I think you'd find it tough to to include GPL code in any closed project. The GPL is worded to demand that GPL code only be distributed with GPL compatible code. The GPL has no provision allowing you to "link" GPL object code to a closed project. If you want to use GPL code as part of an application, even it's just as a library, you have to open up the whole code base. The larger application must be GPL compatible if you want to redistribute the orignal GPL code with the new closed program.
You can play games like building your closed program to use the GPL code, and requiring that whoever uses your program gets the GPL code themselves, so that you don't have to redistribute it that'll keep you from violating the GPL. If you give out the GPL code in some form as part of your application or give it out with the intent that it be used with your closed applications, then your application must be GPL compatible.
LGPL programs, on the other hand, can be "linked" into proprietary programs. With LGPL code you can include the LGPL code in your application distribution as an object library, that you application can call on. The LGPL libraries must be distinct from the propietary application elements, and in a form where other applications can use the library routines as well. If modifications were made the LGPL libraries must continue to function without the closed application code (library interaction in a sensible unbaised way so other people can use the same LGPL libraries) and all modifications must be made available as source. When giving out your application binaries along with the LGPL object libraries, you must also make the LGPL source code available. With LGPL you don't need to open source any other part of your program, as long as you keep the LGPL libraries distinctly separate in the way you package it all together and give it out to people.
The blanket material is usually either molten Lithium
or molten 'Flibe' (Lithium-Beryllium Fluoride), where the Lithium may be partially enriched in Li-6. A
good design will produce as much Tritium in the blanket as it fuses in the plasma core.
I need to interject here, I think "usually" is a pretty strong word to use about Li walls in a layperson discourse. The implication is that a molten Li wall is common. It isn't. Molten lithium has only been used in very theoritical reactor design mock-ups and has not been place in any large-scale plasma experiments yet.
I'm currently working on CDX-U, a small spherical torus at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, which will be the first device to seriously look at global plasma/molten Li interactions. I have great concern over how a liquid metal such as molten Li behaves in a large plasma device. The molten Li can be pushed around by currents and fields, and could potential be pulled off the walls into the plasma core. In the core Li is an impurity and serves only to reduce energy output. Not to mention that having Li coating all the diagnostic windows is a huge problem, even in a well understood reactor.
Don't get me wrong, molten Li has been theorized to have several nice properties. But one needs to remember that molten Li walls are untested experimentally. The least interesting property to me is tritium production. More interesting are the great thermal and MHD stability properties that a flowing molten Li wall surface provides.
To access the gnome root window menu using Enlightenment I use the ALT key with the right mouse button. That was defualt in my setup but you might be able to adjust with modifier key to use.
General Linux Administration Help: linux documentation project rute
In a RedHat distro /usr/doc/HOWTO
or just in/usr/doc for specific program documentation Gnome User Info:
the gnome-help-browser command will let you access the gnome user guide once gnome is installed on yer system.
or try www.gnome.org Installing Gnome Gnome Helixcode website
My catchall help source is Google's Linux Search I can't comment on any general purpose linux help books, becuase I haven't used any.
1) WYSIWYG from a console terminal?
I think you misundertand the acronym.
If you are looking for something close to the old standby DOS program edit, then try pico or nano.
emacs is a very powerful editor, I love it for coding, but in a pinch I like using pico or nano.
Simple control character operation for the most common tasks in both pico and nano.
2) You'll have to talk to Adobe about the rpm problem. I don't think the acrobat license Adobe uses will let people repackage and redistribute it. So don't blame the linux/open source community when one closed corporation won't do what you want. the rest of us can't legally provide what you are looking for..but there is a program call xpdf with is a GPL pdf reader which comes in rpm format with readhat.
CDE is on its way out. Sun and HP have adopted Gnome as the default user interface starting next year for their Unixes. So there is a good chance that both HP and Sun are putting engineering time into making Gnome intuitively easier to change.
Personally though, I never liked CDE. I've been living in Gnome now for over a year, and I don't have a problem tweaking anything. Making desktop links, changing desktop icons, changing the menu listings, all without reading any man pages. I would suggest you go get the latest version of Helix Gnome, and run the Sawfish window manger with it. Sawfish is more point and click configurable then Enlightenment.
-jef
Maybe you screw up a Windows machine so badly that it freezes up regularly. Most of us don't have your problems.
Most of us? That's an unquestionably false assertion. You might have luck with windows, but I don't think you can say most people don't have system crash problems. Let everyone speak for themselves, or show a semi-scientific statistically valid datasets of OS uptimes
In my own experience, I've had significantly more problems keeping any flavor of windows operational for more than a day: from 3.0 up to ME.
For example. At work I use a windows98 machine, pentium 2,64megs ram to browse the web, thats it , I just run IE on it. It needs a good rebooting every day or so.
Linux on the other hand is rock solid for me. At home I run a masqueraded firewalled LAN, with most of the public services run off my old 386 with 32-megs ram. Web server,ftp,ssh,firewall...etc. Does the 386 ever go down? Not unless I'm trying to reconfigure something and mess up.Nor do I have random freeze up problems on my athlon workstation with 128 megs ram. It usually stays up until i choose o reboot to windows to play a shoot'em-up.
In my experience I have found linux and applications for linux far more difficult to set up and getting running. All the MS win products have been much easier for me to configure the first time. However, once I've gotten linux configured it doesn't break. With all the MS apps and OS's I've tried, they break frequently and mysteriously in a way that I have trouble diagnosing.
There are no professional graphic designers or publisher that use Linux. Linux is not a platform meant for them. We need to focus on the strengths of Linux, instead of trying to create a jack-of-all-trades operating system like Microsoft Windows.
I disagree. Linux is the ultimate jack-of-all-trades OS. The openness of linux allows it to be what ever the users want it to be. Everything that is linux is built around someone scratching a personal itch. A lot of the software tools available first became available to add that one special feature one person wanted.
