Slashdot Mirror

Wrong!

This is the most popular FreeBSD-Laptop site. gerda.univie.ac.at/freebsd-laptops/

This is a great resource if your laptop is old. www.cse.ucsc.edu/~dkulp/fbsd/laptop.html

Here you can read an article about FreeBSD on laptops. www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/lapto p/article.html

If you need more FreeBSD resources, then visit www.n0dez.com/freebsd/

If you've got a 32-bit PCMCIA card on your laptop, use FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE. The 5.x branch supports 32-bit PCMCIA cards. In fact, I'm running FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE on an old laptop without a hitch.

The technology behind this service was described by Avery Wang in a Stanford Hearing Seminar talk. See the abstract at the UCSC archive .

I'm pretty sure there are some patents in Avery's name covering the same technology. They should be public now. (I don't know how closely the patents describe the product they offer.)

- Malcolm

Torrent
Mirror 1
Mirror 2

Another cool thing is that every project has a wiki set up for it. I think wikis are a great way to record FAQs and such for evolving projects.

Sung rocks!

At my campus streaking is a common, and welcome in the event called "First Rain". The first rainy day of the acedemic year, people go streaking through campus. It's great fun to both watch (for its curiosity) and participate in.

At my campus streaking is a common, and welcome in the event called "First Rain". The first rainy day of the acedemic year, people go streaking through campus. It's great fun to both watch (for its curiosity) and participate in.

I also heard a talk last summer which was looking at just this problem -- modelling the probability of failure of launch vehicles. The conclusion was (basically) that the learning curve is very steep -- a company that has had 3 launches (successful or not, as it happens -- the unsuccessful ones go out of buisiness quicker than that) has almost the same reliability as a company that's been launching for many years. There's a pdf linked from the conference page. The main data points are that after the first two launches, new companies have a success rate of 0.88, and established companies, a success rate of 0.89.

I also heard a talk last summer which was looking at just this problem -- modelling the probability of failure of launch vehicles. The conclusion was (basically) that the learning curve is very steep -- a company that has had 3 launches (successful or not, as it happens -- the unsuccessful ones go out of buisiness quicker than that) has almost the same reliability as a company that's been launching for many years. There's a pdf linked from the conference page. The main data points are that after the first two launches, new companies have a success rate of 0.88, and established companies, a success rate of 0.89.

Recently I joined the local astronomy club in Santa Cruz, CA. The night I joined the feature was a lecture, "The Mystery of the Ultimate Fate of Small Black Holes" presented by Donald Coyne. The scope of matter, energy and time necessary for various things to take place is baffling, at least to me. Black Holes take a lot of time to be created. The Universe is estimated to be 13 billion years old. The theories put forth were such that black holes have formed and are dissipating (something about reaching a critical mass then collapsing in upon themselves, and kicking out staggering amounts of energy in radiation.) It seemed to me that for some of these things to have taken place the Universe would have to be older (as some of the processes would take longer than the universe has been in existence for.)

It's fascinating stuff, but a little goes a long way.

Oo! My widdo bwain, it bwoo my widdo bwain! Oo! Oo!

I'm guessing Persi Diaconis (a Havard educated statistician who has appearantly published a lot of work in statistics [I'm estimating from his site he's published 150 papers on the subject, and no I'm obviously not a statistician]), his wife Susan Holmes, and Richard Montgomery probably had a conversation over a couple of beers at a conference.

They probably didn't get any funding. They're statisticians and probably used to it.

I disagree that the Grateful Dead "based their entire careers on covers".

Yes. They did a lot of their own arrangements of older "standards".

But, they also have a huge catalog of their own songs as well.

Annotated Grateful Dead Lyrics here, just FYI

However, there is some confusion in the article about what security means. One aspect of security is authenticity and integrity; another is secrecy. When you check the MD5 checksum on a download, you are checking the integrity of the files even though the contents are publicly available. Having the source code freely available can only help the quality of projects, and does not necessitate compromising code integrity.

