It used to be that an author would sell specific rights to a publisher, such as the right to print the first US edition of a work. I understand that in some European countries, copyright may not be sold. That is, only the original author(s) may hold copyright; they may not transfer it to others for money. With such a system, the author maintains control of the work for his lifetime, only granting specific license to publish to a publisher.
This sort of system would actually be more in line with the US Constitution, which says, The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries.
IMHO, the current US copyright system is in violation of the US Constitition due to the fact that it does not exclusively secure the exclusive rights for the author. Copyright legislation should be revised to prohibit outright sale or transfer of copyright to any other individual or organization. The author(s) should be required to own the copyright themselves. The only exception would be to voluntarily place the work into the public domain.
And getting into the limited times issue. Obviously the highest limit in such a system consistent with the Constitution would be the lifespan of the author, since transfer, inheritance, etc. would be prohibited. Copyright could also not be limited to less than the life of the author, as this would violate the Vth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. It would be most consistant just to make copyright endure for the life of the author, period. Any other solution puts the author at the mercy of the publishers.
As to the argument that copyright should be inherited by the author's heirs, I say this is complete and utter rubbish. Let the author invest the income from his/her copyrights, and will the results of those investments to his heirs, like anyone who earns money by employment has to...
Too bad it will be the last of the legacy-supporting releases from Red Hat. They have now partnered with Compaq to only distribute future versions (7.2 on) with new Compaq hardware, which I am sure means that legacy support will be going away.
OTOH, I won't have to worry about upgrading Blackbox, my 10-node Multia cluster;-)
No, not worthless. I remember reading a couple of these stories in an old Analog (late '60s IIRC). What happened was a nightmare!
The "worthless" glass had stored 5 years of events in the home it was placed in. Technology was developed to "read" the image faster. Then the "used" glass was used to spy on people in their homes (obviously some pieces were more valuable to spooks and competitors than others, but anyone could be "monitored" post facto).
After that, spy agencies "seeded" the world with "microglass": just scoop some up at a crime scene, and voila!, case solved. Of course, other things might be seen as well....
Yet you say they do produce even harmonics, even if it isn't intentional. And as other tube-lovers here have said, this is why they like their tube amps. So the answer is simple: Design solid state amps to sound like tube amps.
>Speaking of which - tube amplification is naturally very flat. This is not true of solid-state amplification.
Agreed. That's why there's circuits to compensate...
Ever lived in a house in which the plumbing made strange sounds due to the complexity of its shape (i.e. poor design)? Ever heard a mountain stream which sounded bad?
This is why the "answer" 'Design solid state amps to sound like tube amps.' is not an acceptable answer to someone who understands and prefers tubes. The preference isn't simply based on the alleged "coloring" of the sound. The preference is also based on the simplicity of the circuit through which the signal passes. While "compensation" does indeed, well, compensate, it also tends to damp the signal in various ways. How many levels of compensation ciruits does a good solid-state amp have?
>Some get more listener fatigue when listening to odd harmonics, and thus prefer tube amps. Why should you care about that?
Well, partly because this is slashdot where stuff gets discussed, and partly because I like to find out why people want to spend more on tube amps. I can believe that a tube amp provides distortion that improves the sound to the ear, but I'm still unconvinced that the distortion cannot be accurately reproduced by solid state circuits.
If it can, I'd just like to know why people with tube amps prefer their amps over the solid state equivalent. Its perplexing. Other than the visual aspect I can't see the benefit.
Well, of course I can't speak for all tube amp owners, but for me it is aesthetic. But, I do not at all mean by that the "visual aspect". For me, it is the natural musical nature of the tube as an instrument (having the same kind of harmonic overlays as an actual musical instrument), combined with the aesthetic simplicity of the circuit itself. Quite frankly, it is the beauty of the whole which is the deciding factor.
As for cost - no doubt some people have way too much money, and don't get a proportional return in performance for their dollar. That's OK with me, I'm sure they get some sort of value out of it.