You might see linux as being a server-side solution, but who are you to say linux can't be a designers desktop solution too. Your imagination and skill might limit your vision for what an open source operating system can do, but your limitations shouldn't constrain anyone else.
If someone wants to write the tools to make linux a publishing platform, they deserve our encouragement.
Linux is what we the users need and make it to be. To be sure, desktop publishers have been a small minority of the linux community, but if designers and publishers see potential in linux, there is no reason they should be told they shouldn't be working to turn linux into a tool they can use.
-jef
The idea itself (filtering the net) is good, its just the implementation that is, was, and will be (for a long time) crap.
I disagree, the idea that any autofiltering of the net can be done is rediculous. The only way to protect kids in schools and libraries is adult supervision. Pay someone, an adult, to sit there and watch usage. I can't see many 16 years accessing playboy with Ms. Crabtree the assistant librarian watching over them. Monitor usage with a human, and keep a strictly enforced acceptible use policy.
It's impossible for a national or global company to dictate the standards that every community should use, and its impossible to keep the blocked sites list up to date and well pruned. Let people from each community watch over usage of the internet by minors. Paying someone to monitor, is by far cheaper and more effective than software.
The EULA prevents the purchaser of the game from
peeking at the software protocals, sure.
But if you were to take your legal purchased software and hook it up to the net via someone else's lan/router/firewall/IP Masq'er and they packet sniffed what was travelling down their network then every thing would be fine.
The person who owned the lan hardware did not agree to the license agreement and is not bound
by it. The person who actually purchased the
everquest software would not be invovled in decoding the protocals, they would jsut be playing the game.
I've been forced to use VMS this summer, and that version control crap is a huge pain in my arse. The version control in VMS eats up my quota so fast that I have to purge often...purging often destroys any intended version control.
If you want version control run a cvs server..and implement good backup procedures to keep system file corruptions from crippling your system for long. Don't force version control into every file by default. It's a huge waste of storage space, and is incompatible with quota limits.
Mp3.com is very much positioned to do something like this. Remember the my mp3.com thing where you could register the cd you owned then stream it back from their server. They got sued and had to pay some back royalties, but there still isn't a real industry licensing solution yet. The music industry refused to negotiate in good faith with mp3.com to provide this service, so mp3.com went ahead and then got sued for it. The RIAA is not interested in stopping copying, they are interested in preventing real interactive distribution where the users gets some say in what he/she gets in the broadcast.
Your right, the solution is an interactive streaming media station. Hell with Icecast I can do it right now. I can let people browse my collection of mp3's and have them select what they want to listen to and then stream it to them....but that too would be illlegal...any interactive service has to be agreed to by every single artist, where a linear radio broadcast just requires you adhere to a general industry wide license....The only legal way I can stream music to people without paying royalties or getting every artist's consent is to setup my icecast streamer as a library and only allow one person access to a song at any given moment.
There is a company creating a mp3 streaming version of napster which gets around the copying inssue, but is still a purely sharing experience which might find a better hold as a fair use service. The company is inoize.com
If the music industry would only come up with a royalty schedule for true interactive content, then we could see sites like mp3.com create vast databases of music that would could easily sift through, or say fill out a profile and have the site select music to stream to us interspersed with advertisements clips. I wouldn't mind having to listen to a few digital radio spots as part of my personalized webcast.
There is a huge amount of money to be made in this area. Once webcasters are freed to really explore how interactive and personalized online music can be, yer going to see an explosion of really interesting content sites. But right now the music industry refuses to give the same kind of freedom as they do to radio, they'd rather try to force us the users to pay for every download instead of getting a cut of 3rd party webcasters profits like they do in radio.
There is no reason I can't get my music online as free as I get my news. The hunger for online music indicates interactive webcasting will be more profittable than online news media.
Spending time trying to shutdown naspter is a waste. IF the RIAA would work instead towards creating a real interactive licensing option that webcasters could use to bring personalized content to people, napster would disappear. People are basically honest. The stephen King experiment shows this clearly. Give people a legal means to get interactive music and they will not copy. Mp3 streaming is viable and quite easy to implement. There is no need to copy if there is a place where you can listen in to whatever you want, even if it meant listening to audio commercials. Most people don't mind advertising, they know it pays the bills. -jef
If there was a working interactive statutory license for digital music distribution, then I'd side with the RIAA. As it stands the RIAA is not making an effort to bring legal alternatives to bear.
This prohibition of digital music is flat wrong, and created the black market demand that napster fills.
Think in terms of radio, A dj at a radio station can play any music he wants out to the world. The DJ can do this becuase stations are given a statutory license that covers all artists. They pay royalties through ASCAP, or BMI. A radio station does not have to ask permission from an artist to play a song, as long at it can meet the terms of the statutory license.
There is no associated statutory license for interactive broadcasts. What the web is good for is interactive content. If doubleclick can beam targeted ads to me, a webcaster sure as hell has the ability to stream me the music I want, when I want it it. Why dont they? Becuase the music industry has not created a statutory license for interactive content. This fact has crippled online music business models, there's no way you can get permission from every single artist in any reasonable way.
As a result digital stations are boring copies of their FCC counterparts, they are very unweb like. This is not about artist choice, this is simply about the RIAA's control of the new medium. They could easily create a statutory license for interactive content that webcasters could adher to, but they have istead chosen to cripple the medium.
Napster is simply a market driven response. There is a huge demand for interactive music, and napster was a quick black market solution and is still the ONLY solution that user interactive services across the whole of the catalog of music.
If the RIAA would let webcasters pay royalties to stream mp3s in a nonlinear fashion, so that users could interact and make choices as to what they listen to, then most of the naspter users would evaporate. People konw enough to konw the web can give them personalized content, and they are honest enough to use the legal services when they are available. In this case there are no legal services to meet the demand for interactive content.
