Although I'm not aware of any database of pure raw data, NASA at least have the Distributed Astronomy Library, described here, which is a repository of astronomical *information*. An example is here
> Since the Maastrich Treaty, all the EU members (not the associate members) gave up part of their national sovereignity inorder to provide it to the EU Parliament. All of them changed their constitutions to reflect this.
Nuh uh. The UK did not change its constitution [it does have one, although it is unwritten, but it didn't change it for this]. It enacted an Act of Parliament. The enaction of an Act of Parliament did not change its constitution - there is nothing to stop the UK repealing the law.
English judges have affirmed time and again that all EU sovereignty flows from the UK Parliament. The UK has not, therefore, sacrificed its *sovereignty*, although it is certainly less powerful.
> All the laws of the EU countries must be in compliace with the EU laws.
While that's true, EU laws only cover certain areas, and those areas are defined by treaty. Therefore since the EU has no jurisdiction over patent law, countries do not have to comply with it.
I think to talk of asteroid mining is something of a misnomer - it implies that large scale operations will go on - and until we're very match more advanced than now, this won't be possible.
Asteroid research, perhaps - finding new elements and compounds, or extremely rare ones, but other than that no - even gold mining wouldn't be cost effective - it would cost far more than the gold was worth to collect it.
In addition, there are probably many undiscovered, but scientifically valuable, things in the rainforests of the world - and yet these are being destroyed while NASA goes into space. Why not a NASA for the seas or rainforests? I'm sure they could spend that money much better than in space. Is it just because space is sexy, and politically useful, but the seas are not?
No. EU directives, which would cover this, do not *break* national law. However, within a directive there would be a timetable for implementation, and if a country broke this, it could be taken to the ECOJ. Important directives which have led to laws include that on Consumer Protection [sorry can't remember the name], which led to the Sale and Supply of Goods Act.
In any case, however, the EU legislative force stems from an Act of Parliament, and there is therefore nothing to stop the UK repealing that act [the European Communities Act]. But it is important to note that to extend EU powers, would require EU member states to ratify a treaty [in the UK this would include enaction of an Act of Parliament, since treaties have no legislative force.]
Having studied EU law, I can tell you that at present there is no harmonization. In particular, a judgment of the [ECOJ] court in 1994 affirmed that Article 113 of the EC Treaty *did not* cover intellectual property.
Since then, Article 133 has been introduced, but this only covers intellectual property disputes, and not law per se.
If you read your CD it says that it is illegal, without prior consent, to copy it to another form.
Like I said, the owner of the property has the right to do with it what he will. If he doesn't want you copying his music, you shouldn't - just as you don't want people abusing your things. You do not have owner's rights over the music - the fact that MS paid $millions for the Rolling Stones 'Start Me Up' will show you that. You just own the right to use a recording, in that form, and under certain conditions.
If you don't like those conditions, you don't buy the music. It is not right to say that music companies are overcharging you, or that they are monopolies, because nothing forces you to buy their music - just as nothing forces you to come into my supermarket and buy my goods if you think they're overpriced.
How would you feel, for example, if a book you wrote, was disseminated on the internet, and as a result you didn't sell any books?
There is nothing to stop any country in Europe enacting a law about software patents.
In any case, the good news is actually no such thing, since software patents already exist in Europe; for example, the lzw patent, which affects gifs, plus many thousands of other software patents, are effective in many European countries (mainly Britain, for strategic, rather than legal reasons).
We have something that can control Napster. Let's hope it succeeds - people think they have a right to steal music, and they don't. Just because it's not physical theft, doesn't make it not theft.
The artists (or the record company) own their recordings and have the right to do what they want with them.
Middle class white collar theft is no less theft than any other kind of theft.
Things about 'banning bots' etc are nothing set next to the fact that Napster is a tool for theft, plain and simple. These things are only used (or at lest 99%) to distribute stolen music.
The article has it about right. Png is vastly superior - excellent lossless compression, sometimes better than lossy methods (plus technical features like a full alpha channel), and, most importantly for its dominance over gif, it is unencumbered by patents or closed source algorithms.
Speed of compression is not a factor in compression - otherwise we would use bmps or xpms, which have zero compression time - because they're uncompressed. Size matters. Speed doesn't.