I personally prefer vintage and reasonably priced tube amps. Perhaps a musician might need better - perhaps. My ear is, afaik, pretty decent, but beyond a certain point, "improving" the sound is just not worth it to me. I don't think solid-state has really improved on tubes, by which I mean that the supposed improvements are beyond that point which it is needful to care about.
Now, if someone's forte is designing solid-state amps, by all means, exceed. Everyone needs their mountains to climb. I may even pay attention to your results and applaud them. Still, my ears prefer to stick to tubes...
Its pretty simple: Because when someone says "Transistors just don't cut it when it comes to high-end equipment like that." they are wrong and need correcting.
Your comment agrees that they are wrong -- you just said there's really good solid-state amps out there.
Sure, but this does not logically imply that one then has to go on to diss tube amps.
However, tubes have been far surpassed by solid state technology.
I have to disagree. Transitors are simply not a replacement technology for tubes. The operating characteristics of the two devices are simply too different. However, transistor circuits can be made to do things that tubes were originally used to do, the result is not quite the same, qualitatively.
Similarly, CDs are not a replacement technology for vinyl. They are two different technologies which can be used for the same purpose. If there were an "Analog CD" which recorded an analog signal which could then be played back using a laser rather than a stylus - that would be a true replacement technology.
Don't get me wrong, I have a CD player, and I don't have a turntable. But I do think that comparing vinyl and CDs is comparing apples and oranges - and I believe the same about transistors and tubes. They are qualitatively different and thus the choice between them is primarily subject to personal preference.
I'll take the technology which is easiest for me to listen to.... Tubes are easier on my ears, and CDs are easier to use. A winning (though not "true obsessed audiophile") combination!
I didn't really need to. You shot down your own argument (which, as far as I could see it, was that tube amps provide the best quality sound reproduction -- yet if they purposely distort the sound then they can't possibly be the best quality). I just pointed it out for the lazy.:-)
Hard to believe that someone can be so thick. Tube amps are not designed to produce even harmonics, any more than solid-state amps are designed to produce odd harmonics.
Think of it this way - there are two types of harmonic distortion. Because even harmonics sound more natural to the human ear, the same amount of odd harmonics will sound worse.
By nature, when you design a tube amp, there is a certain amount of even harmonic distortion. By nature, when you design a solid-state amp, there is a certain amount of odd-harmonic distortion.
Designers of both types of amps attempt to minimize the amount of distortion without harming the flatness of the frequency response. Speaking of which - tube amplification is naturally very flat. This is not true of solid-state amplification.
Don't believe it? Count the number of tubes in a decent tube amp, and count the number of transistors in a solid-state amp. Solid-state amps require a much higher number of sub-circuits which are used as feedback to adjust the ultimate flatness over the frequency range of the amp. Tube amps don't need this kind of coersive adjustment to the signal, and so are much simpler circuits.
Finally, back to the distortion. Tube amps do have somewhat higher amounts of even harmonic distortion than solid-state amps have odd harmonic distortion. But if you correct for the effect of the distortion on the human ear (which is all that counts), then the total audible effect of the distortion ends up being about the same.
So, there are really no technical arguements against tube amps. It is simply a matter of preference. Our ears are different. Some people cringe at the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, some don't. Some get more listener fatigue when listening to odd harmonics, and thus prefer tube amps. Why should you care about that?
I wont even get into the fact that there are more valid arguments against solid-state than there are against tubes. It doesn't really matter. Just being tube doesn't make an amp good - it is certainly possible to design a bad tube amp. It's a lot easier to design a bad solid-state amp.
There exist some really good solid-state amps. There also exist some really good tube amps. Not sure why you insist on investing your ego in arguing against that latter indisputable fact.
Let me guess, you think that diesel cars are stupid too - primarily because you own something else!
Yes, and the class action would be led by audiophiles. I'm sure they wouldn't take kindly to having a pair of QUAD ESL speakers blown out. Or a $30,000 pair of monobloc amps.