Technically Napster isn't all that new and novel. peer-to-peer file swapping has existed for awhile. Even windows metwork neighborhood can do server brokered peer-to-peer file swapping over a LAN. Can't you see that global peer-to-peer networking was bound to happen sometime soon? I can't imagine microsoft.net not having a global peer-to-peer component as an enhanced version of network neighborhood.
Napster is a not a good solution, but right now there are no legal solutions. Even if Napster dies in this legal fight, the concept of peer-to-peer sharing is out there and its popular and will be nearly everywhere in a year or two as a general internet protocal like ftp.
So what if what napster is doing is illegal, the 20 million or so napster users are a big enough group to make congress sit up and listen. Copyright was never meant to be a basic right, and a few million well placed letters could persuade lawmakers make a few changes.
I dont't know the history of radio ver well, but Im sure the same arguments were made against it by muisc publishers at the time. Who would buy sheet music if they could hear it on the radio for free? I'm sure the beginnings of radio were full of copyright infringements till the laws changed.
Every legal argument the RIAA uses to prevent interactive online music, is one more law that could be erased in the public backlash when napster gets defeated. The RIAA can not afford to win this lawsuit. If they would back a way from the legal action and instead focus on bringing legal alternatives into the system, this whole black market issue would disappear. -jef
If you do not like Deja's approach, turn around and look for another point of entry into the newsgroup scene.
This isn't about advertising, this is about changing the meaning of someone's writings. Simply using another service doesn't change the fact that Deja is putting words into my mouth when they mark up my post without my permission. I don't even use Deja but I'm concerned enough to look into it.
A Banner ad to the side of an article is clearly an advertisement and not part of the usenet posting.
Hyperlinks in the text of the article, can be confused for the author's own hyperlinks.
Adding hypercontent to an article is as bad as adding another paragraph. How would you like it if Deja automatically added text advertisements at the end of you posting, say in your.sig file area. It would look like you were making a personal endorsement.
Hypertext is the same, its extra content that appears to be coming from the original author, and I dare say this is a violation of the original author's copyright on the article or libel.
Does anyone have a problem with the musicians profiting from their work and using this to enforce how something they created is used? Not I.
I don't have a problem with a musician making "fair" profit, but I am concerned at any encryption scheme that tries to limit my choices on how I want to listen and use the music I am using legally. Have you read the article?
This system is designed to tailor music downloads to a particular computer or device. I'd have to buy separate music downloads for each device I woudl want to use. No thank you
I'd rather pay for overpriced unencrypted cd's that I can physically control and with which I can convert to other media as I need it or even resell, then to ever buy a digital download that puts such limits on my fair use and my ability to sell the product again once I tire of it.
Let's also think about how badly such an scheme limits society's ability to archive this material. US, and I imagine elsewhere, copyright laws have the stated purpose of encouraging people to release ideas and works so that eventually those works will enter the public domain. A one device/one use encryption method only hampers movement of this material into the public domain. Such encryption methods create a situation where music and ideas can be totally lost in time.
If encrypted data systems become widely used then the works they encrypted should not be protected under copyright law. If the music producers can not entrust their work to be held safe under copyright law and instead hide their work away from the public behind these horribly restrictive encryption schemes, then their work does not deserve the special protection copyright law affords against piracy. If someone should be able to crack the encryption they should have no legal recourse to sue becuase they did not make the information public to begin with. Copyright laws are government granted limitied monopolies on thought and ideas to encourage people to make their work public. Encrypted data, is not public data, and therefore should not be protected by copyright.
I'm a grad student, and I work for the DOE in the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. We have these messages as well. I agree completely that the government or a corporation has every right to monitor the data sitting in its system, but what about things that only pass through, like the keystrokes I use on my X-term to type in my password to gain access to another network.
It seems unreasonable to give any corporation or government agency the ability to steal the passwords to other networks. Controling mail spools and data flows is one thing, but stealing keystrokes and passwords undermines every site's security. If the government or corporation wants to restrict employee access to another network they can do that by disallowing connections. But allowing keystrokes to be recorded which in turn allows the company or the government to compromise the other network looks like cracking and entrapment to me.
But now, who is going to buy into this "upgrade" that will be indistinguishable from a normal CD unless you have a really good stereo?
If the major labels stop pressing CD's and press DVD instead then you will buy DVD if you want to hear their artists...the costumer will not see much of a difference in quality, but the music industry would gain much control through the cryptokey licensing.
I know that the market values what mp3 has to offer. My point is the music industry, meaning the big 5 music labels, don't necessarily have to respond to market pressure since they work in a cartel environment. The big 5 try to find ways to artifically keep prices up. For the cartel, mp3 are not a good thing, and they are in a position to control technology in a way that limits future access, thanks to the DMCA. If they can introduce a pripietary encryption standard then they can keep control over any redistribution through licensing.
The history of DAT is a good example of the big 5's power. The music industry fought against DAT and as a result DAT tapes and hardware prices were inflated by a large surcharge imposed by the music industry to offset the expected lost royalities from the unlawful copying of DAT tapes. Since the big 5 didn't take up the technology, there were few hardware offerings and it quickly became a niche market.
Maybe the next big media offering won't be audio DVD, but I don't see the music industry getting behind any open standard again. The big 5 are doing everything to keep control and are doing nothing to innovate by giving the market what they want. What ever comes next, it seems safe to assume it will be propeitarily encrypted and the big 5 labels will try their damnedest to control who and what can interact with the new media, even though the market would prefer and open standard.
I hope they keep debating over SDMI, audio DVD or whatever it is they are going to use to "protect" their profits, becuase the longer the majors holdoff introducing the next big media the more bands and indie labels will follow the market demand for mp3. But if you aren't willing to give up listening to the artists owned by the major labels you will be forced to buy into the new format whatever it is...becuase you won't be able to easily steal the next format.
If CDs cost too much, don't buy them. Eventually the market will evolve where they are cheaper
Cd's will not get cheaper...if anything they will get more expensive and less usable. If the music industry gets their way, CD's will be replaced by audio DVD..so they can completely control music distribution by the licensing of cyrpto keys.