I really can't see much market, and very little application for this compression. On-the-fly compression of images for web download would be redundant, since a png would be smaller than this format, so the speedy on-the-fly compression of uncompressed images is pointless.
And in any case, modern PCs are more than powerful enough to almost transparently display well compressed images, so a simpler format is about 10 years out of time.
If it was open source, it could perhaps have a market in replacing things like xpms, which are used in games for processing speed, but even it was, the benefit would be marginal, since hard disk space is, relative to image size, almost infinite, so compressing them slightly wouldn't make much difference - and for download those images would be gzipped anyway.
If you want beginners, you should read this - ipsec on Windows.
Re:So with old machines...
on
Linux Routers
·
· Score: 1
Things to do with old machines:
build an innovative house
use them as voting machines for blind Floridians
take them apart and serve the chips with burgers and ketchup
use them as hitech doorstops
No, that was an earlier version: the P3. This is just the latest in a line of Honda robots starting with the P2. The Slashdot article you refer to is concerned with the P3.
It's not terribly clear, probably because it's in Japan, but they are different things.
This is not Honda's first robot project - they have been working on them for almost two decades, and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D. Earlier versions include the P2 (1996), and the P3 (1997). As an idea of their progress, here are Honda's specifications for the P2 and P3.
They're impressive beasts, but one has to wonder why they've spent nearly a billion dollars on this. For improving mass production techniques? Possibly, but there are surely better ways. As transport of the future? Hardly.
Wouldn't you be better using C++? [Presuming you're using native threads for speed reasons.]
Or if there are other reasons for their use, wouldn't it be better to compile the Java source into native bytecode (using GCJ)? Although it wouldn't be as fast as C++ (by a factor of at least 3 times, according to tests), it would be at least somewhat faster.
Kaffe, an [the best] open source JDK, is your best bet.
It supports user-level threads (jthreads - recommended unless you want to spend weeks on each port to alternate platforms (of course you might require the speed of kernel threads - Java tends to be slow (although much of this is the overhead from the Virtual machine)) as well as standard Posix kernel threads.
> your lambasting CmdrTaco for saying this stuff annoys him, is unwarranted
Why? He's trotting out the easy line that all censorship is bad and evil. It takes more thought to consider whether something is justifiable.
>France has full right to pass laws against its citizens from trafficking in Hate symbols. But in trying to enforce them on a global scale, France has fallen into a myopic point-of-view that by tweaking a parameter, its citizens will magically be spared the hate symbols on the internet.
Are you saying that countries have no right to control the use of internet in their country? That because you have had the de facto right to post illegal or defamatory material on the internet one should always have that right?
The internet *needs* to be controlled - and just because you've [speaking in the generic - no malfeasance is imputed on you] been able to steal software, to copy mp3s and to distribute illegal material, and, understandably you enjoy this freedom, that's no reason why this should continue.
No one would suggest that newspapers should have the right to publish child pornography; many would not disagree with the restriction of the iconography of a regime associated with the slaughter of millions; and therefore the internet must not be any different - to suggest otherwise would mean the disintegration of the rule of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Although I don't usually find bibles terribly exciting, this thing's a real work of art. Pity they don't make books like that these days.
Incidentally, there is another one (from the University of Keio (Japan) here.
Although I'm not aware of any database of pure raw data, NASA at least have the Distributed Astronomy Library, described here, which is a repository of astronomical *information*. An example is here
> Since the Maastrich Treaty, all the EU members (not the associate members) gave up part of their national sovereignity inorder to provide it to the EU Parliament. All of them changed their constitutions to reflect this.
Nuh uh. The UK did not change its constitution [it does have one, although it is unwritten, but it didn't change it for this]. It enacted an Act of Parliament. The enaction of an Act of Parliament did not change its constitution - there is nothing to stop the UK repealing the law.
English judges have affirmed time and again that all EU sovereignty flows from the UK Parliament. The UK has not, therefore, sacrificed its *sovereignty*, although it is certainly less powerful.
> All the laws of the EU countries must be in compliace with the EU laws.