There's always this

Of course, this was better from a technical perspective, IMO. Ken Starr as Vader is quite good, as is the cigar.

Weapons in low-earth orbit (lasers, kinetic weapons, etc.) are easy enough to neutralize... a nation would have to do no more than launch the equivalent of gravel into the orbital path of a space weapon.

If there is ever a war that involves lots of explosions/collisions in earth orbits, we will likely be trapped on the surface of Earth for centuries (until we figure out how to de-orbit a good deal of space junk). Whizzing debris will sheath our planet in a deadly cloud of dime-size debris at an average speed of 27,000 mph... through which it would be very hard to launch anything...

We used to be scared that we'd nuke the human race off of the surface of the Earth... when, in fact, we're much more likely to imprison ourselves on the surface via orbital warfare.

if you'd like to read more... check out:

Star Wars Forever? (Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams)

The article is incorrect; Jerry's still at UCSC, where in fact he's the director of the Center for Adaptive Optics and project scientist for the Thirty Meter Telescope. He's working pretty much full time on extremely large telescope design and adaptive optics these days.

As for the telescope array, I haven't heard anything about a radio telescope array under development by Santa Cruz. The original poster is more likely thinking of the Allen Telescope Array under construction by UC Berkeley (where I am an astronomer) and the SETI Institute. The ATA will consist of some 350 3 meter dishes located in northern California, and will be used both for the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and for more "traditional" radio astronomy observations.

UC Santa Cruz is also building a state-of-the-art adaptive optics lab, which is being built in partnership with the National Science Foundation and Lick Observatory.

Yes, UCSC is a very cool school, and not just because of the weed.

Last I checked, the standard for one second was the period of one lightwave emitted from a cesium atom. Are we now changing the fundamentals of atomic resonance? If you ask me, they should have changed the length of the other time measurements (minute, hour, day, year) and given them a different name to prevent confusion.

On another note, I found a paper that poses another interesting concept.

WARNING! THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the unlikely event that this merchandise should contact antimatter in any form, a catastrophic explosion will result.

pubmed

golden path

bioconducter

public library of science

gnumeric

cluster analysis

etc. etc. etc.

What's the BFD ??? A lot of scientists are on the open source bandwagon and have been for years. Walmart's coming to town and the Ivory Towers are falling.

http://arts.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/emmy.html
some of them are pretty convincing

High Speed Collisions
Debris and Furture Space Activities

This reminds me vaguely of David Cope's Experiments in Musical Intelligence.

See, Cope's a composer that hit some artistic blockage, and so wrote a nice little proggy
to help him along. It ended up, though, as a program that composes its own music. No vocals,
though, and a lot of it ends up being played by people, the computer just writes the music.

It's interesting stuff. Check it out here (Cope's website).
You can even download some of the stuff in mp3 format.

• As the market changes, the system reflects this by finding new patterns in the hit clusters and applying these to the process.

So let me get this straight: if a song sounds like a current hit song, it may well be a hit song?

Any this is useful how?

They say they match parameters such as:

• Melody
• Harmony
• Chord progression
• Brilliance
• Fullness of sound
• Beat
• Tempo
• Rhythm
• Octave
• Pitch

Even then, they add this huge disclaimer:

• BUT there is a major caveat: There are three factors to making a hit song:

  1. The song must be good from an A&R perspective. That is it must sound like a hit song to human ears.

  2. It must have optimal mathematical patterns. (that's where this service comes in).

  3. It must be promoted well and with an appropriate artist.

Feh. Nothing to see here. If you're interested in real algorithmic analysis, check out David Cope.

Here's a .EDU mirror of the above:

http://people.ucsc.edu/~twilly/tmdc6inv.zip

They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models." The Dead always got it - they made far more money touring than by selling records. Letting fans record concerts and swap tapes created a lot of good will and good publicity.

