Perusing Boston's geek calendar I found this gem:
Seems sold out, but I'm filing this under "really glad this crazy thing exists" (it's one of my favorite books of one of my favorite SF writers)
happy happy joey joy
Wearing shorts! Off to Boston in 2 days so enjoying spring while I can.
Also I was at the library and internet was slow. Came home to get on the fast satellite. Stlll weird!
DROK by DROK
Who would not want DROK by DROK?
Christopher Allan Webber likes this.
This is.. not fast really, but good SNR and 200-1000 times faster than the dialup I've been using for years.
https://one-minute-modem.branchable.com/ may get fewer rants posted now, though I will still probably use dialup on gloomy winter days.
horrible power-sucking wall wart = awesome
Found LED desk lamps that run on 12 volts at Target. After deleting the AC wall wart, these jack right into my house's 12V system.
The house's overhead florescent lights are 30 watts; these lamps use only 6 watts and should basically never burn out. Nice!
Nice afternoon hiking the (steep!) hills behind the house. Discovered line of sight to 3 communications towers on the Clinch Mtn from up there. Must be between 4 and 8 miles away. Hmmm..
Popped over the mountain to The Little Bookstore of Big Stone Gap this morning. A good old-fashioned bookstore with a decent SF section and "the humor books are in the bathroom". Perfect.
(Also, it's run by the hosts of the local public radio station's Celtic music program. Also cats.)
not your average playlist
Grateful Dead - 1977-00-00 - Various -  Tuning 1:32:50 Grateful Dead -  Dark Star 32:20 Grateful Dead - 1968-01-20 - The Eureka Municipal Auditorium - Dark Star 1:56 Grateful Dead - 1968-10-12 - Avalon Ballroom -  Dark Star 15:30 Grateful Dead - 1969-04-05 - Avalon Ballroom -  Dark Star 17:27 Grateful Dead - 1969-05-31 - McArthur Court, University of Oregon -  Dark Star 23:53 Grateful Dead - 1969-12-30 - Boston Tea Party -  Dark Star -> 19:23 Grateful Dead - 1970-01-02 - Fillmore East (Late Show) -  Dark Star 29:59 Grateful Dead - 1970-02-11 - Fillmore East (late show) -  Dark Star 12:26 Grateful Dead - 1970-06-24 - Capitol Theater -  Dark Star 3:03 Grateful Dead - 1970-09-19 - Fillmore East -  Dark Star 25:24 Grateful Dead - 1970-11-08 - Capitol Theater -  Dark Star 16:32 Grateful Dead - 1971-02-18 - Capitol Theater -  Dark Star 7:14 Grateful Dead - 1971-07-31 - Yale Bowl, Yale University -  Dark Star 21:21 Grateful Dead - 1971-11-07 - Harding Theater -  Dark Star 15:28 Grateful Dead - 1971-12-05 - Felt Forum, Madison Square Garden -  Dark Star Jam 8:12 Grateful Dead - 1972-08-21 - Berkeley Community Theater -  Dark Star 27:24 Grateful Dead - 1972-08-27 - Old Renaissance Faire Grounds -  Dark Star 31:13 Grateful Dead - 1972-10-18 - Fox Theatre -  Dark Star 28:25 Grateful Dead - 1973-02-22 - Assembly Hall, U. of Il. -  Dark Star 13:44 Grateful Dead - 1973-03-24 - The Spectrum -  Dark Star > 4:00 Grateful Dead - 1973-06-10 - Robert F. Kennedy Stadium -  Dark Star > 26:24 Grateful Dead - 1973-09-11 - William and Mary College Hall - Dark Star 23:18 Grateful Dead - 1974-02-24 - Winterland Arena -  Dark Star 29:03 Grateful Dead - 1974-05-14 - Adams Field House, U of Montana -  Dark Star 26:35 Grateful Dead - 1974-06-23 - Jai-Alai Fronton -  Dark Star 18:16 Grateful Dead - 1979-01-10 - Nassau Coliseum -  Dark Star 18:41 Grateful Dead - 1979-01-20 - Shea's Buffalo Theater -  Dark Star 9:23 Grateful Dead - 1981-12-31 - Oakland Auditorium Arena -  Dark Star 14:50 Grateful Dead - 1984-07-13 - Greek Theatre, U. Of California -  Dark Star 17:03 Grateful Dead - 1989-10-09 - Hampton Coliseum -  Dark Star > 18:05 Grateful Dead - 1990-03-29 - Nassau Coliseum -  Dark Star 18:22 Grateful Dead - 1990-07-12 - Robert F. Kennedy Stadium -  Dark Star 24:34 Grateful Dead - 1990-12-31 - Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum -  Dark Star 20:42 Grateful Dead - 1991-06-17 - Giants Stadium -  Dark Star 1:32 Grateful Dead - 1991-09-24 - Boston Garden -  Dark Star -\> 14:28
(Yes, that's 1 hr 30 minutes of tuning)
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) likes this.