Oh, wait a minute, real audiophiles don't use CDs, they still use vinyl.
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article
carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided
by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
public), or of public health or morals.
3.b appears to be a loophole which can be used to permit arbitrary censorship in the name of morals.
The Festival Speech Synthesis System actually runs well on Linux, and can synthesize several different voice, with English and American accents. I think there is also Spanish synthesis available. IIRC they are kinda short on female voices:-(
It seems to me that Project Gutenberg needs to add some terms to their license - which is their right even though the material itself is in the public domain. It needs to be clearly stated that no one can use Gutenberg texts and add restrictions to them. Sort of like the GPL - if you use a Gutenberg text as the source, you must place anything you add (HTML or any other markup/formatting) in the public domain as well. This kind of use is abuse of Gutenberg's effort and should not be allowed.
I think the first OS with a kernel was the OS for the RC 4000, circa 1963. This predates OS/360 by a couple of years. I grabbed the following blurb from a dead web site via the Google cache.
Developed by Brinch Hansen the RC 4000 system had a very interesting and innovative feature. Hansen implemented a layered OS in the RC system which featured something called the kernel at the center. The kernel was responsible for the primary OS functionality. The kernel featured a round robin CPU scheduler, it allowed processes to share memory, and it also produced messages. The idea behind the kernel was to separate the functionality of the OS, with the kernel handling the most important and basic hardware interactions. Today the kernel is an important part of most modern operating systems.
When I first looked into PGP, I first downloaded PGP from MIT. I noticed that the source code wasn't available. So I did a little more looking around.
And I found the International version at The International PGP Home Page. Grabbed the Unix PGP50i source code, compiled it and it works fine. When the bug in the randomness generator was found, I just patched it and recompiled!
BTW, if you are looking for all kinds of cool encryption source code for Linux, go to munitions.
Another example is nautical charts. All the data collection, etc. is done by NOAA, but Maptech, Inc. has been granted exclusive distribution rights. The result is that it is impossible to get nautical chart data without paying Maptech's outrageous fees. And this is data which taxpayers have ALREADY paid for!
Too bad they don't seem to know how to secure their DNS server!!
(It's also too bad <pre> tags don't work)
> ls -d quova.com [ns1.quova.com] $ORIGIN quova.com. @ 1D IN SOA ns1 hostmaster ( 2000062901 ; serial 1H ; refresh 15M ; retry 2W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum
1D IN NS ns1 1D IN A 208.37.145.34 1D IN MX 10 mailhost 1D IN MX 20 imail 1D IN MX 30 mail.DIGIWEB.com. pophost 1D IN A 208.37.145.37 cgi 1D IN A 206.161.225.46 fw 1D IN CNAME @ mailhost 1D IN A 208.37.145.36 mail 1D IN CNAME mailhost www 1D IN A 205.177.226.233 chat 1D IN A 206.161.237.88 imail 1D IN A 207.226.255.43 ns1 1D IN A 208.37.145.35 ftp 1D IN A 64.41.164.58 @ 1D IN SOA ns1 hostmaster ( 2000062901 ; serial 1H ; refresh 15M ; retry 2W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum
Yup. IANAL, but someone ought to start a class action suit to recover all of those unconstitutional "use" taxes that have already been collected.
What you're looking for in Article I, Section 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Where someone develops an exploit to set your forward and expire all your software.
It used to be that an author would sell specific rights to a publisher, such as the right to print the first US edition of a work. I understand that in some European countries, copyright may not be sold. That is, only the original author(s) may hold copyright; they may not transfer it to others for money. With such a system, the author maintains control of the work for his lifetime, only granting specific license to publish to a publisher.
This sort of system would actually be more in line with the US Constitution, which says, The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their
respective writings and discoveries.