...and now have an enormous variety of "tracks" to select from when releasing "official bootlegs" of portions of live shows, Dick's Picks. Which is a real boon to those of us who were too busy studying and working to go on tour in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. (The best show I went to was Holleder Stadium, Rochester, NY, 1979. Best Fire on the Mountain ever. Second best was a Red Rocks show I went to while on a supercomputing assignment at NCAR in 84. My code was running in the batch queue, and fresh results waiting the next morning....aaaah. Gone are the days... Not to mention the legendary Barton Hall shows at Cornell...)

One of the quirks of the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI "system" however, is that while swapping tapes is considered fair use by the Dead-- swapping MP3's of the same music will get you busted by the RIAA even if the artists themselves would prefer to "look the other way" -- the Dead were able to "look the other way" at their own concerts, but, basically, the RIAA has a chance to stick their big ugly noses into it when it's online.

So, it would be really neat to see at least a portion of the Dead's catalogue released under a Creative Commons license, so those of us who play music on actual musical instruments might have the chance to release our interpretations-- "Sugaree" deadicated to Mr. Darl McBride, for example, or a version of "Ship of Fools" deadicated to the Microsoft Corporation.

For a more positive example which has a more realistic chance of being released under a Creative Commons license, John Perry Barlow could CC "The Music Never Stopped" to celebrate the 10th anniversary of his publication of The Economy of Ideas and the inception of the the EFF .

John? Bobby? Put your gooo--old records where your love is, baby--before that record deal goes down....goes down.

They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models." The Dead always got it - they made far more money touring than by selling records. Letting fans record concerts and swap tapes created a lot of good will and good publicity.

...and now have an enormous variety of "tracks" to select from when releasing "official bootlegs" of portions of live shows, Dick's Picks. Which is a real boon to those of us who were too busy studying and working to go on tour in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. (The best show I went to was Holleder Stadium, Rochester, NY, 1979. Best Fire on the Mountain ever. Second best was a Red Rocks show I went to while on a supercomputing assignment at NCAR in 84. My code was running in the batch queue, and fresh results waiting the next morning....aaaah. Gone are the days... Not to mention the legendary Barton Hall shows at Cornell...)

One of the quirks of the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI "system" however, is that while swapping tapes is considered fair use by the Dead-- swapping MP3's of the same music will get you busted by the RIAA even if the artists themselves would prefer to "look the other way" -- the Dead were able to "look the other way" at their own concerts, but, basically, the RIAA has a chance to stick their big ugly noses into it when it's online.

So, it would be really neat to see at least a portion of the Dead's catalogue released under a Creative Commons license, so those of us who play music on actual musical instruments might have the chance to release our interpretations-- "Sugaree" deadicated to Mr. Darl McBride, for example, or a version of "Ship of Fools" deadicated to the Microsoft Corporation.

For a more positive example which has a more realistic chance of being released under a Creative Commons license, John Perry Barlow could CC "The Music Never Stopped" to celebrate the 10th anniversary of his publication of The Economy of Ideas and the inception of the the EFF .

John? Bobby? Put your gooo--old records where your love is, baby--before that record deal goes down....goes down.

They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models." The Dead always got it - they made far more money touring than by selling records. Letting fans record concerts and swap tapes created a lot of good will and good publicity.

...and now have an enormous variety of "tracks" to select from when releasing "official bootlegs" of portions of live shows, Dick's Picks. Which is a real boon to those of us who were too busy studying and working to go on tour in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. (The best show I went to was Holleder Stadium, Rochester, NY, 1979. Best Fire on the Mountain ever. Second best was a Red Rocks show I went to while on a supercomputing assignment at NCAR in 84. My code was running in the batch queue, and fresh results waiting the next morning....aaaah. Gone are the days... Not to mention the legendary Barton Hall shows at Cornell...)