So, it's come to this: A company can demand an entire separate license for masses of free software, and even the free software community doesn't appear to give a damn.
All right then.
Stephen Michael Kellat likes this.
Stephen Michael Kellat shared this.
Hey, I still give a damn! This stuff is tricky though, I'm trying to sort my way through it.
I asked this to Aaron Williamson, and I guess it's still my main question:
BTW, would "If you use one of these licenses, you're in the clear. If not, you grant these provisions" work?I've pondered doing some free software project hosting before. git (gitano), ticketing system (distix), CI (ick2 once I write it), mailing lists (mailman), APT repositories (reprepro+httpd), wikis (ikiwiki, possible tie-in with Branchable), and maybe more. But it'd be tons and tons of work and I'm not really a sysadmin.
Jason Self likes this.
I care too.. But since IANAL I'm waiting for people more versed in such things to wade in, such as an official statement from the #FSF of #SFLC, etc.
That said I have never, nor will I ever host code on GitHub. Nor have I or would I ever suggest anyone do so. For many, many reasons. I have long held that having so many important software projects under one companies control is a horrible idea and doomed to problems (shuttered, blocked, hacked, or even changing TOS it seems).
I suspect that a lot of people care but are unsure of the situation. And also having no clear and easy alternative will add to the inertia that most people have in areas like this.
If the people that have posted/blogged so far are correct and if the TOS trumps and alters the GPL or other copyright licenses (in a clear and legally applicable way) then this is HUGE. Not just because it means we have a hair on fire situation WRT GitHub. but it also means that anyone hosting any software could use the same legal trick to un-copyleft software and other works. It would mean that any carriers TOS could potentially un-copyleft stuff..
That would also means that places like Google/Microsoft/Apple could claim ownership of everything in their app store by simply changing their TOS. So if we are in a "TOS alters/trumps authors license" world we have a serious problem because the system is very broken.
what a morning
Release lost due to server problem. Re-release contained reversion; re-re-released. Massive t-storms, 60 MPH wind gusts and penny size hail now incoming.
ARGH! Going back to bed.
Also, Github just modified their TOS such that copylefted software is not allowed.
I had previosly contacted them about this TOS change; I believe the FSF did as well.
I have not aggreed to their horrible new TOS and am now faced with removing all my software from github w/o aggreeing to it.
>> Christopher Allan Webber:
“It seems like someone needs to write an article about the ToS change that we can point to.”
Yes please do (Point to, not necessarily write). I've been searching around and not finding any references to such. Would be very interested in the full story.
the end times (of git security) are here
"The new result demonstrates a collision in SHA-1. The researchers found two PDF files that have the same hash."
I tried to push the git devs toward having a switch to throw, or a transition plan for this day, but I failed. There has been some slow work being done to that end, so perhaps this will pick up the pace.
You can, however, check the new colliding PDFs into git-annex. Just don't use --backend SHA1 when you do.Show all 8 replies
Looks like it just claimed it's first victim:
interesting thought in a Sapir-Whorf kinda way
We don't give names to black holes. I wonder what this says about how we think about them?
Even the black hole in the center of the Milky Way has no name. "Sagittarius A*" is the name of something near it, perhaps its accreation disk, but not the black hole itself.
There's an explanation involving objects needing to be observed to be named, and black holes of course don't emit (much) so can't be seen.
But, we have no difficulty naming exoplanets that have not been directly observed in EM but only deduced by radial velocity measurements of their gravity. For that matter, we've detected gravity waves from colliding black holes now, but the resulting larger black hole didn't get a name either.
What else don't we name (dark matter halos perhaps?), and what does it say about how we think about this stuff?
I'm not sure I completely agree with your premise. For instance, no one has named the habitable zone planet around Proxima Centauri, currently labeled "Proxima Centari B". Granted, it's only been about 1 year since the publicity of its existence, so perhaps that is a bit soon, but for now that's its official name. The very first black hole ever discovered is named "Cygnus X-1" because it was discovered as an x-ray emitter in the constellation Cygnus, the swan. It has a companion star, named by the catalog in which the star appears, HDE 226868 . Neither of these is a very sexy nor memorable name, though I would argue that "Cygnus X-1" (memoralized in a song by the band, Rush) is actually the more memorable of the two dry names.
The newly discovered planets around TRAPPIST-1 are merely labeled by a letter indicating their distance from the parent dwarf star. While some people have suggested cute names (e.g. Neil deGrasse Tyson had a cute tweet about naming them after the 7 dwarves since they orbit a dwarf star, but that was really tongue-in-cheek), they have no other official designation.