Here's the senario...the major record labels endorse audio DVD including all the nasty crap that DVD has now: Propietary encryption, and regional labelling..you can forget your valuable import CD's...european or japanese audio DVD's won't work on the US players.
Since it has major label support, major hardware manufacturers will start producing players that can read both CD and audio DVD, but as the major labels stop producing cdroms and jsut audio DVD's the major hardware manufactures would stop including cdrom support.
Now you could argue that there would be market pressure to keep CDrom, and mp3 support in an audio DVD player, but the the record industry could force the audio DVD hardware maker to not include support for CDROM or mp3. Like DVD, the audio DVD format is proprietary, and te hardware makers have to pay for a license to get a cyrptokey, how restrictive that license is is up to the record industry. Whats worse is that the record industry could also force indie record labels to pay a hefty license to be able to record in the format.
Pretty soon we could be in the same situation with audio DVD as with DVD. Only certain players are allowed to read the damn things, and we'd have to give up the functionality and flexibility we are now starting to finally see in cross platform mp3, cdrom players. The 5 major record labels could pretty much dictate terms to all the indie labels who wanted to produce on the "popular" format. And as a bonus, the major record labels could prevent any hardware manufacture from making an audio dvd reader that could download digitally to a computer hardrive...wiping out this mp3 problem almost completely.
Now in context to the original problem, people are drawn to Napster not becuase they like stealing music, they are drawn to napster becuase the want the new flexibility that online distribution allows. I would humbly suggest that if the record industry quickly co-opted naspter's idea and created a closed server model and charged a monthly premium for downloads you'd see a large number of people use the service. Instead the record companies are trying deseperately to keep CD sales as the primary distribution method so that when they introduce the audio DVD model there will not be another competiting open standard.
There will always be black market distribution, but if the record industry would come up with a decent legal online system, the blackmarket stuff will have little appeal to most. It's the stick and carrot approach. The recording industry has gotten really got at using the stick, but they don't have a carrot to win people over. They need to suck it up and realize that mp3 is here, online distribution is here, and they need to work with the leaders in the field to produce an online system that works for both fans and artists.
It's inflexible in what output is permitted. I find it rather useful that my Diamond Rio can be treated as a 64MB "silicon disk"
I think the output limit is a decision meant to keep the RIAA legal staff from jumping on them. And frankly I don't see that much added value in including download capability there are so many other ways to copy and swap mp3: FTP, and a zip disk pop into mind. Adding output features will definitely earn them the wrath of the RIAA and you don't get all that much in the way of "new" capabilites. Using the Rio as a $200 64MB diskette maybe uber geek, but I'd rather use my $4 zip disk.
You've been taken in by a grad students joke!
on
Cooling With Lasers
·
· Score: 1
If you visit the link listed in the article, you will arrive at the laser cooling research group at the Max Planck institute. It's a typical physics research group's homepage..it's rather basic, no real thought of site layout. It contains the typical things: a picture of the group, list of research projects, and some links to paper abstracts. The site has also has a banner image reading "powered by laser-cooled alpha 3 GHz"...a banner image linking to a german ICE CREAM COMPANY!!!!!
Whoever orginally posted this link thinking you could cool a CPU with lasers got suckered in by a grad student taking a big poke at geekdom's madness for all things overclocked...and by association that means everyone in this thread talking about laser cooled cpu's got suckered in too...
I quite agree that stock market news (or sports results, or how to molest chickens for fun and profit) do not belong on slashdot
give me a definition of slashdot worthy... and I'll point you to the topic list and show you about half a dozen topics that wont fit into yer neat little definition of what should be slashdottable.
Take a look at previous articles under the all-mighty-buck topic heading...
an article bemoaning the devaluation of tech stocks and the stock options working geeks are banking to retire on doesnt seem too out of place.... an article comment on whether or not there will be any more "IPO magic" in the future that some slashdotters have commented on expecting to happen when company X goes public is also not out of place under the topic heading.
You can gripe all you want about whether or not slash should cover money issues....all i ask is for consistancy...if you are going to cover most valuable company news then i think slash should make atleast a passing note when the whole tech sector's total worth is less than the value of my uncle's one man hot dog cart business....and NO he's not taking his business public this year, maybe next year.
I humble suggest that the slashdot editors review the topic list and their guidelines for each list...if you are going to cover a topic then I think it should be covered at a consistant level.
-jef"I wonder what the icon for the molest chickens for fun and profit topic would look like"spaleta
Why Isn't/. talking about the latest HIT on TECHSTOCKS? Is it because Linux suffered alot?"
Ummm... maybe because this site is called Slashdot, with a subtitle of News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. And not News for Investors, Stocks and stuff
If you look back at all the IPO announcements here on/., it does seem very strange to not see atleast a short message linking to a "credible" business news site. I don't really expect the editors to make any informed comments on the subject...but it would open up a thread so slashdotters could complain on topic about the billion dollars they lost this past week. I don't have to worry about it I'm too poor too lost money on stocks.
"Anyone have a good argument as to why someone should NOT profit from a legitimate domain name investment?"
Let me propose a modified real estate analogy that I feel fits the situation much better. Domain names are very much like rent controlled property. You dont own the domain name you rent it at a fixed rate...its a low fixed rate becuase if left to market pressure the real estate would have a speculative market value far exceeding a price that would allow fair access to the general public. Now, normally rent controlled property contracts restrict the renter from profitting from price speculation, which defeats the point of the original rent control in the first place. Unfortunately current domain registration policy does not place such reseller restrictions on the domain namespace. Eventually though, these types of rules will have to be put in place to ensure equal access to the domain namespace, becuase if the current trend continues every domain name will be bought up in hopes of speculative income, thus greatly restricting fair use access...defeating the point of the low registration fee (rent).