One of the quirks of the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI "system" however, is that while swapping tapes is considered fair use by the Dead-- swapping MP3's of the same music will get you busted by the RIAA even if the artists themselves would prefer to "look the other way" -- the Dead were able to "look the other way" at their own concerts, but, basically, the RIAA has a chance to stick their big ugly noses into it when it's online.

So, it would be really neat to see at least a portion of the Dead's catalogue released under a Creative Commons license, so those of us who play music on actual musical instruments might have the chance to release our interpretations-- "Sugaree" deadicated to Mr. Darl McBride, for example, or a version of "Ship of Fools" deadicated to the Microsoft Corporation.

For a more positive example which has a more realistic chance of being released under a Creative Commons license, John Perry Barlow could CC "The Music Never Stopped" to celebrate the 10th anniversary of his publication of The Economy of Ideas and the inception of the the EFF .

John? Bobby? Put your gooo--old records where your love is, baby--before that record deal goes down....goes down.

They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models." The Dead always got it - they made far more money touring than by selling records. Letting fans record concerts and swap tapes created a lot of good will and good publicity.

...and now have an enormous variety of "tracks" to select from when releasing "official bootlegs" of portions of live shows, Dick's Picks. Which is a real boon to those of us who were too busy studying and working to go on tour in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. (The best show I went to was Holleder Stadium, Rochester, NY, 1979. Best Fire on the Mountain ever. Second best was a Red Rocks show I went to while on a supercomputing assignment at NCAR in 84. My code was running in the batch queue, and fresh results waiting the next morning....aaaah. Gone are the days... Not to mention the legendary Barton Hall shows at Cornell...)

One of the quirks of the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI "system" however, is that while swapping tapes is considered fair use by the Dead-- swapping MP3's of the same music will get you busted by the RIAA even if the artists themselves would prefer to "look the other way" -- the Dead were able to "look the other way" at their own concerts, but, basically, the RIAA has a chance to stick their big ugly noses into it when it's online.

So, it would be really neat to see at least a portion of the Dead's catalogue released under a Creative Commons license, so those of us who play music on actual musical instruments might have the chance to release our interpretations-- "Sugaree" deadicated to Mr. Darl McBride, for example, or a version of "Ship of Fools" deadicated to the Microsoft Corporation.

For a more positive example which has a more realistic chance of being released under a Creative Commons license, John Perry Barlow could CC "The Music Never Stopped" to celebrate the 10th anniversary of his publication of The Economy of Ideas and the inception of the the EFF .

John? Bobby? Put your gooo--old records where your love is, baby--before that record deal goes down....goes down.

They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models." The Dead always got it - they made far more money touring than by selling records. Letting fans record concerts and swap tapes created a lot of good will and good publicity.

...and now have an enormous variety of "tracks" to select from when releasing "official bootlegs" of portions of live shows, Dick's Picks. Which is a real boon to those of us who were too busy studying and working to go on tour in the 70's, 80's and early 90's. (The best show I went to was Holleder Stadium, Rochester, NY, 1979. Best Fire on the Mountain ever. Second best was a Red Rocks show I went to while on a supercomputing assignment at NCAR in 84. My code was running in the batch queue, and fresh results waiting the next morning....aaaah. Gone are the days... Not to mention the legendary Barton Hall shows at Cornell...)

One of the quirks of the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI "system" however, is that while swapping tapes is considered fair use by the Dead-- swapping MP3's of the same music will get you busted by the RIAA even if the artists themselves would prefer to "look the other way" -- the Dead were able to "look the other way" at their own concerts, but, basically, the RIAA has a chance to stick their big ugly noses into it when it's online.

So, it would be really neat to see at least a portion of the Dead's catalogue released under a Creative Commons license, so those of us who play music on actual musical instruments might have the chance to release our interpretations-- "Sugaree" deadicated to Mr. Darl McBride, for example, or a version of "Ship of Fools" deadicated to the Microsoft Corporation.