While that's true, EU laws only cover certain areas, and those areas are defined by treaty. Therefore since the EU has no jurisdiction over patent law, countries do not have to comply with it.
I think to talk of asteroid mining is something of a misnomer - it implies that large scale operations will go on - and until we're very match more advanced than now, this won't be possible.
Asteroid research, perhaps - finding new elements and compounds, or extremely rare ones, but other than that no - even gold mining wouldn't be cost effective - it would cost far more than the gold was worth to collect it.
In addition, there are probably many undiscovered, but scientifically valuable, things in the rainforests of the world - and yet these are being destroyed while NASA goes into space. Why not a NASA for the seas or rainforests? I'm sure they could spend that money much better than in space. Is it just because space is sexy, and politically useful, but the seas are not?
> It's called EU law breaks national law,
No. EU directives, which would cover this, do not *break* national law. However, within a directive there would be a timetable for implementation, and if a country broke this, it could be taken to the ECOJ. Important directives which have led to laws include that on Consumer Protection [sorry can't remember the name], which led to the Sale and Supply of Goods Act.
In any case, however, the EU legislative force stems from an Act of Parliament, and there is therefore nothing to stop the UK repealing that act [the European Communities Act]. But it is important to note that to extend EU powers, would require EU member states to ratify a treaty [in the UK this would include enaction of an Act of Parliament, since treaties have no legislative force.]
Having studied EU law, I can tell you that at present there is no harmonization. In particular, a judgment of the [ECOJ] court in 1994 affirmed that Article 113 of the EC Treaty *did not* cover intellectual property.
Since then, Article 133 has been introduced, but this only covers intellectual property disputes, and not law per se.
I don't think so.
If you read your CD it says that it is illegal, without prior consent, to copy it to another form.
Like I said, the owner of the property has the right to do with it what he will. If he doesn't want you copying his music, you shouldn't - just as you don't want people abusing your things. You do not have owner's rights over the music - the fact that MS paid $millions for the Rolling Stones 'Start Me Up' will show you that. You just own the right to use a recording, in that form, and under certain conditions.
If you don't like those conditions, you don't buy the music. It is not right to say that music companies are overcharging you, or that they are monopolies, because nothing forces you to buy their music - just as nothing forces you to come into my supermarket and buy my goods if you think they're overpriced.
How would you feel, for example, if a book you wrote, was disseminated on the internet, and as a result you didn't sell any books?
And do you rip the price stickers off CDs when you steal them from the shop?
And do you spray over the security marks on that bike you stole?
Do you remove the postcode from the things you stole from that house?
This is concerned with EU law. Not national law.
There is nothing to stop any country in Europe enacting a law about software patents.
In any case, the good news is actually no such thing, since software patents already exist in Europe; for example, the lzw patent, which affects gifs, plus many thousands of other software patents, are effective in many European countries (mainly Britain, for strategic, rather than legal reasons).
If motor vehicles could be made so as not to cause deaths, I'd ban the ones that did.
It's the same with Napster - it must be controlled; if it's possible to make it so it isn't an accessory to theft, it's better than if it is.
> EMusic violates Napster' s TOS
I think that's justified in the greater good of theft prevention - it's just like having a cctv camera monitoring a city center
We have something that can control Napster. Let's hope it succeeds - people think they have a right to steal music, and they don't. Just because it's not physical theft, doesn't make it not theft.
The artists (or the record company) own their recordings and have the right to do what they want with them.
Middle class white collar theft is no less theft than any other kind of theft.
Things about 'banning bots' etc are nothing set next to the fact that Napster is a tool for theft, plain and simple. These things are only used (or at lest 99%) to distribute stolen music.
The article has it about right. Png is vastly superior - excellent lossless compression, sometimes better than lossy methods (plus technical features like a full alpha channel), and, most importantly for its dominance over gif, it is unencumbered by patents or closed source algorithms.
Speed of compression is not a factor in compression - otherwise we would use bmps or xpms, which have zero compression time - because they're uncompressed. Size matters. Speed doesn't.
I really can't see much market, and very little application for this compression. On-the-fly compression of images for web download would be redundant, since a png would be smaller than this format, so the speedy on-the-fly compression of uncompressed images is pointless.