IMHO, the current US copyright system is in violation of the US Constitition due to the fact that it does not exclusively secure the exclusive rights for the author. Copyright legislation should be revised to prohibit outright sale or transfer of copyright to any other individual or organization. The author(s) should be required to own the copyright themselves. The only exception would be to voluntarily place the work into the public domain.
And getting into the limited times issue. Obviously the highest limit in such a system consistent with the Constitution would be the lifespan of the author, since transfer, inheritance, etc. would be prohibited. Copyright could also not be limited to less than the life of the author, as this would violate the Vth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. It would be most consistant just to make copyright endure for the life of the author, period. Any other solution puts the author at the mercy of the publishers.
As to the argument that copyright should be inherited by the author's heirs, I say this is complete and utter rubbish. Let the author invest the income from his/her copyrights, and will the results of those investments to his heirs, like anyone who earns money by employment has to...
Too bad it will be the last of the legacy-supporting releases from Red Hat. They have now partnered with Compaq to only distribute future versions (7.2 on) with new Compaq hardware, which I am sure means that legacy support will be going away.
;-)
OTOH, I won't have to worry about upgrading Blackbox, my 10-node Multia cluster
Guess what! There ARE advantages to running the same OS on all your hardware platforms!
Still using Windows[TM], eh?
Correct. Copyright does NOT protect titles!
No, not worthless. I remember reading a couple of these stories in an old Analog (late '60s IIRC). What happened was a nightmare!
The "worthless" glass had stored 5 years of events in the home it was placed in. Technology was developed to "read" the image faster. Then the "used" glass was used to spy on people in their homes (obviously some pieces were more valuable to spooks and competitors than others, but anyone could be "monitored" post facto).
After that, spy agencies "seeded" the world with "microglass": just scoop some up at a crime scene, and voila!, case solved. Of course, other things might be seen as well....
Be very afraid!!!
or not...
"Apparently, it's better than AIX"
"No."
Not yet.
Details are for sales reps, not press releases...
Don't really want to get into this but...
"perceived loudness" != "power output"
The article goes on to point out some things which may contribute to perceived loudness, but not change power output.
You appear to be confusing different planes of abstraction....
Yet you say they do produce even harmonics, even if it isn't intentional. And as other tube-lovers here have said, this is why they like their tube amps. So the answer is simple: Design solid state amps to sound like tube amps.
>Speaking of which - tube amplification is naturally very flat. This is not true of solid-state amplification.
Agreed. That's why there's circuits to compensate...
Ever lived in a house in which the plumbing made strange sounds due to the complexity of its shape (i.e. poor design)? Ever heard a mountain stream which sounded bad?
This is why the "answer" 'Design solid state amps to sound like tube amps.' is not an acceptable answer to someone who understands and prefers tubes. The preference isn't simply based on the alleged "coloring" of the sound. The preference is also based on the simplicity of the circuit through which the signal passes. While "compensation" does indeed, well, compensate, it also tends to damp the signal in various ways. How many levels of compensation ciruits does a good solid-state amp have?
>Some get more listener fatigue when listening to odd harmonics, and thus prefer tube amps. Why should you care about that?
Well, partly because this is slashdot where stuff gets discussed, and partly because I like to find out why people want to spend more on tube amps. I can believe that a tube amp provides distortion that improves the sound to the ear, but I'm still unconvinced that the distortion cannot be accurately reproduced by solid state circuits.
If it can, I'd just like to know why people with tube amps prefer their amps over the solid state equivalent. Its perplexing. Other than the visual aspect I can't see the benefit.
Well, of course I can't speak for all tube amp owners, but for me it is aesthetic. But, I do not at all mean by that the "visual aspect". For me, it is the natural musical nature of the tube as an instrument (having the same kind of harmonic overlays as an actual musical instrument), combined with the aesthetic simplicity of the circuit itself. Quite frankly, it is the beauty of the whole which is the deciding factor.
As for cost - no doubt some people have way too much money, and don't get a proportional return in performance for their dollar. That's OK with me, I'm sure they get some sort of value out of it.