For a more positive example which has a more realistic chance of being released under a Creative Commons license, John Perry Barlow could CC "The Music Never Stopped" to celebrate the 10th anniversary of his publication of The Economy of Ideas and the inception of the the EFF .

John? Bobby? Put your gooo--old records where your love is, baby--before that record deal goes down....goes down.

This will not happen. sendmail is written by Kirk McKusick's partner, Eric Allman, and Apple are still trying very very VERY hard to recruit Kirk to help with speed and more robust POSIX compliance. Pitching Kirk's life partner's work would not be a convincing way of showing Kirk much they want him on board.

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

Supporting other composers - even non-Western works such as Balinese gamleon - is just a matter of tuning the functional identifiers (SPEAC) to recognize a particular composer's functional harmony/melody/whatever. For example, check out Mozart In Bali (available on Computers and Musical Style), where he starts the composition with a Mozart codebase, and "morphs" it into a Gamelan piece by gradually replacing the database with Gamelan-style music.

He's also done a number of works where he's combined styles, such as this MIDI file, Adagio for Strings after Bach/Barber.

The list of stuff in MIDI or PDF format that Cope has published on his site (many in MIDI format) include:

• Albinoni
• Bach
• Back, C.P.E.
• Bartok
• Beethoven
• Bielawa
• Brahms
• Chopin
• Cooman
• Cope
• Debussy
• Gershwin
• Greig
• Joplin
• Liszt
• Mahler
• Mendelssoh
• Messiaen
• Mozart
• Palestrina
• Prokofiev
• Puccini
• Puccini
• Rachmaninoff
• Ravel
• Scarlatti
• Schoenberg
• Schubert
• Schumann
• Scriabin
• Strauss, Richard
• Strauss, Joann
• Stravinsky
• Webern

Incidentally, the really hard bit was figuring out how to handle things like orchestration and dynamics. EMI can deal with it, but from what I've read, it's not an optimal sort of solution.

Supporting other composers - even non-Western works such as Balinese gamleon - is just a matter of tuning the functional identifiers (SPEAC) to recognize a particular composer's functional harmony/melody/whatever. For example, check out Mozart In Bali (available on Computers and Musical Style), where he starts the composition with a Mozart codebase, and "morphs" it into a Gamelan piece by gradually replacing the database with Gamelan-style music.

He's also done a number of works where he's combined styles, such as this MIDI file, Adagio for Strings after Bach/Barber.

The list of stuff in MIDI or PDF format that Cope has published on his site (many in MIDI format) include:

• Albinoni
• Bach
• Back, C.P.E.
• Bartok
• Beethoven
• Bielawa
• Brahms
• Chopin
• Cooman
• Cope
• Debussy
• Gershwin
• Greig
• Joplin
• Liszt
• Mahler
• Mendelssoh
• Messiaen
• Mozart
• Palestrina
• Prokofiev
• Puccini
• Puccini
• Rachmaninoff
• Ravel
• Scarlatti
• Schoenberg
• Schubert
• Schumann
• Scriabin
• Strauss, Richard
• Strauss, Joann
• Stravinsky
• Webern

Incidentally, the really hard bit was figuring out how to handle things like orchestration and dynamics. EMI can deal with it, but from what I've read, it's not an optimal sort of solution.

Supporting other composers - even non-Western works such as Balinese gamleon - is just a matter of tuning the functional identifiers (SPEAC) to recognize a particular composer's functional harmony/melody/whatever. For example, check out Mozart In Bali (available on Computers and Musical Style), where he starts the composition with a Mozart codebase, and "morphs" it into a Gamelan piece by gradually replacing the database with Gamelan-style music.

He's also done a number of works where he's combined styles, such as this MIDI file, Adagio for Strings after Bach/Barber.