We are still in the great land grab phase of the westward expansion of the internet. The government is basically givening access away on a first come first serve basis to foster usage. This will change, but until then feel free to auction off the unused name to the highest bidder.
They just won't work as well as a bare Li wall. If I'm not mistaken, you're getting around "first wall"
heat transfer limitations, right?
well a flowing Li first wall gets around a lot:
heat transfer:
hard to burn a hole through a moving liquid metal as compared to stainless. If the plasma decides to move around a little and brush the wall, the Li just flows right back over the contact point. Do that to a stainless wall too much and it will weaken from the thermal stresses
neutron flux:
neutrons activate yer Li first wall instead of more permanent structures, providing a longer operational life of the reactor
wall recycling:
stainless loads up with hydrogenic ions and impurities like oxygen pretty fast becoming a source of low temperature fuel that you waste energy on trying to heat as it outgases from the wall into the plasma, flowing a molten Li first wall keeps a clean wall in contact with the plasma thus letting you use more energy heating the core.
MHD stability: There are also some interesting plasma MHD stability issues, which I don't fully understand. Supposedly having a moving conductive first wall stabilizes some problematic MHD instabilities. Basically you can either spin the plasma or spin the conductive first wall. Flowing Li is more or less like spinning the first wall.
CDX is just beginning to look at molten Li first wall issues, primarily the low-recycling effect. The first set of experiments involve examining the global plasma conditions with a small Li probe( a Li covered Q-tip of sorts) that could be heated to a molten state.
The next set of experiments will invovle a large amount of Li in a tray circling the bottom of the machine.
I myself am very interested in seeing how MHD forces effect macroscopic amounts of molten Li that will be in the tray. Even though the MHD of liquid metals is a mature field, there is still debate about whether the surface tension in Li is enough to withstand the MHD forces that will arise at a reactor plasma boundary.
-jef
Slashdot Mirror
What's so strange with wanting to chat with my mom?
You can play games like building your closed program to use the GPL code, and requiring that whoever uses your program gets the GPL code themselves, so that you don't have to redistribute it that'll keep you from violating the GPL. If you give out the GPL code in some form as part of your application or give it out with the intent that it be used with your closed applications, then your application must be GPL compatible.
LGPL programs, on the other hand, can be "linked" into proprietary programs. With LGPL code you can include the LGPL code in your application distribution as an object library, that you application can call on. The LGPL libraries must be distinct from the propietary application elements, and in a form where other applications can use the library routines as well. If modifications were made the LGPL libraries must continue to function without the closed application code (library interaction in a sensible unbaised way so other people can use the same LGPL libraries) and all modifications must be made available as source. When giving out your application binaries along with the LGPL object libraries, you must also make the LGPL source code available. With LGPL you don't need to open source any other part of your program, as long as you keep the LGPL libraries distinctly separate in the way you package it all together and give it out to people.
-jef
I need to interject here, I think "usually" is a pretty strong word to use about Li walls in a layperson discourse. The implication is that a molten Li wall is common. It isn't. Molten lithium has only been used in very theoritical reactor design mock-ups and has not been place in any large-scale plasma experiments yet.
I'm currently working on CDX-U, a small spherical torus at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, which will be the first device to seriously look at global plasma/molten Li interactions. I have great concern over how a liquid metal such as molten Li behaves in a large plasma device. The molten Li can be pushed around by currents and fields, and could potential be pulled off the walls into the plasma core. In the core Li is an impurity and serves only to reduce energy output. Not to mention that having Li coating all the diagnostic windows is a huge problem, even in a well understood reactor.
Don't get me wrong, molten Li has been theorized to have several nice properties. But one needs to remember that molten Li walls are untested experimentally. The least interesting property to me is tritium production. More interesting are the great thermal and MHD stability properties that a flowing molten Li wall surface provides.
-jef
linux documentation project
rute
In a RedHat distro
or just in
Gnome User Info:
the gnome-help-browser command will let you access the gnome user guide once gnome is installed on yer system.
or try www.gnome.org
Installing Gnome
Gnome Helixcode website
My catchall help source is Google's Linux Search I can't comment on any general purpose linux help books, becuase I haven't used any.
-jef
I think you misundertand the acronym.
If you are looking for something close to the old standby DOS program edit, then try pico or nano. emacs is a very powerful editor, I love it for coding, but in a pinch I like using pico or nano. Simple control character operation for the most common tasks in both pico and nano.
2) You'll have to talk to Adobe about the rpm problem. I don't think the acrobat license Adobe uses will let people repackage and redistribute it. So don't blame the linux/open source community when one closed corporation won't do what you want. the rest of us can't legally provide what you are looking for..but there is a program call xpdf with is a GPL pdf reader which comes in rpm format with readhat.
-jef
CDE is on its way out. Sun and HP have adopted Gnome as the default user interface starting next year for their Unixes. So there is a good chance that both HP and Sun are putting engineering time into making Gnome intuitively easier to change.
Personally though, I never liked CDE. I've been living in Gnome now for over a year, and I don't have a problem tweaking anything. Making desktop links, changing desktop icons, changing the menu listings, all without reading any man pages. I would suggest you go get the latest version of Helix Gnome, and run the Sawfish window manger with it. Sawfish is more point and click configurable then Enlightenment. -jef
Most of us? That's an unquestionably false assertion. You might have luck with windows, but I don't think you can say most people don't have system crash problems. Let everyone speak for themselves, or show a semi-scientific statistically valid datasets of OS uptimes
In my own experience, I've had significantly more problems keeping any flavor of windows operational for more than a day: from 3.0 up to ME.
For example. At work I use a windows98 machine, pentium 2,64megs ram to browse the web, thats it , I just run IE on it. It needs a good rebooting every day or so.