And in any case, modern PCs are more than powerful enough to almost transparently display well compressed images, so a simpler format is about 10 years out of time.
If it was open source, it could perhaps have a market in replacing things like xpms, which are used in games for processing speed, but even it was, the benefit would be marginal, since hard disk space is, relative to image size, almost infinite, so compressing them slightly wouldn't make much difference - and for download those images would be gzipped anyway.
Get them a console with internet access. Idiot proof - plus you get games.
If you think it would do them good to have a real computer, get them one running Windows or a Mac.
PS. If anyone suggests Linux for idiot relatives I think I will scream.
PPS. WebTV is very poor quality - viewing web pages on it is very unpleasant.
If you want beginners, you should read this - ipsec on Windows.
Things to do with old machines:
build an innovative house
use them as voting machines for blind Floridians
take them apart and serve the chips with burgers and ketchup
use them as hitech doorstops
PS. The other serious use is as a firewall.
If you want to save your money, you could read the advanced routing howto instead.
The people who wrote it really know what they're talking about.
Also, Linux router is a router on a floppy disk with most of the hard work done for you, so a lot of the information in the book will be redundant.
And just as a point, software routing is not really appropriate for large networks, so you're not going to throw away those Cisco boxes any time now.
Is embedding Linux a good idea? Because Linux changes so often, it would be obsolete even before the rom chips were burnt.
Ah good point. For x86 systems.
But would you take Solaris over BSD on its own hardware?
PS. Is the slowness because of the quality of Sun's hardware or the poor quality of its compiler?
The paranoia of the article is simply that.
Microsoft could not get away with controlling software in the way described. It just wouldn't happen - the EU and US wouldn't stand for it.
Get away from that and what do we find?
We find that Windows will continue consolidate its position as the most stable GUI operating system.
We find that users will no longer be able to break their systems by installing incompatible software.
We find, in fact, nothing but good news.
[troll? Anyway.]
No, that was an earlier version: the P3. This is just the latest in a line of Honda robots starting with the P2. The Slashdot article you refer to is concerned with the P3.
It's not terribly clear, probably because it's in Japan, but they are different things.
This is not Honda's first robot project - they have been working on them for almost two decades, and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D. Earlier versions include the P2 (1996), and the P3 (1997). As an idea of their progress, here are Honda's specifications for the P2 and P3.
They're impressive beasts, but one has to wonder why they've spent nearly a billion dollars on this. For improving mass production techniques? Possibly, but there are surely better ways. As transport of the future? Hardly.
I'm just curious: why do you need native threads?
Wouldn't you be better using C++? [Presuming you're using native threads for speed reasons.]
Or if there are other reasons for their use, wouldn't it be better to compile the Java source into native bytecode (using GCJ)? Although it wouldn't be as fast as C++ (by a factor of at least 3 times, according to tests), it would be at least somewhat faster.
Kaffe, an [the best] open source JDK, is your best bet.
It supports user-level threads (jthreads - recommended unless you want to spend weeks on each port to alternate platforms (of course you might require the speed of kernel threads - Java tends to be slow (although much of this is the overhead from the Virtual machine)) as well as standard Posix kernel threads.
> your lambasting CmdrTaco for saying this stuff annoys him, is unwarranted
Why? He's trotting out the easy line that all censorship is bad and evil. It takes more thought to consider whether something is justifiable.
>France has full right to pass laws against its citizens from trafficking in Hate symbols. But in trying to enforce them on a global scale, France has fallen into a myopic point-of-view that by tweaking a parameter, its citizens will magically be spared the hate symbols on the internet.
Are you saying that countries have no right to control the use of internet in their country? That because you have had the de facto right to post illegal or defamatory material on the internet one should always have that right?
The internet *needs* to be controlled - and just because you've [speaking in the generic - no malfeasance is imputed on you] been able to steal software, to copy mp3s and to distribute illegal material, and, understandably you enjoy this freedom, that's no reason why this should continue.
No one would suggest that newspapers should have the right to publish child pornography; many would not disagree with the restriction of the iconography of a regime associated with the slaughter of millions; and therefore the internet must not be any different - to suggest otherwise would mean the disintegration of the rule of law.