The list of stuff in MIDI or PDF format that Cope has published on his site (many in MIDI format) include:

• Albinoni
• Bach
• Back, C.P.E.
• Bartok
• Beethoven
• Bielawa
• Brahms
• Chopin
• Cooman
• Cope
• Debussy
• Gershwin
• Greig
• Joplin
• Liszt
• Mahler
• Mendelssoh
• Messiaen
• Mozart
• Palestrina
• Prokofiev
• Puccini
• Puccini
• Rachmaninoff
• Ravel
• Scarlatti
• Schoenberg
• Schubert
• Schumann
• Scriabin
• Strauss, Richard
• Strauss, Joann
• Stravinsky
• Webern

Incidentally, the really hard bit was figuring out how to handle things like orchestration and dynamics. EMI can deal with it, but from what I've read, it's not an optimal sort of solution.

You can find examples of Cope/EMI compositions in MIDI and PDF format here.

Cope has written extensively about EMI in Computers and Musical Style and Experiments in Musical Intelligence. In the second volume, he includes a "mini" version of EMI called Sara, which is written in LISP and will run on a Mac. You can also find the source here.

Sara works by reassembling works of a composer to form new works. Basically, Cope "distills" a composer's work by simplifying the texture, changing the key, and doing other things that make it more amenable to recomposition.

Then the work is fed into Sara, which analyzes each bar based on harmonic function, melodic function, and so on. These analyzed chunks are then stored in a database.

To "recompose" a work, Sara picks a composition to use as the base. It then replaces each bar in the composition with a functionally equivalent bar from the database, based on harmonic function, melodic direction, and so on. The result is a composition which follows the same general contours of the original work, but has a different melody, texture, and often changed harmony - yet still follows the same stylistic rules of the composer.

EMI is significantly more powerful than Sara. At it's core is a rules-based composition engine, which can generate proper - and perhaps a bit bland - compositions in many styles following music compositional rules. For example, it can even generate a 'proper' four part fugue. EMI's pattern matcher is more sophisticated than Sara's, and EMI is much more subtle in how it weaves a composer's work into it's own. It's even difficult for Cope to tell where the material comes from.

EMI was written primarily to help Cope through a writer's block, and in The Algorithmic Composer he details Alice (ALgorithmically Integrated Composing Environment), yet another incarnation of EMI, which functions as a composer's assistance (included with the text).

Cope is an excellent author, and he makes much of his work understandable to people without a degree in Music Composition or Artificial Intelligence. He's is quite willing to acknowledge and discuss the shortcomings of his programs. In a field where some people consider using fractals as "composition" because the results resemble music, Cope has managed to create something that not only "resembles" music - it's fooled a lot of experts, too.

That's quite a feat.

You can find examples of Cope/EMI compositions in MIDI and PDF format here.

Cope has written extensively about EMI in Computers and Musical Style and Experiments in Musical Intelligence. In the second volume, he includes a "mini" version of EMI called Sara, which is written in LISP and will run on a Mac. You can also find the source here.

Sara works by reassembling works of a composer to form new works. Basically, Cope "distills" a composer's work by simplifying the texture, changing the key, and doing other things that make it more amenable to recomposition.

Then the work is fed into Sara, which analyzes each bar based on harmonic function, melodic function, and so on. These analyzed chunks are then stored in a database.

To "recompose" a work, Sara picks a composition to use as the base. It then replaces each bar in the composition with a functionally equivalent bar from the database, based on harmonic function, melodic direction, and so on. The result is a composition which follows the same general contours of the original work, but has a different melody, texture, and often changed harmony - yet still follows the same stylistic rules of the composer.

EMI is significantly more powerful than Sara. At it's core is a rules-based composition engine, which can generate proper - and perhaps a bit bland - compositions in many styles following music compositional rules. For example, it can even generate a 'proper' four part fugue. EMI's pattern matcher is more sophisticated than Sara's, and EMI is much more subtle in how it weaves a composer's work into it's own. It's even difficult for Cope to tell where the material comes from.