Linux on the other hand is rock solid for me. At home I run a masqueraded firewalled LAN, with most of the public services run off my old 386 with 32-megs ram. Web server,ftp,ssh,firewall...etc. Does the 386 ever go down? Not unless I'm trying to reconfigure something and mess up.Nor do I have random freeze up problems on my athlon workstation with 128 megs ram. It usually stays up until i choose o reboot to windows to play a shoot'em-up.
In my experience I have found linux and applications for linux far more difficult to set up and getting running. All the MS win products have been much easier for me to configure the first time. However, once I've gotten linux configured it doesn't break. With all the MS apps and OS's I've tried, they break frequently and mysteriously in a way that I have trouble diagnosing.
-jef
I disagree. Linux is the ultimate jack-of-all-trades OS. The openness of linux allows it to be what ever the users want it to be. Everything that is linux is built around someone scratching a personal itch. A lot of the software tools available first became available to add that one special feature one person wanted.
You might see linux as being a server-side solution, but who are you to say linux can't be a designers desktop solution too. Your imagination and skill might limit your vision for what an open source operating system can do, but your limitations shouldn't constrain anyone else. If someone wants to write the tools to make linux a publishing platform, they deserve our encouragement.
Linux is what we the users need and make it to be. To be sure, desktop publishers have been a small minority of the linux community, but if designers and publishers see potential in linux, there is no reason they should be told they shouldn't be working to turn linux into a tool they can use. -jef
I disagree, the idea that any autofiltering of the net can be done is rediculous. The only way to protect kids in schools and libraries is adult supervision. Pay someone, an adult, to sit there and watch usage. I can't see many 16 years accessing playboy with Ms. Crabtree the assistant librarian watching over them. Monitor usage with a human, and keep a strictly enforced acceptible use policy.
It's impossible for a national or global company to dictate the standards that every community should use, and its impossible to keep the blocked sites list up to date and well pruned. Let people from each community watch over usage of the internet by minors. Paying someone to monitor, is by far cheaper and more effective than software.
-jef
The person who owned the lan hardware did not agree to the license agreement and is not bound by it. The person who actually purchased the everquest software would not be invovled in decoding the protocals, they would jsut be playing the game.
-jef
I've been forced to use VMS this summer, and that version control crap is a huge pain in my arse. The version control in VMS eats up my quota so fast that I have to purge often...purging often destroys any intended version control.
If you want version control run a cvs server..and implement good backup procedures to keep system file corruptions from crippling your system for long. Don't force version control into every file by default. It's a huge waste of storage space, and is incompatible with quota limits.
-jef
Your right, the solution is an interactive streaming media station. Hell with Icecast I can do it right now. I can let people browse my collection of mp3's and have them select what they want to listen to and then stream it to them....but that too would be illlegal...any interactive service has to be agreed to by every single artist, where a linear radio broadcast just requires you adhere to a general industry wide license....The only legal way I can stream music to people without paying royalties or getting every artist's consent is to setup my icecast streamer as a library and only allow one person access to a song at any given moment.
There is a company creating a mp3 streaming version of napster which gets around the copying inssue, but is still a purely sharing experience which might find a better hold as a fair use service. The company is inoize.com
If the music industry would only come up with a royalty schedule for true interactive content, then we could see sites like mp3.com create vast databases of music that would could easily sift through, or say fill out a profile and have the site select music to stream to us interspersed with advertisements clips. I wouldn't mind having to listen to a few digital radio spots as part of my personalized webcast.
There is a huge amount of money to be made in this area. Once webcasters are freed to really explore how interactive and personalized online music can be, yer going to see an explosion of really interesting content sites. But right now the music industry refuses to give the same kind of freedom as they do to radio, they'd rather try to force us the users to pay for every download instead of getting a cut of 3rd party webcasters profits like they do in radio.
There is no reason I can't get my music online as free as I get my news. The hunger for online music indicates interactive webcasting will be more profittable than online news media.
Spending time trying to shutdown naspter is a waste. IF the RIAA would work instead towards creating a real interactive licensing option that webcasters could use to bring personalized content to people, napster would disappear. People are basically honest. The stephen King experiment shows this clearly. Give people a legal means to get interactive music and they will not copy. Mp3 streaming is viable and quite easy to implement. There is no need to copy if there is a place where you can listen in to whatever you want, even if it meant listening to audio commercials. Most people don't mind advertising, they know it pays the bills. -jef
This prohibition of digital music is flat wrong, and created the black market demand that napster fills.
Think in terms of radio, A dj at a radio station can play any music he wants out to the world. The DJ can do this becuase stations are given a statutory license that covers all artists. They pay royalties through ASCAP, or BMI. A radio station does not have to ask permission from an artist to play a song, as long at it can meet the terms of the statutory license.
There is no associated statutory license for interactive broadcasts. What the web is good for is interactive content. If doubleclick can beam targeted ads to me, a webcaster sure as hell has the ability to stream me the music I want, when I want it it. Why dont they? Becuase the music industry has not created a statutory license for interactive content. This fact has crippled online music business models, there's no way you can get permission from every single artist in any reasonable way.
As a result digital stations are boring copies of their FCC counterparts, they are very unweb like. This is not about artist choice, this is simply about the RIAA's control of the new medium. They could easily create a statutory license for interactive content that webcasters could adher to, but they have istead chosen to cripple the medium.
Napster is simply a market driven response. There is a huge demand for interactive music, and napster was a quick black market solution and is still the ONLY solution that user interactive services across the whole of the catalog of music.
If the RIAA would let webcasters pay royalties to stream mp3s in a nonlinear fashion, so that users could interact and make choices as to what they listen to, then most of the naspter users would evaporate. People konw enough to konw the web can give them personalized content, and they are honest enough to use the legal services when they are available. In this case there are no legal services to meet the demand for interactive content.
Technically Napster isn't all that new and novel. peer-to-peer file swapping has existed for awhile. Even windows metwork neighborhood can do server brokered peer-to-peer file swapping over a LAN. Can't you see that global peer-to-peer networking was bound to happen sometime soon? I can't imagine microsoft.net not having a global peer-to-peer component as an enhanced version of network neighborhood.
