maybe not ideal but at least you aren't trapped to a particular device or dependant on a remote server.

Oh please. First off, incandescents come in different color spectrums just like CFLs so just because the bulb is incadescent doesn't mean it's "good" light. Second, most of your time spent indoors is under flourescent light (work, restaurants, movie theaters) ergo shopping for work and night-time clothing is best done under flourescents.

You can get CFLs with a Power Factor of 90% or higher, so I call shenanagins. The capacative load increase of a CFL is completely negligible compared to the reduced active power consumption. I point to the fact my power utility is giving away CFLs by the dozen as evidence that power generation/distribution engineers find CFLs to be effective.

I have many CFLs in outdoor applications. I have a barn with 8 bulbs. The first year I put up 6 incandescents and 2 CFLs. My wife was afraid the CFLs wouldn't start up quickly enough so I put up 2 as a test.

In the first year 5 of the 6 incandescents died between our 100F summers and 20F winters. I replaced those 5 with CFLs that have continued to work for the last 2 years. Once my wife decided the CFLs provided good light in winter, I replaced that last incandescent.

Given that 3 of the bulbs are located 25ft off the ground, I really appreciate not having to change the bulbs annually.

I also replaced our two porch spotlights with outdoor CFLs. Yeah, they don't come up to full power immediately in cold weather but I upsized the bulbs. I went from 75W incandescents (950lumens) to 23W (1300 lumen) CFLs so I still have a hefty power savings and they start out almost as bright as the incandescents.

Do you have direct reports, are you allowed to make independent judgments important to the business, do you have an advanced degree, or are you a producer of creative works?

If the answer to all the above is "no" then you probably shouldn't be an exempt employee, meaning you would be eligible for overtime which would offset any on-call demands.

There are lawsuits on if programmers are "creative" types (EA & IBM settled I think, so I'm not sure if the government has weighed in officially) but if a "webmaster" role doesn't produce content but is more involved in server maintenance, that should neatly get past that threshold.

The best case scenario is that you can migrate them to free software and be hailed a hero. Don't expect it though. Here are the best of the many ideas I've seen posted to slashdot on this recurring topic.

1. Consider putting a lawyer on retainer. Not as expensive as you might think and an hour or so's conversation can ensure that you document all the appropriate recommendations to keep you out of the BSA's sights and do so in a legally admissible fashion.

2. Don't make it look like a crusade so avoid being confrontational. i.e. "We need to find out who uses $software_package so we can put upgrades/support in next year's budget" or "Investigate free-for-commercial-use $kind_of_software to avoid budgeting needs entirely"

3. Document any time you bring it up with your boss. Use email or written word as much as possible. BCC an external email address and/or take backups of your exchanges home. (again, see #1 for region-specific laws)

4. Any time you are given a verbal pat on the head, do an email follow up later and if at all possible put the responsibility of license management on them. "I installed Office on the 2 new-hires' PCs. We have $quantity copies of Office installed to date. Let me know when we are getting close to our license limit as I may be able to remove the software from $clueless_user's PC."

5. List any of your little victories as fiscal savings during reviews or status reports. "Have replaced Adobe Acrobate Suite with $freeware_PDF_exporter, which will lower our licensing overhead by $250/user and allowed for widespread distribution"

6. Be prepared to be thrown under the bus. Companies willing to operate unethically are, by definition, unethical. Even if you never report them to the BSA, someone else might and you, as the IT guy, may be thrown to the wolves. Having that documentation of all the times that the CFO/CEO was stated to be in charge of license management and that you had no knowledge of the licensing limits, plus the fact they knew how many instances of software will at least ensure you get your unemployment and that the BSA won't come after you.

7. If you report them to the BSA, make sure to get the bounty and put your lawyer on notice. The BSA has a vested interest in concealing their informants, but stuff can come out and unethical people do unethical things. They often say or do things that are defamatory in the process. Whistleblower laws should ensure you can get compensation for lost wages, compensation for defamation, damage to career, etc.