EMI was written primarily to help Cope through a writer's block, and in The Algorithmic Composer he details Alice (ALgorithmically Integrated Composing Environment), yet another incarnation of EMI, which functions as a composer's assistance (included with the text).

Cope is an excellent author, and he makes much of his work understandable to people without a degree in Music Composition or Artificial Intelligence. He's is quite willing to acknowledge and discuss the shortcomings of his programs. In a field where some people consider using fractals as "composition" because the results resemble music, Cope has managed to create something that not only "resembles" music - it's fooled a lot of experts, too.

That's quite a feat.

You can find examples of Cope/EMI compositions in MIDI and PDF format here.

Cope has written extensively about EMI in Computers and Musical Style and Experiments in Musical Intelligence. In the second volume, he includes a "mini" version of EMI called Sara, which is written in LISP and will run on a Mac. You can also find the source here.

Sara works by reassembling works of a composer to form new works. Basically, Cope "distills" a composer's work by simplifying the texture, changing the key, and doing other things that make it more amenable to recomposition.

Then the work is fed into Sara, which analyzes each bar based on harmonic function, melodic function, and so on. These analyzed chunks are then stored in a database.

To "recompose" a work, Sara picks a composition to use as the base. It then replaces each bar in the composition with a functionally equivalent bar from the database, based on harmonic function, melodic direction, and so on. The result is a composition which follows the same general contours of the original work, but has a different melody, texture, and often changed harmony - yet still follows the same stylistic rules of the composer.

EMI is significantly more powerful than Sara. At it's core is a rules-based composition engine, which can generate proper - and perhaps a bit bland - compositions in many styles following music compositional rules. For example, it can even generate a 'proper' four part fugue. EMI's pattern matcher is more sophisticated than Sara's, and EMI is much more subtle in how it weaves a composer's work into it's own. It's even difficult for Cope to tell where the material comes from.

EMI was written primarily to help Cope through a writer's block, and in The Algorithmic Composer he details Alice (ALgorithmically Integrated Composing Environment), yet another incarnation of EMI, which functions as a composer's assistance (included with the text).

Cope is an excellent author, and he makes much of his work understandable to people without a degree in Music Composition or Artificial Intelligence. He's is quite willing to acknowledge and discuss the shortcomings of his programs. In a field where some people consider using fractals as "composition" because the results resemble music, Cope has managed to create something that not only "resembles" music - it's fooled a lot of experts, too.

That's quite a feat.

since the internet is not breaking down international barras it will need laws of some sort.

Why do you think the internet needs special laws?

If someone comits fraud on the internet, is it not fraud?

If someone publishes unchecked and untrue slander about someone on the internet, is it not slander?

Someone stealing credit card info is breaking the law whether or not they use a computer to do it.

Invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy whether it is an illegal wiretap, an x10 camera, or a peeping tom. Monitoring my email should be considered the same. And I'd be willing to go to court to make that point, Patriot Act or no.

Most any crime you can imagine that occurs on the internet has a real world counterpart. If a person defrauds 10,000 people using the internet, they should face 10,000 counts of fraud. How else would you do it. Does the magic word internet somehow change the nature of the act? The real world has more than enough laws to cover most immoral acts, and some that are not immoral. Let the standing "real world" laws govern the net. Let the courts ague out the questions of jurisdiction as they did for mail crimes and telephone crimes.

Lets not start asking for new law without real cause for it. Inflammatory language like "Digital Pearl Harbor" is just designed to rile up the voters, and new internet laws will just make money for some lawyers (read: Bleak House)

Treaties between countries about tracking down and prosecuting the lawbreakers make sense, but laws pertaining to "internet crime" do not. We already have laws to prosecute criminals, no matter what medium they use to comit them.

The idea that the Brothers Grimm collected fairy tales in germany is heavily disputed. See here.