Napster is a not a good solution, but right now there are no legal solutions. Even if Napster dies in this legal fight, the concept of peer-to-peer sharing is out there and its popular and will be nearly everywhere in a year or two as a general internet protocal like ftp.
So what if what napster is doing is illegal, the 20 million or so napster users are a big enough group to make congress sit up and listen. Copyright was never meant to be a basic right, and a few million well placed letters could persuade lawmakers make a few changes.
I dont't know the history of radio ver well, but Im sure the same arguments were made against it by muisc publishers at the time. Who would buy sheet music if they could hear it on the radio for free? I'm sure the beginnings of radio were full of copyright infringements till the laws changed.
Every legal argument the RIAA uses to prevent interactive online music, is one more law that could be erased in the public backlash when napster gets defeated. The RIAA can not afford to win this lawsuit. If they would back a way from the legal action and instead focus on bringing legal alternatives into the system, this whole black market issue would disappear. -jef
This isn't about advertising, this is about changing the meaning of someone's writings. Simply using another service doesn't change the fact that Deja is putting words into my mouth when they mark up my post without my permission. I don't even use Deja but I'm concerned enough to look into it.
A Banner ad to the side of an article is clearly an advertisement and not part of the usenet posting.
Hyperlinks in the text of the article, can be confused for the author's own hyperlinks.
Adding hypercontent to an article is as bad as adding another paragraph. How would you like it if Deja automatically added text advertisements at the end of you posting, say in your .sig file area. It would look like you were making a personal endorsement.
Hypertext is the same, its extra content that appears to be coming from the original author, and I dare say this is a violation of the original author's copyright on the article or libel.
I don't have a problem with a musician making "fair" profit, but I am concerned at any encryption scheme that tries to limit my choices on how I want to listen and use the music I am using legally. Have you read the article?
This system is designed to tailor music downloads to a particular computer or device. I'd have to buy separate music downloads for each device I woudl want to use. No thank you
I'd rather pay for overpriced unencrypted cd's that I can physically control and with which I can convert to other media as I need it or even resell, then to ever buy a digital download that puts such limits on my fair use and my ability to sell the product again once I tire of it.
Let's also think about how badly such an scheme limits society's ability to archive this material. US, and I imagine elsewhere, copyright laws have the stated purpose of encouraging people to release ideas and works so that eventually those works will enter the public domain. A one device/one use encryption method only hampers movement of this material into the public domain. Such encryption methods create a situation where music and ideas can be totally lost in time.
If encrypted data systems become widely used then the works they encrypted should not be protected under copyright law. If the music producers can not entrust their work to be held safe under copyright law and instead hide their work away from the public behind these horribly restrictive encryption schemes, then their work does not deserve the special protection copyright law affords against piracy. If someone should be able to crack the encryption they should have no legal recourse to sue becuase they did not make the information public to begin with. Copyright laws are government granted limitied monopolies on thought and ideas to encourage people to make their work public. Encrypted data, is not public data, and therefore should not be protected by copyright.
It seems unreasonable to give any corporation or government agency the ability to steal the passwords to other networks. Controling mail spools and data flows is one thing, but stealing keystrokes and passwords undermines every site's security. If the government or corporation wants to restrict employee access to another network they can do that by disallowing connections. But allowing keystrokes to be recorded which in turn allows the company or the government to compromise the other network looks like cracking and entrapment to me.
If the major labels stop pressing CD's and press DVD instead then you will buy DVD if you want to hear their artists...the costumer will not see much of a difference in quality, but the music industry would gain much control through the cryptokey licensing.
I know that the market values what mp3 has to offer. My point is the music industry, meaning the big 5 music labels, don't necessarily have to respond to market pressure since they work in a cartel environment. The big 5 try to find ways to artifically keep prices up. For the cartel, mp3 are not a good thing, and they are in a position to control technology in a way that limits future access, thanks to the DMCA. If they can introduce a pripietary encryption standard then they can keep control over any redistribution through licensing.
The history of DAT is a good example of the big 5's power. The music industry fought against DAT and as a result DAT tapes and hardware prices were inflated by a large surcharge imposed by the music industry to offset the expected lost royalities from the unlawful copying of DAT tapes. Since the big 5 didn't take up the technology, there were few hardware offerings and it quickly became a niche market.
Maybe the next big media offering won't be audio DVD, but I don't see the music industry getting behind any open standard again. The big 5 are doing everything to keep control and are doing nothing to innovate by giving the market what they want. What ever comes next, it seems safe to assume it will be propeitarily encrypted and the big 5 labels will try their damnedest to control who and what can interact with the new media, even though the market would prefer and open standard.
I hope they keep debating over SDMI, audio DVD or whatever it is they are going to use to "protect" their profits, becuase the longer the majors holdoff introducing the next big media the more bands and indie labels will follow the market demand for mp3. But if you aren't willing to give up listening to the artists owned by the major labels you will be forced to buy into the new format whatever it is...becuase you won't be able to easily steal the next format.
Cd's will not get cheaper...if anything they will get more expensive and less usable. If the music industry gets their way, CD's will be replaced by audio DVD..so they can completely control music distribution by the licensing of cyrpto keys.
Here's the senario...the major record labels endorse audio DVD including all the nasty crap that DVD has now: Propietary encryption, and regional labelling..you can forget your valuable import CD's...european or japanese audio DVD's won't work on the US players.
Since it has major label support, major hardware manufacturers will start producing players that can read both CD and audio DVD, but as the major labels stop producing cdroms and jsut audio DVD's the major hardware manufactures would stop including cdrom support.
Now you could argue that there would be market pressure to keep CDrom, and mp3 support in an audio DVD player, but the the record industry could force the audio DVD hardware maker to not include support for CDROM or mp3. Like DVD, the audio DVD format is proprietary, and te hardware makers have to pay for a license to get a cyrptokey, how restrictive that license is is up to the record industry. Whats worse is that the record industry could also force indie record labels to pay a hefty license to be able to record in the format.