I would love it if the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way had a name. I am, personally, a sucker for Greek mythology. I vote "Charybdis". Or, we could just name it more appropriate to its role in our galaxy, as the heart of our swirling mass of stars. A good word for "heart" in a human language would work well here. Something poetic.
THere are even more ghostly things than these in the cosmos. The tiny neutrino, a subatomic particle so ghostly it can pass through a light-year of lead before interacting with any of the lead, was named BEFORE it was discovered as its presence was inferred from nuclear decay. So here we named a ghostly thing that literally cannot ever be seen directly with light for it carries zero electric charge.
As for dark matter, since we still don't know what it is made from I feel it's better not to get too attached to the concept. While "dark matter" as literal "matter" (made from building blocks of some kind) is the best hypothesis, there is no guarantee it will win the day in experiment. Dark Matter may be something wholly different from the matter and forces we have yet encountered, and deserves patience while experiments hunt for the explanation of this phenomenon. The Milky Way's dark matter halo could be named, but I feel it's just better to think of it as the hole into which the gas and stars that preceded the Milky Way's formation fell and became gravitationally entangled. If the supermassive black hole is the heart of the Milky Way, the dark matter halo may be our mother.
So I would argue that our history on this is muddled. Certainly, the very first black hole ever discovered is named, and named in a far more memorable way than most stars are named. It would be fun to open up the naming of the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. The ghostly neutrino was named before it was discovered, and now plays a central role in the frontier of physics . We've only just learned how to detect black holes using spacetime itself, so maybe there will be an effort for naming here, though the current projections are that we will observe 10s to 100s of black hole mergers a year... which is a LOT of naming.
Take heart in the fact that we cannot name all the things we discover. This means the universe is rich in things to be discovered. There are more atoms in the human body than there are stars in the observable universe. We cannot name all the atoms, and we cannot see all the stars. But we don't need to. We can merely take comfort in the fact that our atoms and those stars are linked through the cosmic stretch of time, and that we are part of something too great to be fully named.
 http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/cern-ramps-up-neutrino-program , http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/hunting-the-nearly-un-huntable , http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/five-fascinating-facts-about-DUNE , http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-neutrino-turns-60
Charles ☕ Stanhope likes this.
You can't take the sky from me
Unlikely planetary system from canceled scifi series "Firefly" discovered a mere 40 lightyears from earth. http://www.space.com/35790-seven-earth-size-planets-trappist-1-discovery.html
is that the planetary system that was mentioned on the news today?
they said something like it had several planets around a "Jupiter-sized" star and a few of them are in the "goldilocks zone"
though guessing for a star that size to do nuclear fusion it would have considerably more mass in it than Jupiter so probably very dense?
Plus, Minus: A Gentle Introduction to the Physics of Orthogonal has a remarkably simple explanation of the speed of light limit, time dilation, and other effects of relativity. Using nothing more complicated than triangle geometry in a couple of different geometric systems.
As Egan works through some of the implications of a Riemannian universe that has no speed limit, he concludes "Life will need to master some delicate reactions" and "only certain structures will be stable". Of course, he needed to find a somewhat plausible way for life to work in order to write three novels about it (which are quite good reads).
He doesn't explicitly bring up the Anthrophic principle, but if life in a Riemannian universe would be very unlikely and fragile, it's a good thing this isn't one. Being limited by the speed of light seems like a reasonable tradeoff..
Stephen Sekula shared this.
I will have to check this out. Thanks for discussing it!
A colleague of mine, S. James Gates (theoretical physicist), uses something he calls "The Einstein Hypotenuse" to engage an audience with some skill in high school trigonometry in understanding how certain things, like the speed of light, are left invariant even as space and time change with relative motion. It sounds very similar to what Egan uses.
Apparently the mere fact of a file being dated 1996 makes a typical computer user in 2017 think they must be infected by a virus.
This is enough to draw dismal conclusions about almost everything involving computers. I'll spare you my spelling them all out.
Stephen Michael Kellat likes this.
Stephen Michael Kellat shared this.
I might not be a typical computer user, but still had to check if I have those infected files. I found this from my home directory:
timppa@haya:~$ LANG=en ls -l ~/home-eka/timppa/work/koululta/jis -rw-r--r-- 1 timppa timppa 5168 Jan 11 1991 /home/timppa/home-eka/timppa/work/koululta/jis
It was not a virus, it was a saved post from a newsgroup:
Newsgroups: sci.lang.japan Subject: Re: Striping of ESC from JIS codeing Date: 8 Jan 91 00:41:03 GMT
Blaise Alleyne likes this.