Lots of evidence that they didn't collect the stories as they claim is easily available.

Get the freakin' thing upset, and BOOOM.... bits of insect/fish dripping down your walls....

...that everyone calls them "SCO" and not by their full, expanded name. That way, a fine town and school doesn't get dragged down into hell with them in people's minds.

(Go Slugs!)

Consider the cost of licensing a proprietary OS and porting all your code to it. Weigh that against the cost of putting all the source code on the web.

Now contrast that with the cost of licensing a truly free OS like one of the BSDs that avoids the entire ugly problem. You've now go the best of both worlds. As a practical matter, any substantial proprietary changes to the BSDs tend to turn up in the codebase sooner or later, since the cost and complexity of maintaining them in parallel becomes too great. More info can be found at
Why you should use a BSD-style license.

Really, BSD-style licenses are the only sane option for embedded developers, especially with the legal cloud that will surround Linux for the next several years due to the SCO suit, which is likely only the first of many. (I'm pretty darn sure Sun could show hundreds of examples of outright code theft in Linux if it had a mind to.)

BSD offers all the benefits, and none of the downside, especially since it's already been through the legal meat-grinder and come out with an official stamp of approval that it does NOT contain any purloined code. That's worth what - maybe a billion dollars?

When I worked at the University of California (up till July 2001) C&W supplied the bandwidth for the entire UC system, except for Internet2. I wonder what kind of scrambling happened between then and now, as it appears that the UC System is now on Qwest.

I've been using ratpoison for a while (I'm almost begining to think the new updates are bloat). I actually prefer gimp in ratpoison to floating-window WMs. I wrote a set of ratpoison commands (script) to split the screen up and place windows for it. Yes, this required the writing of a script, but it was pretty easy.
the script
what is does
centered, unmovable dialogs can be a little annoying at times, but the default position can be changed to one of the corners.

I've been using ratpoison for a while (I'm almost begining to think the new updates are bloat). I actually prefer gimp in ratpoison to floating-window WMs. I wrote a set of ratpoison commands (script) to split the screen up and place windows for it. Yes, this required the writing of a script, but it was pretty easy.
the script
what is does
centered, unmovable dialogs can be a little annoying at times, but the default position can be changed to one of the corners.

Pic

Brewing beer is an excuse to make your apartment smell horrible, making soap is an excuse to see how quickly various household items dissolve when exposed to lye, and metalsmithing is an excuse to pretend that you're Sauron.

People don't generally write one-off small apps they intend to run hundreds of times a day in java. That's not what it's designed to do.

You mean like 'ant'? I start to get *really* annoyed after a while using ant. Build applications should still be done in C/C++/something fast (or just use 'make').

And like 'javac'? Yay! Now I get to plug my program again. It tries to make 'javac' a little faster. However, if you read the source, you'll realize that there are lots of problems with doing this in a general way. The problem is that the Java environment isn't designed to handle this.

Some of the problems are:

• The static crap in java.lang.System. This is really the biggest problem. I think some hacked up usage of ThreadLocals could get around this but you have to do this for every single function.
• System.exit is really a problem. It needs to be replaced with a throwable
• And the show-stopper, the one that made me give up on writing a general-purpose framework, is that you can't change working directories. Just to get 'javac' to work as a background process, I had convert all filenames to absolute paths.
• The Swing classes assume that only one thread is going to be running through them (haha, sounds like they didn't think synchronization was fast enough). Though I think you can hook into the AWT event loop, I think that some of the classes may have been written with bad assumptions and running multiple threads could cause problems with static, shared code).

I'm waiting for the day when there's a constantly running JVM on your machine and represents one system process.

Yay! Please take a look at my program. It maintains a single JVM in the background and waits for compilation requests. Though this isn't really general purpose, if you run 'javac' a lot, it is pretty helpful. Now you don't have to mangle your Makefile to force it to collect a list of Java files so that it can call 'javac' just once.