Pretty soon we could be in the same situation with audio DVD as with DVD. Only certain players are allowed to read the damn things, and we'd have to give up the functionality and flexibility we are now starting to finally see in cross platform mp3, cdrom players. The 5 major record labels could pretty much dictate terms to all the indie labels who wanted to produce on the "popular" format. And as a bonus, the major record labels could prevent any hardware manufacture from making an audio dvd reader that could download digitally to a computer hardrive...wiping out this mp3 problem almost completely.
Now in context to the original problem, people are drawn to Napster not becuase they like stealing music, they are drawn to napster becuase the want the new flexibility that online distribution allows. I would humbly suggest that if the record industry quickly co-opted naspter's idea and created a closed server model and charged a monthly premium for downloads you'd see a large number of people use the service. Instead the record companies are trying deseperately to keep CD sales as the primary distribution method so that when they introduce the audio DVD model there will not be another competiting open standard.
There will always be black market distribution, but if the record industry would come up with a decent legal online system, the blackmarket stuff will have little appeal to most. It's the stick and carrot approach. The recording industry has gotten really got at using the stick, but they don't have a carrot to win people over. They need to suck it up and realize that mp3 is here, online distribution is here, and they need to work with the leaders in the field to produce an online system that works for both fans and artists.
I think the output limit is a decision meant to keep the RIAA legal staff from jumping on them. And frankly I don't see that much added value in including download capability there are so many other ways to copy and swap mp3: FTP, and a zip disk pop into mind. Adding output features will definitely earn them the wrath of the RIAA and you don't get all that much in the way of "new" capabilites. Using the Rio as a $200 64MB diskette maybe uber geek, but I'd rather use my $4 zip disk.
Whoever orginally posted this link thinking you could cool a CPU with lasers got suckered in by a grad student taking a big poke at geekdom's madness for all things overclocked...and by association that means everyone in this thread talking about laser cooled cpu's got suckered in too...
-jef
give me a definition of slashdot worthy...
and I'll point you to the topic list and show you about half a dozen topics that wont fit into yer neat little definition of what should be slashdottable.
Take a look at previous articles under the all-mighty-buck topic heading...
an article bemoaning the devaluation of tech stocks and the stock options working geeks are banking to retire on doesnt seem too out of place....
an article comment on whether or not there will be any more "IPO magic" in the future that some slashdotters have commented on expecting to happen when company X goes public is also not out of place under the topic heading.
You can gripe all you want about whether or not slash should cover money issues....all i ask is for consistancy...if you are going to cover most valuable company news then i think slash should make atleast a passing note when the whole tech sector's total worth is less than the value of my uncle's one man hot dog cart business....and NO he's not taking his business public this year, maybe next year.
I humble suggest that the slashdot editors review the topic list and their guidelines for each list...if you are going to cover a topic then I think it should be covered at a consistant level.
-jef"I wonder what the icon for the molest chickens for fun and profit topic would look like"spaleta
Ummm... maybe because this site is called Slashdot, with a subtitle of News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. And not News for Investors, Stocks and stuff
If you look back at all the IPO announcements here on /., it does seem very strange to not see atleast a short message linking to a "credible" business news site. I don't really expect the editors to make any informed comments on the subject...but it would open up a thread so slashdotters could complain on topic about the billion dollars they lost this past week. I don't have to worry about it I'm too poor too lost money on stocks.
Let me propose a modified real estate analogy that I feel fits the situation much better. Domain names are very much like rent controlled property. You dont own the domain name you rent it at a fixed rate...its a low fixed rate becuase if left to market pressure the real estate would have a speculative market value far exceeding a price that would allow fair access to the general public. Now, normally rent controlled property contracts restrict the renter from profitting from price speculation, which defeats the point of the original rent control in the first place. Unfortunately current domain registration policy does not place such reseller restrictions on the domain namespace. Eventually though, these types of rules will have to be put in place to ensure equal access to the domain namespace, becuase if the current trend continues every domain name will be bought up in hopes of speculative income, thus greatly restricting fair use access...defeating the point of the low registration fee (rent).
We are still in the great land grab phase of the westward expansion of the internet. The government is basically givening access away on a first come first serve basis to foster usage. This will change, but until then feel free to auction off the unused name to the highest bidder.
-jefwell a flowing Li first wall gets around a lot:
heat transfer: hard to burn a hole through a moving liquid metal as compared to stainless. If the plasma decides to move around a little and brush the wall, the Li just flows right back over the contact point. Do that to a stainless wall too much and it will weaken from the thermal stresses
neutron flux: neutrons activate yer Li first wall instead of more permanent structures, providing a longer operational life of the reactor
wall recycling: stainless loads up with hydrogenic ions and impurities like oxygen pretty fast becoming a source of low temperature fuel that you waste energy on trying to heat as it outgases from the wall into the plasma, flowing a molten Li first wall keeps a clean wall in contact with the plasma thus letting you use more energy heating the core.
MHD stability: There are also some interesting plasma MHD stability issues, which I don't fully understand. Supposedly having a moving conductive first wall stabilizes some problematic MHD instabilities. Basically you can either spin the plasma or spin the conductive first wall. Flowing Li is more or less like spinning the first wall.
CDX is just beginning to look at molten Li first wall issues, primarily the low-recycling effect. The first set of experiments involve examining the global plasma conditions with a small Li probe( a Li covered Q-tip of sorts) that could be heated to a molten state.
The next set of experiments will invovle a large amount of Li in a tray circling the bottom of the machine.
I myself am very interested in seeing how MHD forces effect macroscopic amounts of molten Li that will be in the tray. Even though the MHD of liquid metals is a mature field, there is still debate about whether the surface tension in Li is enough to withstand the MHD forces that will arise at a reactor plasma boundary.
-jef