I personally prefer vintage and reasonably priced tube amps. Perhaps a musician might need better - perhaps. My ear is, afaik, pretty decent, but beyond a certain point, "improving" the sound is just not worth it to me. I don't think solid-state has really improved on tubes, by which I mean that the supposed improvements are beyond that point which it is needful to care about.
Now, if someone's forte is designing solid-state amps, by all means, exceed. Everyone needs their mountains to climb. I may even pay attention to your results and applaud them. Still, my ears prefer to stick to tubes...
Its pretty simple: Because when someone says "Transistors just don't cut it when it comes to high-end equipment like that." they are wrong and need correcting.
Your comment agrees that they are wrong -- you just said there's really good solid-state amps out there.
Sure, but this does not logically imply that one then has to go on to diss tube amps.
However, tubes have been far surpassed by solid state technology.
I have to disagree. Transitors are simply not a replacement technology for tubes. The operating characteristics of the two devices are simply too different. However, transistor circuits can be made to do things that tubes were originally used to do, the result is not quite the same, qualitatively.
Similarly, CDs are not a replacement technology for vinyl. They are two different technologies which can be used for the same purpose. If there were an "Analog CD" which recorded an analog signal which could then be played back using a laser rather than a stylus - that would be a true replacement technology.
Don't get me wrong, I have a CD player, and I don't have a turntable. But I do think that comparing vinyl and CDs is comparing apples and oranges - and I believe the same about transistors and tubes. They are qualitatively different and thus the choice between them is primarily subject to personal preference.
I'll take the technology which is easiest for me to listen to.... Tubes are easier on my ears, and CDs are easier to use. A winning (though not "true obsessed audiophile") combination!
>1. You don't actually rebut my point.
:-)
I didn't really need to. You shot down your own argument (which, as far as I could see it, was that tube amps provide the best quality sound reproduction -- yet if they purposely distort the sound then they can't possibly be the best quality). I just pointed it out for the lazy.
Hard to believe that someone can be so thick. Tube amps are not designed to produce even harmonics, any more than solid-state amps are designed to produce odd harmonics.
Think of it this way - there are two types of harmonic distortion. Because even harmonics sound more natural to the human ear, the same amount of odd harmonics will sound worse.
By nature, when you design a tube amp, there is a certain amount of even harmonic distortion. By nature, when you design a solid-state amp, there is a certain amount of odd-harmonic distortion.
Designers of both types of amps attempt to minimize the amount of distortion without harming the flatness of the frequency response. Speaking of which - tube amplification is naturally very flat. This is not true of solid-state amplification.
Don't believe it? Count the number of tubes in a decent tube amp, and count the number of transistors in a solid-state amp. Solid-state amps require a much higher number of sub-circuits which are used as feedback to adjust the ultimate flatness over the frequency range of the amp. Tube amps don't need this kind of coersive adjustment to the signal, and so are much simpler circuits.
Finally, back to the distortion. Tube amps do have somewhat higher amounts of even harmonic distortion than solid-state amps have odd harmonic distortion. But if you correct for the effect of the distortion on the human ear (which is all that counts), then the total audible effect of the distortion ends up being about the same.
So, there are really no technical arguements against tube amps. It is simply a matter of preference. Our ears are different. Some people cringe at the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, some don't. Some get more listener fatigue when listening to odd harmonics, and thus prefer tube amps. Why should you care about that?
I wont even get into the fact that there are more valid arguments against solid-state than there are against tubes. It doesn't really matter. Just being tube doesn't make an amp good - it is certainly possible to design a bad tube amp. It's a lot easier to design a bad solid-state amp.
There exist some really good solid-state amps. There also exist some really good tube amps. Not sure why you insist on investing your ego in arguing against that latter indisputable fact.
Let me guess, you think that diesel cars are stupid too - primarily because you own something else!