Your points about storage and fuel are valid. I ignored storage compartments for water/argon as well as the mass of a nuclear motor equipped with 1.5 years worth of fuel. If the final "dry" mass of the VASIMR and nuclear rocket are closer, the Vasimr becomes more appealing.

The math on this sucks. Rounding is a total PITA. You need like 8 significant digits for the final periods (which are critical) to work out. It's been almost twenty years since my last calculus class so yeah, my math could be fubar.

Here's my physics algebra:
Force = mass x acceleration
Force = 4N = mass x acceleration
acceleration = 4N/mass

Mass is reduced over time based on the Isp of each thruster. Time (t) is in seconds.

So acceleration = 4N / (start mass - (Isp^-1)t)

because acceleration is itself a function of time you can't use the pre-solved newtonian v=at or d=0.5at^2 to calculate velocity and acceleration.

So v= integral(acceleration)dv/dt

and distance = integral(velocity)dv/dt

Final velocity and distance is solved by integrating across t from t=0 to t=47,304,000s (1.5 year in seconds)

With the variable in the denominator you need partial fraction calculus which results in natural log terms which then get integrated again. The double integral of c/(a-bx) is a right nuisance and I could easily have screwed up the order of operations on the second integral.

The features of nuclear steam and VASIMR are pretty much a list of opposite pros and cons. E.g.:

nuclear steam doesn't waste any mass with electrical generating components so it is lighter overall than VASIMR.

Contrast this with VASIMR which can run on solar arrays and can share its electrical power source with other components.

Nuclear steam has a lower exhaust velocity so the overall power source requirement is lower.

Vasimir's higher velocity mean the specific impulse of reaction mass is 5x greater than nuclear steam, reducing carried mass and power generating needs. This has significant impact when duration of thrust is very large.

These attributes define the design envelopes.

If you need occassional thrust without a lot of mass and already have an electrical power source, VASIMR is good (e.g. orbital correction for satellites and space stations).

If you want to move a payload under continous thrust for days on end, a nuclear rocket is a good choice.

If you have a payload that has a fairly beefy electrical power source that you want to move under continous thrust for weeks on end, VASIMR is worth considering but may or may not be the best choice.

If you want to move a payload under continous thrust for a many months, go with VASIMR.

E.g. a russian ERTA generator can produce 150kW for 1.5 years while weighing 7500kg. A 150kW VASIMR drive would weigh 225kg and produce 4N. Fuel for 1.5 years is 9300kg. Total starting mass for 1.5years of 4N thrust is 17,025kg.

The SNTP nuclear rocket weighs ~13kg/N so 50kg of motor. Generously assuming the nuclear fuel would last 1.5 years, it still needs 49,000kg of reaction mass. Total starting mass for 1.5 years of 4N thrust is 49,050kg.

Assuming I've done the math right (which is not guaranteed since it involves partial fraction calculus) under that whopping 4N of thrust the VASIMR rocket will crank up to yawn-inspiring 0.004 m/s while the nuclear rocket will do a pokey 0.0012 m/s. Distance wise, the Vasimir will traverse 10.8 km vs. the nuclear rocket has only covered 3.8km.

While utterly theoretical, it does show that for ultra long burns, the reactor overhead of VASIMR is outweighed by the reaction mass increase of a nuclear rocket.

Your math is flawed. Let's start over.

In the article 45% of the install subsidized. So in your $10,000 install Joe pays $5500. The article states a 5-year return period. For simplicity we're going to say that the solar panels produce $1100 of electricity per year. There are some issues with inflation, opportunity cost of investment, maintenance, etc but we'll assume the $1100 reflects those adjustments.

So that means over the 20-year life of the solar panels, Joe gets $22,000 worth of power from a $5500 investment. That amounts to a 8% annual return on investment which is about the median for a 20-year stockmarket investment after adjusting for inflation (http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2005/20050509.html). Obviously, Joe's payout is not a spectacular government bailout.