Yes, and the class action would be led by audiophiles. I'm sure they wouldn't take kindly to having a pair of QUAD ESL speakers blown out. Or a $30,000 pair of monobloc amps.
Oh, wait a minute, real audiophiles don't use CDs, they still use vinyl.
Never mind...
Read a little further in Article 19....
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article
carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be
subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided
by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre
public), or of public health or morals.
3.b appears to be a loophole which can be used to permit arbitrary censorship in the name of morals.
So someone needs to do the same thing on an executable binary - when the number runs, then what?
The Festival Speech Synthesis System actually runs well on Linux, and can synthesize several different voice, with English and American accents. I think there is also Spanish synthesis available. IIRC they are kinda short on female voices :-(
It seems to me that Project Gutenberg needs to add some terms to their license - which is their right even though the material itself is in the public domain. It needs to be clearly stated that no one can use Gutenberg texts and add restrictions to them. Sort of like the GPL - if you use a Gutenberg text as the source, you must place anything you add (HTML or any other markup/formatting) in the public domain as well. This kind of use is abuse of Gutenberg's effort and should not be allowed.
I think the first OS with a kernel was the OS for the RC 4000, circa 1963. This predates OS/360 by a couple of years. I grabbed the following blurb from a dead web site via the Google cache.
Developed by Brinch Hansen the RC 4000 system had a very interesting and innovative feature. Hansen implemented a layered OS in the RC system which featured something called the kernel at the center. The kernel was responsible for the primary OS functionality. The kernel featured a round robin CPU scheduler, it allowed processes to share memory, and it also produced messages. The idea behind the kernel was to separate the functionality of the OS, with the kernel handling the most important and basic hardware interactions. Today the kernel is an important part of most modern operating systems.
This wouldn't be a problem.
When I first looked into PGP, I first downloaded PGP from MIT. I noticed that the source code wasn't available. So I did a little more looking around.
And I found the International version at The International PGP Home Page. Grabbed the Unix PGP50i source code, compiled it and it works fine. When the bug in the randomness generator was found, I just patched it and recompiled!
BTW, if you are looking for all kinds of cool encryption source code for Linux, go to munitions.
Another example is nautical charts. All the data collection, etc. is done by NOAA, but Maptech, Inc. has been granted exclusive distribution rights. The result is that it is impossible to get nautical chart data without paying Maptech's outrageous fees. And this is data which taxpayers have ALREADY paid for!
Yes, but this is the info everyone wants!
Too bad they don't seem to know how to secure their DNS server!!
(It's also too bad <pre> tags don't work)
> ls -d quova.com
[ns1.quova.com]
$ORIGIN quova.com.
@ 1D IN SOA ns1 hostmaster (
2000062901 ; serial
1H ; refresh
15M ; retry
2W ; expiry
1D ) ; minimum
1D IN NS ns1
1D IN A 208.37.145.34
1D IN MX 10 mailhost
1D IN MX 20 imail
1D IN MX 30 mail.DIGIWEB.com.
pophost 1D IN A 208.37.145.37
cgi 1D IN A 206.161.225.46
fw 1D IN CNAME @
mailhost 1D IN A 208.37.145.36
mail 1D IN CNAME mailhost
www 1D IN A 205.177.226.233
chat 1D IN A 206.161.237.88
imail 1D IN A 207.226.255.43
ns1 1D IN A 208.37.145.35
ftp 1D IN A 64.41.164.58
@ 1D IN SOA ns1 hostmaster (
2000062901 ; serial
1H ; refresh
15M ; retry
2W ; expiry
1D ) ; minimum
Yup. IANAL, but someone ought to start a class action suit to recover all of those unconstitutional "use" taxes that have already been collected.
What you're looking for in Article I, Section 10:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
http://www.usconstitution.net/cons t.html#A1Sec10
Umm. Judges ARE supposed to make judgements, you know.
Very nice code, Kurt. I'd say it describes the situation PRECISELY.
The "So sue me" beep? Ha!