While you're right that centralized power generation is cheaper, distribution eats into that. Miles of copper, substations, control systems, and raw distribution losses are a pain. Plus there's the discussion of buying/retasking land for singular megawatt solar arrays.

The government investment has the immediate advantageS of:
*stimulating the economy with construction
*contributes to the overall health of NJ by *reducing coal fired coal emissions (coal was 50% of NJ's power in 2005 http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=NJ) with the associated reductions in healthcare/medicaid costs
*reduces the need for additional distribution system
*doesn't require additional land acquisition *doesn't adversely affect the ecology
*convinces average people to invest at a time they might save

You realize that all states subsidize businesses and utilities already, right? Low interest loans, access to the bond market, tax deductions, heck, some companies get to keep all the sales tax they collect.

These kinds of things make sense at a scale that most people can't (or won't) think about. You can get an infrastructure built for less if you are willing to commit to funding a larger system over building multiple small systems. Suppliers will lower prices on bulk orders or provide long-term price guarantees, much fewer lawyer fees from repeated negotiations, less time lost in negotiations which allows inflationary forces to increase costs, etc, etc.

So yes, the cost of this installation is subsidized by everyone else in NJ but everyone else will ultimately benefit by reductions (or lack of increases) in their power bills when infrastructure improvements are deferred or canceled entirely due to reduced load on the power system due to those subsidized installations.

This program is actually a "triple threat" scenario. It 1) stimulates the economy since in general every $1 spent on a project actually gets spent multiple times. 2) It is a Capital improvements that lower costs and 3) it benefits the overall environment by lowering hydrocarbon emissions from coal plants.

"Real" cloud computing is supposed to be based on a mesh of geographically diverse, redundant servers each carrying various subsets of the data. Think RAID5 for servers, with each partition located in a different part of the world and on different networks.

Which means it is nothing more than an internet based service with five 9s of reliability and availability.

However it is an *expensive* internet based service so it needs a new moniker. But without a "Cloud Computing Consortium" with ownership of the trademark "cloud computing" to enforce correct usage, there's nothing to prevent everyone and their dog from using the term incorrectly for any "always connected" application.

The problem with all this is that its almost impossible for an end user to know for sure if someone really has a proper cloud application until something fails. If there is a total failure of a site and no one notices, you've got a working cloud. If people lose data or functionality, you don't.

That's the real killer. Even if you had all your data loaded on the phone, lose power and poof! With no mechanism to make local backups, you're utterly at the mercy of the cloud.

I've got a Pre, which is a cloud device, but if my battery dies the same time as the remote servers my data's safe for quite a while. Once the battery recharges I can get one of the sync apps to offload my data. If I were more paranoid I'd get one now but I try to make my own archives straight from Google, webmail, et al.

Umm, no, it doesn't.

Look at the last paragraph in my post. I don't think in 2007 Linux had any wins in the trading market. While MS didn't either, I bet you that MS was willing to spend a big chunk of change to build a demo .NET exchange and run recorded LSE transactions through it to prove the speed boost.

There's a big difference between a known speed improvement and a potential one. If the .NET demo system was able to handle the worst day the LSE's older system had handled, and done so much faster, then it was a reasonable upgrade.

If the Linux exchanges in place have handled as much traffic as the day the .NET exchange failed while doing it faster, Linux is a reasonable upgrade.

You may think that the 6.75x speed increase of linux over .NET is a lot but keep in mind that .NET provided a 51.8x performance improvement (140ms/2.7ms) in 2007 when it was rolled out.

The article about the 2008 LSE crash says that before the LSe migrated to .net in June of 2007, trades took 140ms. .NET reliability turned out to be less than ideal but at the time of the migration the speed boost was little short of phenomenal.

I don't think in 2007 Linux had any wins in the trading market. Which is an advantage the linux platform they bought has now; a proven track record running stock exchanges.